Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 15

When were birth records/certificates introduced in Romania?

Asking some locals I found that identity documents were made mandatory in Romania during the German occupation of 1916. But were birth records kept with any regularity before, say around 1900? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I was able to find out that at least in one case (that of Petre Țuțea) there were birth certificates being issued in Romania in 1902. But how widespread was the practice? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

According to [1] they were introduced around 1806-1812 during the Russian occupation, and they followed the Russian model of keeping them with church records, but the practice was not very uniform. I still wasn't able to find out when the state took over. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

According to a 2008 paper by Romanian National Archives, an effort by the state to centralize the records happened around 1926-1932 but in some cases as late as 1948-1952 (pp. 55-56), although they mention that a good number of the early records were lost in this process, sometimes literally by the truckload. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

And finally, according to [2], p. 240, the "Communal Law" (Legea comunală) of 31 March 1864 the records became the responsibility of the mayor in each dwelling, who was allowed to delegate it to one of his helpers. The source doesn't say how fast the law was put into practice though. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Arab parties participating in coalition gov't Israel

When was the last time that an Israeli coalition gov't that included Arab parties like Balad, Ra'am-Ta'al and Hadash?--Donmust90 (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Category:Cabinets of Israel should get you started on your research. --Jayron32 03:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The simple answer is: Never. No Arab party has ever been invited to join an Israeli cabinet. The Arab parties (including Hadash, which had Jewish members as well) are political pariah in Israel. Opinion polls often clump these parties together in one column (as "Arab parties"), since they don't count for government-formations anyways. --Soman (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The separate Arab political parties tended to be Moscow-subservient Communist through the 1970s, and Arab nationalist afterwards, but there have been Arab MKs in the Knesset voting for the government on a number of occasions (as I'm sure you must be very well aware), and Arabs in the Israeli cabinet off and on since 1971... AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Look, it's quite different to say that there has been Arab individuals as cabinet ministers than to say that Arab parties have been represented in cabinets. You know as well as I that it would be politically unthinkable for any mainstream Israeli politician to consider even discussing including Balad and Hadash in a cabinet. The fact that there have been handpicked individuals promoted (usually Druze, more seldom Christians and Muslims) doesn't really change the fact that the Arab minority is systematically sidelined from achieving proportional political influence in the State of Israel (count how many Arab ministers there have been, and check if it coincides with their demographic size, of around 20%...). It's a bit like the issue of the Jewish parliamentarians in Syria and Iran.

There was an experience in the first elections to the Knesset with Arab lists promoted by Labour and Mapam, but these lists had a very different dynamic than the current Arab parties in Israel. --Soman (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

dystopian fiction trilogy

In china ,nowadays,some people call ,We (1921) by Yevgeny Zamyatin,Brave New World (1931) by Aldous Huxley ,Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) by George Orwell,dystopian fiction trilogy.I don't kowm the etymology of dystopian fiction trilogy,that is, who create this word firstly?Maybe just a chinese anonymous researcher create it originally? Please give me a answer and thank you very very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.244.12.60 (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

See Dystopia, Dystopian fiction, and trilogy. The three books you mention aren't a real trilogy - they're by different authors and there's no connection between their plots or subject matter, other than them all being dystopian novels - and "Brave New World" isn't really _dystopian_, in comparison with (say) The Machine Stops (1909) or Farenheit 451 (1951). Tevildo (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Trifecta" would probably be the better English word. It generally refers to three major accomplishments in a field, so if you're into dystopian fiction, reading these three major books could be seen as an accomplishment. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the English-speaking world doesn't refer to these as a trilogy. In fact, while many scholars would count Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four in a modern Western canon, We is relatively obscure, at least in the United States. It's very unusual for an American to graduate high school without reading at least one of the former two, but We is definitely not a regular in school curricula (quite possibly because it's still not unusual for Americans to regard all things Russian with suspicion). It does sound like this categorization may have been thought of by a Chinese researcher, though I have to say, as a representation of well-regarded dystopian literature, he or she has at least made good selections. --BDD (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I first learned of We and was motivated to read it when I saw it mentioned along with Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World, together described as "the three great dystopian novels." I no longer recall if I ran across that phrase in a newspaper book review or in the introduction to some other novel, but whichever the source, it was in the United States. We is certainly the most obscure of the three (at least in the Americas), and I seldom meet people who have read it. -- 189.119.244.51 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC) And thanks to Tevildo, I will now track down and read The Machine Stops.

"The Machine Stops" is out of copyright in some parts of the world, and is one of my long-time favorites; it kind of predicts the Internet in an interesting way for something that was first published in 1909... AnonMoos (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The American South

• What is it like to live in the South? How does the climate affect people with Seasonal Affective Disorder? Is global warming a deep concern in the Southern coastal states?
• Is the South still the "Bible Belt" of the United States? How do Southerners react typically to the term?
• Does the South still have "Southern hospitality"? How is this hospitality different from the hospitality of other regions? What makes it so special? Is this really a stereotype, or does it really exist today? How do Southerners react typically to the term? Is the "Southern belle" part of the "Southern hospitality" concept? Do they still exist, or are they part of a bygone era - the 19th century? Sneazy (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This question seems to be asking for opinions, except maybe for the SAD or the effect of global warming, which are more appropriate for the Sci. RD. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that the questions about SAD and global warming belong in the science reference desk. Those are more or less social issues/concerns. Science deals with science-y stuff like how global warming works or how SAD develops or is diagnosed. Sneazy (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

For an accurate depiction of the current day South, nothing beats watching True Blood. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I corrected your link. How is True Blood related to the South? I think I sense sarcasm. Sneazy (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Once you have watched a few episodes, if you have any questions we can entertain them. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that SAD is likely to be more of a problem where the winter days are very short, in more northerly latitudes. "Light therapy has been shown to be effective in up to 85 per cent of diagnosed cases."[3] In New Orleans, the shortest period of winter daylight is 10 hr 13 mins [4] and the longest in summer is 14 hrs 04 mins [5], so not a great deal of variation. In Anchorage, Alaska, the shortest day is 5 hr 27 mins. [6] Alansplodge (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

On the bright side, Anchorage folks are having their longest day today. 19 and a half hours of sun, cheerfully starting at 4:20. Looking good so far! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's like living in the North but hotter and twangier. And the barbecue is much better. --Jayron32 02:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

/tvɔnʒi'e/? μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As I suspected, even this month's Season 6 premier of True Blood mentions Southern Hospitality. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Albert Pierce Taylor

Can someone help me find the written source where this blog entry is taken from? It says it's by A. P. Taylor, Honolulu, Hawaii Territory, Sunday, June 12, 1910; it can either be a chapter of a book or a newspaper article. Albert Pierce Taylor wrote Under Hawaiian Skies.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if this is too obvious, bt have you tried contacting Charles ano, who uploaded the article to the blog? There's a link to his details at the bottom. Rojomoke (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That never works (emailing people) for me and I don't think he'll remember something from two years ago. A few of the sentences can be found in Under Hawaiian Skies but a majority of can't be found there making me think it was another article/chapter of another book written by Taylor maybe even an article in the Honolulu Advertiser from 1910. Anyone else?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Anybody?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Official US response to Soyuz 11

Presumably, the White House issued a suitably-worded message of condolence and support following the Soyuz 11 accident. Is the text of this message available anywhere? I'd be interested to see how Nixon or his advisers struck the balance between human sympathy and the prosecution of the Cold War. Tevildo (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You can actually hear Nixon and Kissinger expressing their condolences to Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin on a recording from the Nixon tapes (scroll down and it's the second MP3 file down, reference 006-040). It's quite heartfelt, personal and sincere. They mention that an official message will also be sent, but this is the President's personal reaction. - Karenjc 22:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nixon said

"The American people join in expressing to you and the Soviet people our deepest sympathy on the tragic deaths of the three Soviet cosmonauts. The whole world followed the exploits of these courageous explorers of the unknown and shares the anguish of their tragedy. But the achievements of cosmonauts Dobrovolsky, Volkov and Patsayev remain. It will, I am sure, prove to have contributed greatly to the further achievements of the Soviet program for the exploration of space and thus to the widening of man's horizons." [7]

which seems to me to have no evident tang (sic) of the cold war. He also sent Thomas P. Stafford to the funeral as his official representative, where he was a pallbearer for Georgy Dobrovolsky's urn (Stafford had been in Belgrade at the time of the accident, so he was the easiest person to send). A few years earlier, when Vladimir Komarov died in 1967, NASA had wanted to send Al Shepard and Frank Borman, but the Soviets declined to allow that. (ref: Salyut - The First Space Station: Triumph and Tragedy, Grujica S. Ivanovich) -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the information, particularly the tape, which I agree does give an insight into Nixon's personal reaction. Not many modern politicians would admit on the record to still being in bed at 0730. The current NASA link on our article seems to be broken, and I think Finlay's link is the appropriate substitution. Tevildo (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that at the time of the Soyuz 11 accident, early preparations (technical and political) for what was to become the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project were already underway. Nixon and Brezhnev both felt that space was a venue where real progress on cooperation could be made, so Nixon had an existing engagement with the subject. And I can't but wonder if it's a coincidence that, when four years later Alexei Leonov (another of Dobrovolsky's pallbearers) opened the hatch of Soyuz 19, the astronaut NASA had chosen to greet him was Stafford. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What was the most used tech on medieval era?

Lets imagine someone was to make a steampunk but using medieval era and the steam equivalent of the era. What this tech would be?201.78.181.119 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Watermills? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Frances and Joseph Gies wrote a book called Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages -- that title summarizes the most important technological achievements. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Mill-punk would be a good one, especially as watermills/windmills weren't just used for grinding grain, but also for pumping water (e.g. the Netherlands), as well as for cutting wood (why do you think we call them "sawmills"?), and for working iron (e.g. trip hammers). The industrial revolution started in the watermill-powered textile factories of England, but didn't really take off until you got a power source that wasn't tied to being right on a river. Another option if you want to go back a bit further would be Ox-punk. Donkey mills were the alternative to water/windmills, and transportation in large part was with ox or horse drawn carts or barges. I've read that the improvements in yoke technology (specifically the horse collar and the heavy plough) were essential for the population growth in the middle ages. You also had other animals like turnspit dogs providing power in the household. - We also have an article Medieval technology if you'd like additional inspiration. -- 71.35.105.42 (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Without question, waterpower was used, creatively and efficiently, but it can't be described as the "most used" technology of the medieval era. The most used would have been either a rather low-octane horsepower or the very mundane power of elbow grease. --Dweller (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

For a real "steampunk" feel I can't resist quoting this medieval poem, called A Complaint Against the Blacksmith:

 Swart smutted smiths, smattered with smoke,
 Drive me to death with din of their dints;
 Such noise on nights ne heard men never.
 What with knaven cry and clattering of knocks!
 The crooked caitiffs cryen after coal! coal!
 And bloweth their bellows till their brain bursteth.
 Huf! puf! says the one; haf! paf! says the other;
 They spitten and they sprawlen and they spellen many spells.
 They gnawen and gnashen and they groan all together,
 And holden them hot with their hard hammers.
 Of a bull-hide be their barm-fells;
 Their shanks be shackled for the fiery flinders;
 Heavy hammers they have that are hard to be handled,
 Stark strokes they striken on a steely stock,
 Lus! bus! las! das! snore they by the row,
 Such doleful a dream that the devil it to-drive!
 The master loungeth a little and catcheth a less,
 Twineth them twain and toucheth a treble,
 Tik! tak! hic! hac!, tiket! taket! tyk! tyk!
 Lus! bus! las! das!... Christ give them sorrow!
 May no man for brenn waters on night have his rest?

Looie496 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

For anybody else curious as to where this poem is from, it is apparently anonymous, and to be found in no 262 of the Arundel Manuscripts in the British Museum, according to footnote 16 of this paper. Thanks for introducing it to me, Looie. --ColinFine (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I like it too. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that Steampunk, as a genre, is derivative of the informational and societal interest of Cyberpunk as a science fiction genre, the easiest way forward is to identify an informational and societal science fiction work dealing with the middle ages. Aha! Umberto Eco's In the Name of the Rose. Enjoy your Monkpunk. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Another book that's worth your attention is Jean Gimpel's The Medieval Machine (listed among the references in the medieval-technology article that 71.35.105.42 referred you to). Deor (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The OP might find the works of K. J. Parker to be of some interest, in particular his The Engineer trilogy. Although nominally fantasy and set in a world not, and with no connection to, our own, this convincingly depicts the use of technology in a quasi-mediaeval setting. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

June 16

Does anybody know the date of the 2014 British Titanic Society Convention?

If you know it, I'd do whatever you want, I need to know it at all costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.191.57 (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't find it on the British Titanic Society website ([8]), which makes me wonder whether they have decided a date yet. I suggest you contact them directly: [9]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Was every other man in Tudor England named Thomas?

My wife and I have been watching The Tudors, and it seems like there are more characters named Thomas than not. There's Thomas More, Thomas Wolsey, Thomas Cranmer, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Wyatt, Thomas Seymour, and many more. I know the popularity of names ebbs and flows, but this seems unusual. --BDD (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with the name "Thomas"? Thomas is a biblical name, the name of an apostle. I think that would tell you the significance of the name. Sneazy (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think BDD is suggesting that there's anything wrong with the name, just that it seems awfully common in Tudor England. Not surprisingly, we have an article called Thomas (name), which tells us that "The name becomes more common during the High Middle Ages..." Not sure how helpful that is. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't Tudor times be part of the Renaissance England? Or is Renaissance England really the latter part of the Tudor dynasty (the reign of Queen Elizabeth)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneazy (talk • contribs) 03:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, to one or the other of those, but unfortunately the History section of our article stops at 1270. HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the OP's question is, but it's worth noting that Thomas was an extremely common name in late medieval and early modern England. (The beginning of the reign of the Tudor dynasty in 1485 tends to be considered the definitive end of the Middle Ages in England, so the reign of Henry VIII is the early modern period). This research on name frequency from funerary brasses [10] suggests that Thomas was the second most common name after John in the period from the 12th to the 16th Century. 14% (on these figures) of the male population went by the name Thomas. It seems likely (OR on my part!) that there's a connection between the popularity of the name Thomas in England - where it appears to be much more widespread than in other parts of Europe - and the popularity of the cult of Thomas Becket. Valiantis (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As a family historian, I would add that the current trend for variety in first names is a pretty recent thing. Up to the early twentieth century there were a relatively small number of first names in circulation, and Thomas was one of those. This was probably because names were mostly passed down in families - the eldest son would usually get his father's name, the eldest daughter her mother's, then grandparents', uncles' and aunts' names for further children. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas was the most popular UK baby's name in 1994, [11] and is currently No 6 in the chart. [12]. I think Valiantis is right and Saint Thomas a Becket [13] is the key to the Tudor question, although why it's popular now I'm not so sure. There was only one Thomas in my London secondary school of nearly a thousand boys in the 1970s, and his parents were Czech. Alansplodge (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

On a side note. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of the Thomases listed by the OP seem to have met their respective ends either by a hot stake or a cold chop. Apparently that was no deterrent against the continued popularity of the name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Although Thomas Audley did alright for himself. It was tough at the top. Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks all, those were some good answers to what was a fairly snarky question, Valiantis especially. I had wondered if there was a Becket connection involved. --BDD (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion causes me to yearn to enter a Tudor pub and call for Thomas, only for all but a few to turn about! Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Liliuokalani

Who is this man standing next to Queen Liliuokalani in this picture?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at File:Liliuokalani and family1.jpg, he could be Thomas Cleghorn (slightly older in the state archives image) who was the father of Archibald Scott Cleghorn, Governor of Oahu during Liliuokalani's reign and also her brother-in-law. Astronaut (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Now I've looked again, the Queen's appearence is much older - similar to this image taken in the 1910's - and according to this biography of Archibald, Thomas Cleghorn died shortly after their arrival in Hawaii in 1851. Of course, that then calls into question the caption of the image or just my assumption that the Thomas Cleghorn in the photo, is the same Thomas Cleghorn who was Archibald's father. Astronaut (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Prince who died after a prostitute threw acid in his face

According to this and several other Wikipedias, Prince Leopold Clement Philipp August Maria of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Kohary (son of Princess Louise of Belgium and Prince Philipp of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) died after a prostitute threw acid in his face. However, I have not been able to find any reliable source that confirms that. In fact, I have not found been able to find any reliable source that says anything about him. Sure, blogs and forums offer a great amount of detail, but that's not helpful if it cannot be verified. Is anyone able to find out more? Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This forum cites a report in The Washington Post, May 28, 1916, which those with a subscription can find here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The post contained the alleged prostitute's name, which is all it took to find more. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note reading the article Prince_Leopold_Clement_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha the woman is not described as a prostitute, but as a former lover who wanted the Prince to marry her. Dave w74 (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Gender bending in Irish folk songs

Something I've noticed about love songs in Irish folk music. Songs that are addressed to a female lover, like "My Lagan Love", "She Moved Through the Fair" and "Down by the Salley Gardens" are most often sung by women, and "Danny Boy", addressed to a male lover, is most often sung by men (there are exceptions in both cases, but that seems to be the trend). What's going on with that? --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Danny Boy" is about a father addressing his son who is leaving for war.[14] Not sure about the others; perhaps the female artistes just liked the tunes. Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As a pedantic aside, I'm not sure that "Danny Boy" really qualifies as Irish Folk music. The tune (generally known as The Londonderry Air) is authentically Irish but was written by a harpist for a late 18th-century Bardic competition, while the words were written by an English lyricist in 1910, making it (in my judgement) more of a popular song version of a semi-classical work. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest - and this is just my opinion - I believe many Irish folk songs (including the ones above) were originally written by men, and not women. Women had children to look after, while the men were out at sea. The modern versions are very often sung by women (such as with Clannad), purely because they are folk songs. They didn't write them themselves. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A good tune trumps so-called gender every time. But that gives me an idea. I think I'll write a piano sonata and specify that it may only ever be performed by male pianists. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A bit like this? Not exactly a sonata, but.... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

In the old days, when the general public was not so "gay-aware", same-sex performances of songs were not uncommon, i.e. nobody thought it strange, because it was just a song, not a political statement. I'm reminded of a song sung by men from time to time, "I'm Just Wild About Harry", written and occasionally sung by that well-known Irishman, Eubie Blake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Another Titanic question, sorry if it bothers

I'm fan of the Titanic and I would like to know this: why if women and children were the first to board the boats, there were male crew members in every boat. Were crew members more important than regular males (passengers)? and my second question only if anybody knows is where did Frederick Fleet, the one who spotted the iceberg, served during World War II. More than thanks to you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.181.110 (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone in the boat needs to know what to do. That's the job of the crew, most of whom would be male. Even today, when one takes a cruise of whatever duration is whatever waters, there is a lifeboat drill within an hour or so of the first sailing. There, the passengers are divided among lifeboat stations, shown to the crew responsible for that station and taught how to put on their lifejackets, along with receiving instructions on the meanings of various ship's horn messages. The crew's job is to keep track of the people boarding, to get passengers into the lifeboat safely and then to pilot and police the lifeboats in accordance with the nature of the evacuation. Bielle (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I'm certain that it was so that there would be somebody on each boat that knew how to handle it. If the sea had been rougher, keeping the boat heading into the waves would have prevented a capsize. The crew member would also understand the importance of getting clear of the sinking ship and know how to get survivors out of the water without tipping everybody else in. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

TITANIC SURVIVOR FOUND HANGED - Southampton Echo: Monday 11th January 1965 "Despite his experience, Mr. Fleet spent another 24 years at sea (until 1936?)... Mr. Fleet left the sea in the depression years of the mid-thirties. He was afterwards with Harland & Wolff, the ship repairers, and was a shore master-at-arms for the Union-Castle Line. For a time he was a part-time street seller for the "Echo" with a pitch in Pound Tree-road." Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Evangelism and missionary work, Catholic and Orthodox

Often, when I see evangelism and missionary work, they are typically very Protestant (Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelicals) in style. How would a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian evangelise? Sneazy (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I answered part of my question here. Orthodox sounds very similar to Reformed theology; "God" bringing in people to the church. Sneazy (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Roman Catholics send out missionaries to foreign countries. What they do exactly with the missionaries remains a mystery. Maybe they promise indigenous peoples that they could get cheap heathcare or education in exchange for religious conversion. Seeing the need, indigenous peoples convert to Christianity, specifically Roman Catholicism. Sneazy (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Without in any way being a Catholic apologist, I think you'll find that bribing people to convert is not the Catholic way and never has been. If you think that's what goes on as a general and widespread practice, then this question is not resolved at all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add the resolved tag; Medeis did. I checked. Sneazy (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You said you answered your own question. Do you still have one? μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I answered part of my question. The later statement is a falsifiable opinion/speculation, inspired by reading the Approaches to evangelism article. Sneazy (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, a typical approach for Catholic missionaries is to open a school and/or a medical facility in a community they seek to evangelize. This will attract persons who want to use the services offered, some of whom eventually become converts. A more modern approach involves providing different types of social services (such as social clubs, labor unions etc). The approach was less subtle in past times, however. What catholic missionaries typically do not do is go door-to-door trying to engage non-believers directly. --Xuxl (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Do television evangelising campaigns count as direct engagement? Because, it's been used here. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Christian missionaries by denomination.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

days of the week

1. how far back has humanity preserved the current days of the week - in the sense that since it's not astronomical in any way, it is quite conceivable that as you count back days of the week and solar days, at some point humanity was off by one

2. what keeps the worldwide days of the week in complete synchronicity? has there ever been a glitch or inconsistency where isolated communities had a different day of the week? It's easy to imagine on a shipwreck (e.g. here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thursday_October_Christian_I) but on the level of cities, coutnries, continents - everyone has always been perfectly in synch?

Is the only power to have kept this the regular rhythm of a religious week (with a day off) and days-of-the-week being tracked? So that the reason that it is never 'off' is that the whole community would have had to be asleep for an indeterminate number of hours between 24-72 and just have no idea what actual day it is?

I find this level of perfect time-keeping in every single community, however isolated, to be quite remarkable. How far back does it go? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, before the Gregorian calendar, there was the Julian calendar. Sneazy (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That change did not of itself interrupt the sequence of days of the week, just the numbering of the dates. In the 4 countries that adopted the Gregorian calendar immediately, Thursday 4 October 1582 (Julian) was followed immediately by Friday 15 October 1582 (Gregorian). And when the remaining countries switched over at various times, they also kept the sequence. Managing the relationship between the two calendars has been challenging enough for historians. But it would have created utter chaos if the day called Wednesday 19 June 2013 in Britain was called Thursday 19 June 2013 in Germany and Friday 19 June 2013 in Russia and Saturday 19 June 2013 in the USA.

However, there were some local adjustments that needed to be made, which involved repeating days of the week in some places. For example, "In Alaska, the change took place when Friday, 6 October 1867 was followed again by Friday, 18 October 1867 after the US purchase of Alaska from Russia, which was still on the Julian calendar. Instead of 12 days, only 11 were skipped, and the day of the week was repeated on successive days, because the International Date Line (although not known by that name in 1867) was shifted from Alaska's eastern to western boundary along with the change to the Gregorian calendar". And I'm sure something similar happened in the Phillipines as well. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) However, neither the Gregorian or the Julian calendars were concerned with the days of the week, just the lengths of months and years. According to the article Seven-day_week, we can verify from ancient calendars that the weekly cycle has remained unbroken since at least 311 AD. - Lindert (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Re 1: The system of a seven day week was in place by the time that the Book of Genesis was written. Some simple thinking about it would also suggest that the text is telling us that the system was believed to be an ancient one at that point in time, but just how long ago it was written is the subject of massive and heated argument; take your pick from anything from c.2500 to c.3500 years ago and anything in between, then add whatever figure you like for the perception of 'ancientness'. See the not very well-written article, Dating_the_Bible. There's also the article Mosaic authorship, which carefully avoids presenting any traditional dating in its extensive section on traditional dating. --Dweller (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

But considering how little communication there was in ancient times, isn't it quite strange not only that it was "unbroken" since 311 AD but unbroken everywhere in every community, no matter how isolated or small or large? There were no cases of a few hundred people losing track of the days as they migrated and established a new community, at any time between 311 AD and modern times, where these people established a meaningful large community and became truly out of synch? This seems so bizarre for me. After all, there are several different calendars in use during that time, including, Hebrew, Chinese, Gregorian, Julian, etc. What makes the day of the week something that everyone agrees on? Why wasn't there ever a conflict, so that one group of people thought it was Sunday every time another group of people thought it was still Wednesday? This would seem to me quite likely and plausible as people were isolated worldwide... 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable hypothesis, and there are probably cases where such confusion has occurred. On the other hand, remember that our culture where most of our remembering is done for us, is very recent; historically, people relied far more on oral traditions and consequently had a stronger internal sense of the sequence of things. We have the "luxury" of sometimes feeling that one day is much like the next and the next and next, and they all blur together in our memories and become as one. But in the past, people took note of the rising and setting of the sun, the weather, celestial omens and the like, and they were generally far more ritualised than we are today. Individuals might sometimes forget details like which day it is; communities do not. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Germanic weekday names are calques on the Latin. The older system among the Romans was a numeric one using the ides as a day before or after which something occurred. The Semites kept a lunar calendar with weeks and fortnights as quarter and half-cycles. I remember reading there were festivals held quarter-monthly, but a afraid my source for that is memory based on perhaps Anne Rice. Babylon, Rome and Constantinople have been constantly civilized long enough that there is no conflict between the Eastern, Western, and Jewish calendars. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Jewish calendar, on which the seven day system is based, did suffer disruption during periods of persecution. The famous example is that the count of the yovel was lost. Nonetheless, the count of shmita was not. If you can remember where you are in a seven year cycle when people are trying to decorate their swords with the guts of your infants, you can probably remember where you are in a seven day cycle, particularly if your ritual observances demand that you do. --Dweller (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't quite what you're asking about, but before the 19th century ships traveling around the world, or even around part of the world, frequently fell a day out of sync with local reckoning. If I understand right ships tended to keep their records and logs day-by-day even if they fell into conflict with local reckoning. And returning home after a circumnavigation would find their logs off by a day. Without a standardized International Date Line there was no way to say exactly where and when they fell out of sync. An example of this is the records of the Vancouver Expedition of 1791-95, which circumnavigated the world from England in an easterly direction. By the time they got to the Pacific Northwest, after crossing the Pacific, their reckoning was a day off from the "local" Spanish ships and bases, as well as the merchant vessels that had sailed the other direction. Despite Vancouver's careful exploring in cooperation with the Spanish in the region, and lengthy diplomacy and negotiation with Spanish authorities, the expedition kept its records day-by-day, despite being a day off from their Spanish counterparts. Even today when you read the expedition's logs, journal entries, etc, you have to subtract a day from what they say. From what I understand, this kind of "one day off" thing was common in those days, whenever circumnavigations were done. Pfly (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is no "standardized International Date Line" (there is an agreed nautical one, but that's different). Our article International date line says "No international organization, nor any treaty between nations, has fixed the IDL drawn by cartographers". The date line marked on maps is in principle determined experimentally by asking nations near the 180th meridian which side of choose they are on. One consequence of this is that it gets changed from time to time by unilateral decision of a country: most recently Kiribati in 1995. Another is that a cartographer could draw it as wiggly as they liked, as long as it passed the right side of each nation, and nobody could say they were wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see. And actually the most recent might be Samoa, which our page says "changed back" to west of the IDL in 2011, in the process causing havoc among Seventh-day Adventists in Samoa--which might result in a schism. Pfly (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just adding a reference to a very good site to consult with calendar questions: http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/week.php#interrupt - Nunh-huh 06:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So how do pre-contact peoples count the days - do they also have a 7-day week? Astronaut (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Our Lady of Peace Cathedral, Honolulu, 1843.jpg

Can anybody with better eyes and ability to read 19th century cursive help me make out the text in this image above the three buildings next to the "Catholic Church" and the title in the center?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Title: View of Capt. Charles Brewers house. Oahu. First house: Mr. Potys ? Second house: Mr. Ladds ? Third house: Doct Travis ? Rmhermen (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

June 17

Is it possible to travel to Oceania via ship (not cruisers) just to arrive and stay in that country?

I need to travel to Kiribati, a country in Oceania and I'd like to know if I can travel via ship. I am panicked by airplanes and I'm treating it with my therapist but haven't yet overcome it, so she asked me to find out other ways to get to Kiribati. Any help appreciated. LoweIan (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Cargo Ship Travel page on "flightless travel" might be useful. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible? it seems so. You can apparently book a passage on a supply ship from Fiji or Tuvalu [15] - either of which should be easier to get to by sea, though obviously it depends where you are coming from. Don't expect it to be cheap. Or quick. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that it's something that would help you, but I've been looking into sea travel as I hate flying, too. RMS Queen Mary 2 appears to be the only Ocean liner left in the world. I'm curious why that happened. There are millions of people with Fear of flying. The must be a huge market for ships that would just bring people like me to the place they want to be as fast as possible, without having to fly, without having to find a cargo ship that happens to sail in the right direction. Joepnl (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Because the percentage of people who are not minded to fly multiplied by the percentage of people who consider taking ships a thing they want to do worked out for bad economics for the shipping companies. Today's cruise ships, and I've been on a few, are not intended as transportation. Yes, they go places, but few people take them to get from Point A to Point B, there are faster and cheaper means. Once transatlantic airplane travel became something relatively cheap and routine, the liners started to die.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with the statement that cruise ships are not intended for transportation, but there are some exceptions. The trans Atlantic crossings, for example, are sometimes taken by people who can afford the time and the money not to have to fly. First class on an airline would be faster and probably cheaper, but there are those who really do have problems flying. I know people who do this annually. Bielle (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Tranquilizers are cheaper? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Cunard Southampton/New York, certainly. Most cruise ships, even on transatlantic runs, make at least a couple of stops. Azores, Madiera, Bermuda are common. I took a transatlantic from Rome to Fort Lauderdale last year, it puttered around the Med for a week before getting going.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

See this travel agent. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason people who don't like flying aren't going by ship is, I think, that the option is simply not offered. For me personally: time is not so much a problem, being Dutch I have about 24 holidays per year. Money isn't either; while a flight is ridiculously cheap nowadays, I wouldn't mind paying the fare that was usual 10 years ago. Let's say $800 to get across the Atlantic or $500 to go from Amsterdam to Istanbul. (1700 miles through countries like Rumenia, which I travelled by car a few years ago because I needed to be there for a convention. Gas alone was more than $500). Even if the number of people who'd choose to travel long distances by ship instead of by plane was like 0.1% (where the percentage of people "suffering" from Fear of flying is reportedly 10%-40% according to nl.wikipedia.org) that still amounts to a niche market of millions of passengers. This might sound like an elevator pitch, sorry for that. I do hope someone in the cruising business listened :) Joepnl (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

From an article I read about a trip to Antarctica, there are websites that connect sea travellers with yacht owners. The yacht can take you as a passenger or as crew, but then you are expected to work. The author of the article worked as cook for the yacht, as an example. --Error (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There is quite a significant market for people travelling by boat with the intent of staying permanently in the destination country. Of course it's not the most comfortable or safest of journeys, and you're not always welcomed with open arms. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir 'Chips'?

Henry Channon was knighted in 1957 but married Lady Honor Guinness in 1933. Between 1933 and 1957 would it have been incorrect to have called him Sir Henry Channon? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be incorrect. From Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom: "The honorific prefix of "(The) Lady" is used for the daughters of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls. The courtesy title is added before the person's name, as in the example The Lady Diana Spencer. The title persists after the death of the holder's father but it is not inherited by her children. The husband of the holder is not entitled to a courtesy title. The holder is addressed as "Lady Diana"."

Note that Lady Honor and Henry were divorced in 1945. [16] Alansplodge (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, just what I was looking for. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the use of knighthoods as courtesy titles seems to have died out in the late middle ages, so no-one is entitled to be 'Sir' anything by virtue of who they're related to. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I was with you until the comma. Baronets are titled "Sir", and they gain their titles by inheritance. True, they are not knights, but the second half of your answer was too broad. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant that a baronet is a substantive title-holder; a baronet's heir has no special title, and nor does the husband of a baronetess. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Check. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sophia Cracroft and Lady Franklin

When did Sophia Cracroft and Lady Franklin arrive in Hawaii in 1861 and how long did they stay?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

June 18

Intrinsic value

Is there a clear definition of what "intrinsic" means in the terms "intrinsically good" and "intrinsically bad"? The only statement I can think of that I agree with is Kant's "good will", which I take to be adherence to moral law. --Melab±1 ☎ 00:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It means "inwardly", i.e. "by nature".[17] Your typical tree, for example, is intrinsically wood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just think of it as the opposite of "extrinsically", meaning through some external force. Beyond that it's a matter of what you're talking about: for example, in one context you could say that money has intrinsic value, whereas stock has value only because you can sell it for money. But on the other hand, in a different context you can say a bag of flour has intrinsic value, because you can bake with it, whereas dollar bills have no intrinsic value (i.e. as wood kindling, writing paper, packing material, insulation, etc). So you have to figure out what the person means. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

For there to be such things as "intrinsically good or bad", one must believe, at least in part, in moral absolutism. That is, "whatever is right is always right and whatever is wrong is always wrong". By contrast, those who believe purely in moral relativism would argue that different things are right or wrong in different contexts. Most people would agree, however, in a moral model in-between those two. For example, randomly killing people is "intrinsically wrong" and dealing honestly with customers is "intrinsically good", while the type of clothing people wear isn't intrinsically good or bad, but depends on the society, context, etc. StuRat (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there some account of how value relates to oughts? --Melab±1 ☎ 22:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Vitruvian pose

My coach gives us homework every night and tonight she told us to define the word VITRUVIAN POSE. I looked everywhere to find it and I can't! Someone please define it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.231.82 (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

See Vitruvian Man. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

what's to stop creation of a second Israel

what's to prevent someone creating a second Israel in some less contentious part of the world but with exactly the same philosophy. It would offer all of the benefits except some of the infrastructure, the literal sacred history (though replicas could be made), or direct foreign aid / military aid since a lot of that seems to be due to geography?

The reason this might be done is that Israel proper spends a lot of money and time on security, this really takes resources away. I believe in Jewish people and others who would benefit from the law and progress of a Jewish state. What's to stop someone creating another one?

There is enormous progress and R&D, education in Israel. This is overshadowed by the security issues - to the point that there are academic boycotts against Israel! A second Israel could give some academics freedom to publish within such a system as well. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The options are very limited. See Terra nullius#Current terrae nullius. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Other options might include repopulating Moisés Ville or the Jewish Autonomous Oblast? These might fit the OP's suggestion of a "secure" location; see my next (= outdented) remark. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The present state of Israel is not merely a Jewish homeland but the expression of Zionism. The OP's proposed "second Israel...with exactly the same philosophy" doesn't account for the exclusive identity of the Land of Israel as the site of the Jewish homeland. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There is relevant information at Jewish homeland and Proposals for a Jewish state. - Karenjc 07:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

1. For your answers regarding territory - couldn't a territory be bought or acquired? 2. couldn't second israel also have the same zionist philosophy and call itself the site of the Jewish homeland, on historically false grounds? Mormonism is, historically, far more 'false' in its identification. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism#Relation_to_mainstream_Christianity - the first sentence says mormons consider themselves Christians. hoewver, they added a book to the bible. So, obviously a big leap of faith was required - however, after making htis, they established a thriving community in Utah. Should an appropriate territory be acquried, couldn't 'second Israel' do the same thing, while holding the same beliefs about its territory (though this is absurd, as it would just be some random territory) as Israel? If this aspect of the religion is important to someone, obviously second israelis would be derided for their belief. However, if someone doesn't care, then who cares that it's obviously as false as the golden plates?

Could you go into other issues that there would be with this? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, there's plenty of people believing in a bunch of fiction. The problem is, in order for it to work, one needs to get people to believe it. If you tell any Jew today that Jerusalem is actually located on a remote island in Micronesia, he'll laugh in your face. In order for a falsehood to gain great acceptance, there needs to be a great deal of ignorance first. In Joseph's Smith's day, very little was known of the prehistory of the Americas, and in the midst of much speculation, it was quite easy to come up with a story that somewhat filled the void of knowledge. It's a completely different story with Israel, there's just no possibility of credibly denying its history. - Lindert (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In answer to the academic aspect of the question: there's already a technologically advanced nation with a numerically (though not proportionally) large Jewish population who are able to conduct research and scholarship free from (most) boycotts: the United States. As Deborahjay rightly points out, the perceived need for Israel to exist in its present political shape is directly linked to its specific location. Without the Land of Israel for the State of Israel to be located in, Zionism makes no sense. Note that as the location of Jerusalem is also important for Christians and Muslims, you'd have more than half the world against you if you tried your wacky 'falsification' plan. You appear to be treating the entire thing as a 'toy problem' rather than the lived experiences of millions of people. No matter how deep my own misgivings about the Israeli state and especially its current politics, I'm not about to deny that it's home to so many people, and that their lives and experiences are bound up with the land in complex personal, religious, political and social ways. You cannot even begin to address the issues that the State of Israel raises unless you acknowledge the reality of those people and their experiences and needs. (The same argument, mutatis mutandis, applies to the other nations and peoples of the Middle East too, which is what makes it so intractable.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific on the first point you made, there are more people who identify as Jewish in the U.S. than in Israel itself. And to reinforce all of the other points: the facile solution is no solution at all, and shows a great ignorance of the history and culture involved. There is no means of "erasing" the cultural memory of the Jewish people and of the importance of the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem from their cultural history anymore than doing the same for Mecca from the cultural legacy of Muslims. It is patently ridiculous. Whether Zionism itself is enough to justify the existence of the State of Israel is perhaps a matter of political debate; but this is not the place for political debate. Zionism is certainly enough to explain the existence of the State of Israel, which should be enough for the OP. Learn about Zionism and about the history of Judaism, and one can easily understand why Israel is where it is. Any attempts to argue for or against its existence, however, are definitely NOT what this desk is about. --Jayron32 11:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading on Jewish Territorialism. There is an exhibit at YIVO right now on the topic.[18]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 15:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for a religious debate, but as a sidenote and a reminder, this is a reference desk (and the Humanities one at that!). As such, your use of the word "false" to categorize a religion (or ancient metal plates as the source of the Book of Mormon) is somewhat bad form. We Mormons consider ourselves Christian because we strive to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not because we strive to some certain level of doctrinal similarity to Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Protestantism. You may exclude Mormons from Christianity based on a certain definition of Christianity; but this definition is yours (and your religions'), not ours (and not Christ's. His definition is found in John 13:35).

You might consider our acceptance and use of extrabiblical scripture as proof of falsehood, but as some of the Bible's books were not written until decades after Christ's death, and the many books of the Bible were not grouped into one volume until the fourth century, we would assert that although we love and revere the Bible; that there is nothing *in* the Bible that precludes the existence of other holy scripture (in spite of how you might read Revelation 22:18-19). Again, I don't care to debate, but I felt that a response should be written. Best-- Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 16:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Kingsfold, I apologize for having been offensive. I believe you consider Joseph Smith to be genuine and honest in all his teachings, including on the prehistory of the Americas from the time of Jesus onward, as well as his testament and the golden plates. The sense in which I meant "false" is that whereas Joseph Smith believed all that he testified, the beliefs of second Israel might not match that definition by the founders: some zionists may simply not value truth as highly as security. I would be one such person, and I would love to live in second Israel even if it is a replica. Instead, I'm part of the diaspora only and have never visited that part of the world, nor have any interest in doing so: I get neither the real thing nor a cheap replica. However, there is more to religion than belief and I'm not particularly devout but do like the story and would very much like to reenact a replica of it, which itself may be offensive to many. However, I believe in 2012 the spiritual aspect of land is easy to transfer even online: see MMORPG real estate. It just doesn't matter (to me) where something is, only the people that comprise it, their history, laws, and customs. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Mmm... you wrote "as false as the golden plates," which didn't really seem germane to the discussion; but, OK. No harm done. Thanks. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 11:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon is universally regarded by scholars as a forgery with no genuine Native American content. See archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Besides describing advanced civilizations that never existed, it refers to Old World domesticated animals, Old World crops, and technology (e.g. steel) thousands of years ahead of what pre-Columbian Native Americans possessed. (For reference, no Native American society used metal for functional purposes; no society invented melting, smelting, or casting of metals.) This being the Reference Desk, I think everyone has the duty to put factual accuracy ahead of avoiding offense. --Bowlhover (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Bowlhover-- My point (perhaps poorly communicated) was that it's impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the truth or falsehood of a religion; and as such, it's pointless (and kind of arrogant) to declare a religion false on Wikipedia's Reference Desk. I realize you probably disagree, but since you are calling for "factual accuracy," I'll briefly respond and be done for now.

The Wikipedia article that you link to says, "Critics and supporters disagree as to whether archaeological findings support or disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon." Therefore, the Book of Mormon is NOT "universally regarded by scholars as a forgery." I don't feel the need to respond to each of your assertions, but I hope you find [this] discussion of steel in the Book of Mormon helpful. If you'd like to continue this discussion offline in an amicable way, please post on my talk page. Thanks! Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 11:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Bowlhover, what do you mean by functional? While Native Americans may not have come up with melting, smelting or the casting of metals, they did use copper extensively as tools. Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America, the Old Copper Culture, Two Traditional Northwest Coast Fishing Tools, Introduction to Contact and Precontact Period Copper & Brass Metalwork and many other all show that Native Americans did indeed use metal for non-decorative purposes. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I received many references (blue links above) and the responders were also unanimous, no real debate here. I think the form was somewhat open-ended but quite clear and literal, and got a clear answer related to facts about zionism and the fact that that faith centers on that land specifically and would not be amenable to suspension of disbelief or adoption of alternative belief for security reasons alone So, thank you. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You might do better regarding Zionism as a form of belief system rather than a "faith." Some of its adherents identify with Jewish culture rather than the religion Judaism, and may be secular or atheist. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

For a gauge of the challenges, the State of Israel has declared Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel while many of the states in relations with Israel wouldn't accept such a disputed location and keep their embassies at Tel Aviv. If it is hard to move the Israeli capital, imagine moving the whole country.

Incidentally, this reminded me of the episode The Jerusalem Duality from The Big Bang Theory:

Sheldon Cooper is envious when he meets 15-year-old child prodigy Dennis Kim (Austin Lee). Losing faith in his research, Sheldon annoys his friends by criticizing their work. Deciding his work in physics is useless, he aims for the Nobel Peace Prize by attempting to solve the Middle East conflicts: he proposes the creation of an exact replica of Jerusalem in the Mexican desert.

--Error (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone ever proposed making Jerusalem the property of the UN, and turning it into an international tourist attraction? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Gojong

Why did Gojong of the Korean Empire succeed to the Korean throne instead of his father Heungseon Daewongun and what were the circumstances surrounding his accession after Cheoljong of Joseon's death? Did they had to search for him?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Heungseon Daewongun, the title Daewongun is given to fathers who have had their sons adopted by the reigning monarch. uhhlive (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"usually because his son had been adopted as heir of a relative who did reign" doesn't seem like a definite staftement. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

hamid karzai departure from afhganistan

i am an afghan complete allegiance to SIR HAMID KARZAI and i read america leaves and somme comments speaking of Karzai abandoning the country with america. is that true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karzaf (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Karzai has not announced this intention publicly, nor has it been reported in reliable news media. So this would be a rumor, very likely a false one, which we can't verify or disprove since there are no reliable sources for it. Marco polo (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite a lot of Americans have left Afghanistan recently. Karzai is not American, and I have not heard anything about him leaving.

The BBC, a reliable source, today has an article about Afghan security forces taking over (and Karzai being happy about it), and some pretty pictures of some of the Afghan special forces that will be doing part of the taking over. The BBC also has another article about the USA considering talking to the Taleban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's an immediate threat. The problem is in the long term. After the US leaves, the Afghan Army will be all there is to defend against the Taliban, and they still have a safe haven and support from Pakistan, including the ISI. So, the question is whether the Afghan Army will collapse under this onslaught. Perhaps the US will maintain some military presence in Afghanistan to prevent this. Karzai seems to be "working both sides" and allowing corruption and building alliances with unsavory characters in an effort to cement his political base, but those actions don't make him very popular in the US. We also hear a lot more condemnation from him whenever US airstrikes hit civilians than thanks from him for pushing back the Taliban and al-Quada, so he doesn't have many friends left in the US. Thus the US might be more willing to continue to put American lives at risk to help Afghanistan if you get a better leader. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

How many countries are working in Afghanistan as NATO, Stu? Not just the yanks, there are many others, too. Never forget the many international soldiers that died for your little debacle into Afghanistan, as well as their families, who now all have no husband, no father, and no son. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

But the question wasn't about them. They have mostly left by now, or will when the US leaves, so they aren't going to remain and hold back the Taliban, to keep Karzai in office. And that is what the Q was about. Also, while I might call Iraq a "debacle", the need to get al-Quada and their Taliban supporters out of Afghanistan was quite obvious, after they launched numerous attacks around the world against NATO nations and others. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call attacking the twin towers as 'numerous attacks against NATO nations and others' as really being 'numerous attacks against NATO nations and others', expecially with one of the untrained pilots who managed to fly the jet thousands of miles over territory he does not know about and pinpoint a particular target, and then have his un-inflammable passport found on the floor, despite the fact none of the plane was. And most of his co-pilots and the others on other planes were found alive in Iraq and Syria. C'mon, who you kidding? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Staying at Jimmy Hoffa's vacation home, no doubt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I fail to recognize if KägeTorä - (影虎) is just being ironic, or he really believes in what he's saying. His spelling of specially as 'expecially' might be a hint that his account was hacked too.OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

June 19

historic poster

I'm interested in buying a copy of a poster. It's a "United We Stand" poster, which was created following 9/11. I've seen a copy of it on a few episodes of NCIS (TV series). Where can I get a copy of the poster?142.255.103.121 (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I know the poster, but you could try asking CBS Television Studios where they got theirs. Might be a longshot, but here is their contact info. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:49, June 19, 2013 (UTC)

This search may help more quickly. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, June 19, 2013 (UTC)

Nahl's Portrait of the Royal Family of Hawaii

In 1856 or 1857 (authenticating the date would be helpful too), Charles Christian Nahl created a portrait of the Royal Family of Hawaii on horseback that was exhibited in San Francisco. When and what was this exhibit? I see one source that said it was exhibited in the Mechanics' Institute Fair in 1857 but this New York Times article said that the painting was still being exhibited when Kamehameha V (a prince at the time) visited in 1860. How long was this exhibition? Also can anybody find out what happened to the original; source just said that it was lost with no info on who last owned it/saw it or what may have happened to it or other exhibition items like it after the event (maybe they were donated, destroyed, auction, etc). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What has happened to the Canaanites?

Hi
Along the bible at least 8 people are mention in Palestine alongside the Israelites. if we will take the reproduction of the Israelite to more than 10 million today, we would expect that Palestine will be home to 80 million persons. Where are the missing people? today there are only 10 million! Some will say that the Palestinians are descendant to the Canaanites, but according to local tradition they immigrant to the land only in the 7 century from Arabia. Exx8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You have to understand that when a country was successfully invaded (by anyone, in those times) people didn't disapear. They were either killed, during the battles or afterwards, because they refused to submit (option 1), or they were slowly absorbed if they accepted to submit and follow all the invador's demands, including religious (option 2), or they emmigrated to an other country that they could reach (option 3). And then over time they would either be killed there, or starve there, or be absorbed there. I suspect in the case of invasion of Palestine by the Isrealites and later by the Caliphates, all 3 types of events happened, but to different families / individuals whithin palestine. What is really hard to say is what percentage of each of the 3 options happened to the overall population, they did not keep records in those days. With regards to your estimate of the growth to 80 million people, it is wildly wrong: any people can only grow if they have enough room and land to grow food in order to feed itself. If not, they will either starve or reduce their fecundity. --Lgriot (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There is another option, that of reverse acculturation. E.g. the Vikings in Normandy, or, a few generations later, the Normans in Britain, or, later again, the Mughals taking on Persian culture before conquering most of India. In these cases, the conquerors took on significant aspects of the local culture, sometimes more than remained of heir original heritage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If you consider the Canaanites as having a defined cultural identity as a nation at the time they were conquered and lost their sovereignty, the question of what happened to that "people" or nation (i.e., not as individuals and their genetic descendants) becomes - using User:Lgriot's terms:

• (2) did they maintain their national and cultural identity under occupation?
• (3) did they maintain their national and cultural identity in the diaspora?

We may recall Yossarian, the protagonist of Catch-22, who identified as Assyrian and lamented that his people no longer existed (or something of that sort). -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Point granted, Deborahjay, I hope someone has some inforamtion on this and will contribute, I haven't read anything that was seriously discussing these people's identity retention after the many invasions of palestine. --Lgriot (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that these 'peoples' were all the same size; if each of them was the size of one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, then the total would be quite different to what you've assumed. And the Jewish population of modern Israel is a colossal amalgam of descents from different parts of the diaspora (including those already living in the area, of course); it's facile to treat the population as having grown smoothly from 1500 BCE to the present day. There's also reasonable archaeological evidence that the Canaanite religion had some elements in common with the Israelite one, so I'd consider it highly likely that a lot of them acculturated either to the Israelites (worshipping the LORD under several names, including El Elyon, 'the Most High God', by which the Canaanites called their Father/Creator deity) or to the Philistines (from whose name we get 'Palestine', and who worshipped gods including Ba'al, who had earlier been the chief warrior god of the Canaanites). And so on. Invasion by the Assyrians led to widespread devastation in 701 BCE, with almost every city in the area sacked except Jerusalem - most notably Lachish. And the Neo-Babylonians habitually deported the leaders and many others from the nations they captured; the captivity of Judah in Babylon is not a unique situation, and when Cyrus the Persian overtook the Neo-Babylonian empire, he freed all these various peoples. So even before the Greeks and Romans (referred to by Jewish writers as 'Kittim' - 'Cretans'), there have been plenty of opportunities for the Canaanites to identify themselves as members of other nations, to have been driven or dragged into other lands, or both. And then we have Greeks, Romans, more Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Latins, and so on stamping all over the place. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The simplest answer is that ethnic identities are not "races" that remain distinct from generation to generation. People migrate and mix, adopt new languages, cultures and religions (or have them imposed on them), and new ethnic identities emerge. The length of time the Jewish identity has lasted is remarkable because it is so unusual. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps all the old Canaanites moved to New Canaan - it would explain some of the wilder parties I have attended there. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The statement someone made that "They didn't keep records back then" is absurd on its head, childishly simplistic in its understandability yet completely wrong and disinformative. The very center of the literate world and record-keeping in Antiquity was, guess where? Canaan. The alphabet replacing logographic writing was developed where? Canaan. It was not some remote backwater of darkness and lack of records. The Bible itself is full of samples of such records. Yet amazingly, "thought leaders" on this board can create and promote sheer myths based on their own inexperienced perceptions and actually make incredible statements like "uh, duh, dey didn't keep records back den... da ha, da ha!" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the insulting imitation (uh, duh, dey). I really appreciate your kind method of debating, Eulenspiegel. What I meant by "they" is "the winners of the war": the Isrelites didn't write down the number of people who emigrated and to which country, the number of people who stayed, and what tribe they were from, and the number of people that they killed. Or, that if they did write it down, they certainly didn't "keep" it for long enough for us to know. The losers (the Canaanites) didn't have a say in history, like is usual in ancient wars. --Lgriot (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of straightforward answers, has anyone mentioned the Punic civilization yet? They at least considered themselves to be of Canaanite stock, even as late as the time of St Augustine. Yes, there are copious records, and the records will still be there no matter how much they are waved off by revisionists who find them inconvenient to the "latest hypotheses" flavor of the week. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with Lgriot's criticism of your tone, Eulenspiegel, you are right about the Punic culture. I had meant, in my canter through the history of the area, to mention the Philistine-Punic connection, but forgot. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the Phoenician-Punic connection? The Philistines / Sea Peoples were once considered a distinct ethnon from the Canaanites. Just trying to be helpful. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Both - that is, the Philistines clearly have substantial overlap with the Phoenicians, who in turn are very much a Punic group. And the Canaanites, being earlier and definitely not maritime, can be seen as distinct, but there's a degree of cultural transfer going on. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Phoenicians considered themselves Canaanites, and were certainly maritime. At the time of Solomon there was a Canaanite rump state in Phoenicia. Atlases like those of Colin McEvedy show this same state still exercising political control over Carthage for some time. They were Semitic, quite unlike the Philistines. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) That's a good point. The people we call the Phoenicians, in the region of Syria and Lebanon, were culturally and linuistically very similar to, and probably had the same ethnic identity as, the people we call Canaanites. No doubt many of the Canaanites who were defeated by the Israelites, if they didn't assimilate into Israelite society, may have moved north to one or other of the Phoenician city-states. The Phoenicians set up trading colonies in various places around the Mediterranean, the most famous of which was Carthage, which became a maritime power in its own right. Phoenicia itself was conquered by the Persians (at around the time they conquered the Baylonians and allowed the exiled Jews back to rebuild Jerusalem), and then by Alexander the Great, after which it was pretty throughly Hellenised. Carthage and its holdings were conquered by the Romans, and the city itself destroyed. (The Philistines may have assimilated certain aspects of Canaanite culture, but they were originally settlers from elsewhere.) --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That. The Philistines and the Phoenicians both inherit elements of Canaanite culture; I was eliding some key details when I suggested that they thus had significant direct overlap. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

---

What happened to the Canaanites who stayed in the region, in general overall terms, is that first they became Aramaic speaking, then they became somewhat superficially Hellenized (without adopting a Greek identity as such), and then they became Christianized, so at the time of the Arab invasions in the 630s, the majority of the inhabitants of the region were Aramaic-speaking Monophysites, who were often called "Syrians". As for an alleged Philistine-Phoenician connection, I'm not sure what that really means, since the Philistines were originally non-Semitic-language speakers who settled in the southern coastal plain (today's Gaza Strip and some adjacent areas), while the Phoenicians were Semitic-language speakers who inhabited areas today mainly in Lebanon, and whose activities had an intense maritime focus. I'm sure there were some interactions between Phoenicians and some Philistines, but I don't know what they particularly had in common other than inhabiting the same general part of the world and both being mentioned in the Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Difference between a Curriculum Vitae and a Résumé?

I have read both Curriculum Vitae and Résumé but they leave me even more confused than before. I'm South African, the term "résumé" is hardly ever used here - I have certainly never heard or read it here (except in foreign publications). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd always assumed that résumé was just American English for a CV. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A French word for a Latin expression = American English? Weird. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, a CV is what the Americans call a Résumé. We don't use it over here either. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If the two articles are to be believed in the US a résumé is a more comprehensive document than a CV, while in the UK it's the reverse, a Résumé is the shorter form - but I'm not convinced. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Good for you, because that's wrong. A résumé is shorter than a CV in the US, as well. Well, let's say, generally it's shorter — it's not like there's a single prescribed official format for either one, and some speakers would use "résumé" for everything, and some other speakers would use "CV" for everything. --Trovatore (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced either. I'm English and I certainly would see Résumé as an Americanism, and have never heard it used meaning short CV. -- Q Chris (talk)

I think I've heard it used in England as a form of 'management-speak', with a meaning somewhere close to précis or summary. For example "I've missed the last two meetings, can someone give me a résumé?" This is, of course, the original meaning of the word in English from the 18th Century - see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is actually a difference in American English between the words "curriculum vitae" and "résumé". It is described here in detail. Sneazy (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The definitions on that page would work in Canada as well. In short, resumes are for people applying for "normal" jobs; CVs are normally reserved for people applying for educational or consulting positions. There's grey areas, but that's a rough guideline. My resume would say I had X degree; my CV would list papers published, research done, etc. while obtaining it. Matt Deres (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. In academia, some CVs can be very long, if they include every paper, poster, invited talk, etc. Sometimes people will ask for a "short CV", which usually means 1-2 pages of the best stuff. If only "CV" is specified, then you should include everything you've done. Length is not a distinguishing feature of CV vs. resume. So to sum up, in American English, "CV" is used by academics, who seldom use "resume," while "resume" is used by everyone else. Note my experience (and Sneazy's link, and Matt's support) contradicts the unsigned bullet point below. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I can't speak for England, but in the US a CV is a one page bullet point document, while a resume is a complete two page (1-3) document — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 16:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Is using the word for 'summary' for the longer document anything like calling the main course the 'entrée'? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I took an outplacement seminar in 1991 (in England), and they specifically advised us to create a résumé of not more than two pages, as opposed to a CV of typically greater length. Up till then I had assumed that résumé was American for CV. --ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It’s French. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's French for "summary". Google Translate seems to think that the French use Curriculum Vitae, but that's not always a reliable source. Alansplodge (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

résumé is always misspelled, while CV is rarely attempted to be spelled at all (and always mispronounced if not abbreviated). ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That's nothing. Join me in wincing in discomfort at the usual attempt at pluralising it: "Curriculum vitaes". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What's your position on curricula vitae versus curricula vitarum? --Trovatore (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A choice of either would at least indicate the user has thought for more than a second about what the words actually mean. My Latin is rusty, so I'd be guided by our very own article: "The plural of curriculum vitae, in Latin, is formed following Latin rules of grammar as curricula vitae (meaning "courses of life")—not curriculum vita (which is grammatically incorrect) and not curricula vitarum". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Conservative regions in Canada where immigrants don't want to go after migrating to Canada

Is there a website or articles that says about a region being conservative, in a sense of politically social and economic, where immigrants, regardless South Asian, African, Arab, Muslim, Latin American don't want to go to live there? Okay, you know what? let's pretend I am a politician and I am visiting places in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and I promote immigration to these people come to Canada and I suddenly tell them don't go to places, cities or regions that are conservative or no-immigrant zone. They ask me what are their names and i tell them names. but before that, I need to know what are the regions that are conservative and not friendly to immigrants and don't like multiculturalism? So far I know that in British Columbia, the regions that are conservative are Interior, Northern, Fraser Valley, Richmond, Okanagan, Vancouver Island according to this web site page [Columbia 2013] and in Quebec, the conservative regions are Chaudiere-Appalaches and Capitale-Nationale according to [[19]]. Please answer the question. Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

You need data to do an analysis. You can look at electoral maps showing what districts vote for conservative parties (in Canada, this flip flops from election to election more than in many countries) but I don't know if anyone has a regional poll to gauge attitudes toward the specific issue of immigrants to Canada lately. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's wise to equate conservatism with antimulticulturalism. People vote conservative for all sorts of reasons. Our first black mayor was both a Haitian immigrant and a high-ranking member of the Conservative party. If you want to generalize, I guess it's somewhat safe to assume that any community where only white people live has a reason. Other than that, I'd say a non-white is fairly safe anywhere here. Of course, racists are free to travel, so nowhere's totally safe. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:13, June 19, 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the Wikipedia entry on this topic tells me that Canada is a very welcoming place for immigrants. So, if there is discrimination against immigrants, they may be protected by the law. Sneazy (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Your premise about British Columbia's "conservative" (if conservative = anti-immigration) areas are absurdly wrong. Richmond's population, for example, is 60% immigrants an 70% visible minority, mostly Chinese, but also East Indian, Filipino and a good many other Asians. Vancouver Island and environs have elected Green Party of Canada politicians in both federal and provincial elections. Mingmingla (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There are relatively fewer immigrants in the two regions of Quebec you mention (compared with say the Montreal or Gatineau areas), but its a function of the economy of these places, not politics, i.e. there are fewer of the types of jobs that immigrants typically occupy available in those regions. Although the percentage of immigrants has grown significantly in Quebec City and its vicinity in the past two decades, after lagging well behind Montreal. The Beauce (Chaudière-Appalaches) is a region of small towns and small businesses, somewhat out of the way, comparable to rural New England in many ways. Not a place towards which immigrants would naturally gravitate. And conservatism in Quebec is a lot less conservative than practically anywhere else in North America. --Xuxl (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Did Mark Zuckerberg have to get a zoning permit to operate a business from his dorm room at Harvard?

20.137.2.50 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You are apparently asking "Was he legally required to get a business permit to operate a business from his dorm room?" If so, we are not permitted to answer, since Wikipedia Reference Desk is not permitted to give legal advice or promulgate statements of what the law in a particular place and time required, and this question should be "hatted" or closed to responses. Edison (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OP. Now the question is a factually answerable question of did or did not Mark Zuckerberg file a zoning request to operate a business from his dorm room at Harvard University. 75.75.42.89 (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I would have doubts as to whether such a question is answerable; that is whether he did nor did not file such a request may not be readily availible for us to point you do any sources. Of course, he either did or didn't (that is, it's a binary proposition, it must be one or the other), but insofar as I have doubts that anyone bothered to document whether he did or did not, it may not be an answerable question. --Jayron32 01:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I pretty sure that if he did file a zoning permit request, the City of Cambridge documented that fact. If one was seriously interested in the question, a Freedom of Information Act request to the city would likely produce any relevant documents, if such documents exist. (Keeping in mind that there may be a limit to the length of time such records are kept by the city.) - That said, I also doubt that anyone besides the city would have documented the request. (Although there is often a publishing requirement for such requests, so it's a possibility that a local newspaper carries a public notice of the request, if one was made - though I have no idea if such a notice is required in Cambridge.) -- 205.175.124.206 (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No one here is going through the trouble to file a FIA request on your behalf to allay your curiosity. You're quite allowed to do so yourself, but you don't need Wikipedia's reference desk to do so. --Jayron32 02:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a famous person and famous business we are discussing, it is quite possible that this has been covered in an interview or media story at some stage. Perhaps a web news search might produce something. Sussexonian (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I just had a look at the zoning map for Cambridge Mass at [20] and as far as I can make out most of the university grounds are counted as business or industry so I'd guess the answer is probably no because he wouldn't have had to. Someone better at reading these things might know better. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Opposition-held towns in Russia

How do I find out which russian towns are currently opposition-held, following last year's local election? Russia is the biggest country in the world and it obviously must have a fair amount of towns in which the United Russia did not win. 20 minute research finally resulted in the discovery that the opposition has the major of Berdsk, but it surely isnt the only town in Russia, as the article itself says its a "rare defeat of United Russian", meaning there must be other examples as well. I would be very greatful if you could help me out. Thank you in advance. 109.121.42.128 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Elections in Russia has a table showing the number of votes received by each party in that election, and a pointer to the Russian Electoral Commission's website which has complete results. Rojomoke (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

June 20

Communion wine

Why do some churches allow everyone to participate in communion? What is the purpose of allowing everyone? Isn't it supposed to be a Christian activity? Why do churches typically use dark wine rather than white/clear wine? Why does the Roman Catholic church use flat wafers instead of bread-looking bread? Sneazy (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The act of receiving communion is a personal one, between you and God. What right has anyone else to judge who should receive it? The wine is red because it substitutes (or transubstitutes) for the blood of Christ. Other denominations use the wafers you describe too. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It is morally irresponsible, but there is no explicitly stated instruction to not allow gentiles to participate. As for the dark wine and wafers, they are due to historical reasons. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that it's a Christian ritual, I would expect only Gentiles to be taking communion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but the United Church of Christ uses grape juice and LDS use water. Sneazy (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So they do. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not remember very well, but I think the dark wine and wafer is a connected with Egyptian mythology and Constantine the Great, something to do with the literal consumption of the Sun god's flesh, or something along those lines. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Catholicism was set up to mirror the ancient Egyptian religion, albeit with the names of the titles exchanged. Supposedly, the Pope plays the role of the Pharaoh, as the living incarnation of Horus, which is the son of Ra. Now that I thing of it, it was the literal consumption of the son of the Sun god's flesh. I think the aim of said ritualistic consumption, was that by consuming the flesh of Horus, the consumer would attain the qualities of Horus. This sounds like very familiar doctrine indeed. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed! AlexTiefling (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, PP, that's blatant ahistorical rubbish. No serious scholar believes such a thing. Catholics are Christians, their rituals are Christian rituals, and the symbolism is as it has been explained to be by Catholic apologists. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me this or a similar question was raised a number of weeks ago. Participation in communion by everyone or by members-only, and whether to use wine, grape juice, water or Kool-Aid is generally a matter of church policy. As regards communion itself, it originated with two elements of the Passover feast, the wine and the unleavened bread, in which Jesus asked his disciples to commemorate Him by taking these two elements as symbolic of His blood and body. The Catholics took this symbolism a step further and came up with the "transubstantiation" idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That explains why the sun features so prominently in catholic decorations. From what I understand, IHS was carefully designed to have a double meaning, one meaning 'Iset Haru Setekh' (Isis Horus Seth), and the other 'Iesus Uios Soter'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Then you understand wrongly. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, Isis happens to be the mother of Horus, as Mary is the mother of Jesus. Plasmic Physics (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Constantine associated the Sun with the Christian God, but there's nothing special about that. The Sun has always been recognized by humans as being a vital resource. I'd like to see some evidence from Plasmic tying Constantine or the Pope or anyone else in the Roman empire to some specific scholarly claim that there's some direct connection with an Egyptian ritual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Me too. This looks like standard-grade anti-Catholic hogwash. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's well-known that the early Church wove a few pagan ideas into their calendar and re-labeled them for Christian purposes (the winter solstice, for example). The specific stuff about the Egyptian sun god seems a bit far-fetched, unless Plasmic can give us a good citation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sun-worship is one thing, but all the rituals, and systems that accompany it, are quite another. A German car and a Japanese car are both cars, but they entirely different on the inside. Singing off for tonight. Plasmic Physics (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Plasmic Physics, Jack Chick, Alexander Hislop, or Gerald Massey, but all modern scholarship, even the Jesus Seminar, would balk at all you've suggested. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not all churches insist on dark wine; I've had communion wine that resembled a sherry or white port (in the Church of England, which does insist on actual wine). And the wafers are a form of unleavened bread, sized and shaped for easy distribution. Unleavened bread is used in commemoration of the Passover, both as a feast in its own right and as the occasion of the Last Supper, Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. I was quite surprised on one unusual occasion to be in an Anglican church where the bread on the altar was a leavened loaf that seemed to have come straight from the local baker's. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That's funny. Did they also bring in a bottle of Thunderbird to use as the communion wine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ha - I had to look up Thunderbird, as we don't get it over here. I suspect the wine was supermarket bargain-label port. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A line from Departed (movie)

"Heaven keeps the faithful departed."

What do you think it means? Does it stem from the Bible?

46.107.26.54 (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)