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

April 17

Could the Egyptian pyramids have been painted on the outside?

OK, I know that they were originally surfaced by white casing stones made of highly polished white limestone. In all descriptions and visualizations of what the pyramids might have looked like originally that I've seen, the limestone was left as was, producing a big white, shining surface. But wouldn't it have been possible that this surface was used as a giant canvas to be covered with mutlicolored wall paintings? After all, the pyramids were painted inside, so why not outside? Now, if it ever was the case, then all evidence is probably gone; the paintwork would have been worn away by wind and sand before the casing stones themselves were removed. But is there any evidence that the casing stones were definitely not painted? Or has there been any educated speculation as to whether they could have been possibly painted and what the design might have been? — Kpalion^(talk) 07:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to consider the huge amount of paint they'd need to paint such big structures. Do we know if the Egyptians were able to produce paint in massive quantities? 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Pyramids (in particular the Great Pyramid of Cheops) were from the outset hugely impressive and much visited, and many writers from other (non-Egyptian) cultures described them, just as they did the other six of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Many described the white casing, and presumably none (in accounts known to us directly, or quoted by other writers) mentioned any traces of painting, or this would be well known to us today. While absence of evidence is not strictly evidence of absence, I think the absence in this case is suggestive.

In addition, one might expect that a soft material like limestone would absorb and retain some of any pigments used, and that these would be detectable on some of the stones that were later incorporated into other buildings and are available for analysis today. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, the pyramids were made to last for thousands of years, and they would know the paint would quickly chip off if exposed to sandstorms. So, either they would have to repaint it constantly or it would look like crap in short order. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As in Super Mario Brothers 3, the sun would be an even more constant nuisance than the sand. Better to burn out than fade away, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, April 18, 2014 (UTC)

Besides, the pyramids were not, for a long time, painted on the inside. Almost all the royal tomb painting you're likely to see in photos comes from the rock-cut tombs in the Valley of the Kings, which the rulers of the New Kingdom used instead of pyramids. The interior of the Pyramid of Djoser, the earliest of all, contains some relief art, but I don't know whether it was originally painted. Pyramids from the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties—which include all the best-known pyramids other than Djoser's—had bare walls. Unas, the last king of the Fifth Dynasty, and his Sixth Dynasty successors, did have painting in the burial chambers, and the hieroglyphs on the walls of the other chambers were painted in blue or green. (I don't know if Middle Kingdom pyramids had decorated interiors; a lot of them weren't well-built enough for any part to survive.) A pyramid was only part of a large complex, and most of the artwork was reserved for the pyramid temple that lay at the foot of the pyramid, for the causeway that ran from the pyramid temple down to the river, and for the valley temple at the bottom of the causeway.

The pyramid casing wasn't necessarily plain white, though. The hieroglyph for a pyramid was often colored with a red band across the bottom. According to The Art of Ancient Egypt by Gay Robins, the bottom courses of the casing on the Pyramid of Khafre were made of red granite instead of limestone. The book's illustration of what the Giza Necropolis would have looked like at its height shows the Pyramid of Menkaure with a much larger red band—about a third of the pyramid's total height. A. Parrot (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all, and especially A. Parrot for a very informative answer. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Russell Senate Office Building

Is it possible to drive a vehicle into the Russell Building's courtyard, and/or to have it propelled into the courtyard whole? That is, if you're doing it for official purposes, not just a person on the street. Trailers can get in the courtyard, but maybe they have to take them apart and put them back together again, or maybe they have to pick it up and lower it with a helicopter. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There's an archway entrance that's pretty apparent from the satellite view in Google Maps - look on First St. between Constitution and C, the concrete on part of the sidewalk is the same color as the turnaround circle inside the courtyard. Can't see it in street view for obvious reasons, but it's clearly there. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw that part but thought it was just a spot where they built a pediment-crowned portico, but you're right about the concrete color and about it being a turnaround spot. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ice cream and beer consumption versus income

I'm looking for data on ice cream and beer consumption per capita versus income in the US or Canada. Google hasn't been much help so I decided to ask here. 74.15.136.155 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm.... beer. This one is from the 1970s: Old beer. I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream. More ice cream: [1]. Beer good, ice cream good, just not together please... --Jayron32 14:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree almost entirely. Thanks for the beer PDF; I note one major factor it doesn't take into account is the type of beer drunk. While it looks a little at beer generally versus wine and/or spirits, the study takes no note of the dizzying variety (and increased cost) of much higher-quality beers available now (as opposed to at the beginning of its dataset in the 1970s). The plural of "anecdote" is not "data," but as my finances have gotten shakier since ~2008 (or maybe since I'm getting older?), I've spent a lot less on craft/microbrews (even though they're my drink of choice bar none) and more on the least-offensive macrobrews (as well as cutting back on drinking in toto). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Examples of LGBT Christian evangelization

I am just wondering, because I recently saw a picket sign that condemned homosexuality. In my head, I thought, "Hmmm... I wonder if LGBT Christians evangelize this way. But instead of the condemnation of homosexuality, the picket sign would say 'God is love' or 'Homophobia is a sin'." Are there any examples of LGBT Christian evangelization? 140.254.227.99 (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Type phrases into Google to get examples. Typing "Homophobia is a sin" gets plenty of hits. This is the first such hit. --Jayron32 18:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Today I saw this [2] from a trans man who is an Old Catholic priest in Minnesota - I think it's a pretty good example from the more traditionalist end of LGBT Christian activism. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Those sorts of signs show up at counter-protests to the sort of anti-LGBT events you describe. I've also seen churches set up booths at pride events to let people know they'll be welcome there. Katie R (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to remember a short story . .?

I am looking for a short story I had to read in high school:

A man on the beach daydreams about a girl he knew when he was a child — a kind of first crush — and comes to believe that he is still in love with her. When he "awakens" from this daydream, he looks at his wife as if she is a stranger.

It may have been by Ray Bradbury, but I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopies622 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I very vaguely remember something similar, and I'm also inclined to think it was Bradbury. I remember a lake, rather than a(n oceanfront) beach. The girl drowned, didn't she? It's possible we're remembering two different stories. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you're both (certainly Evanh2008 is) thinking of the story "The Lake" in The October Country. (I won't link to it, since it's no doubt a copyvio, but a PDF of the story appears as the top hit when I Google "The Lake" Bradbury.) Deor (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's it - thanks. I just re-read it. Funny, it's very different from what I remember, and yet too similar to be something different. : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopies622 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

author Jill Churchill

Can anyone find out from Jill Churchill's publisher (or other areas) what happened to her latest "Grace and Favor" book called "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes"? It was supposed to be published in 2011. I tried contacting a few places but never got a response. Thanks for your help. United States¿↑↔# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD98:2F10:191A:73C5:6733:CEE3 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I did some web searching and found a site that showed a publication date in 2013 but no copies available. The Wikipedia page on Jill Churchill shows it as "not yet published". However, on that page you will find a link to the author's official site, which doesn't even mention that book. So it sounds as though it was canceled or has been delayed more than once. But on the author's site you will also find an email address. I have no idea whether that address still works, but it might be worthwhile sending a message there. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Difference between "Irreligion" and "Atheist/Agnostic"?

Wikipedia is not a soapbox and neither is the reference desk. Ask a question you wish to find references for, and we will provide them. There's none of that going on here. --Jayron32 00:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was just reading through the Wikipedia articles on Asian Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, African Americans, and White Americans, and apparently, White Americans and Hispanic Americans have the atheist/agnostic label, whereas Asian Americans have the irreligion label, and African Americans have no atheist, agnostic, or irreligious label. o_O Please explain how the "atheism/agnosticism" group differs from the "irreligion" group, and explain why the religions are attributed to race. 140.254.226.222 (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC) You have to go to the original source. The African American page, for example, cites the Pew Forum, which notes a portion of African Americans who are religiously unaffiliated. Hence, Wikipedia is biased and inaccurate. 140.254.226.222 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Additionally, a mixed-race marriage can produce offspring that looks half-Asian and half-White but are raised Jewish. 140.254.226.222 (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Resolved What's the deal with asking yourself a question, and then immediately answering it yourself, with a dig at Wikipedia? Also, the conflation of race and religion here is misleading and unrelated to the header. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Which god checks skin colour before revealing herself to someone? HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Most probably, most of them. How else could you explain that most cultures only ever depict their gods in their own likeness? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Lack of imagination. Dbfirs 22:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

WHAT IF IT NEVER HAPPENED

Hi wikipedians i`m writing an alternate history novel in which the slave trade basically thrawted in it`s early years by africans who banded toghether and stopped the slave trade in it`s tracks. my basic question is what would be some of the sociological differences in american and world history if the slave trade basically never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.23.137 (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No American civil war. (Or, if it did happen, a very different war.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless New World natives were kept as slaves in large numbers instead. —Tamfang (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Not possible. Of course, the European settlers would have rather had Native American slaves (cheaper than importing them). However, they all basically died because they lacked immunity to old-world diseases like small pox. The fact that the Native American slaves kept dying while the Africans (which had immunity to such diseases) didn't is what led to the Transatlantic Slave Trade in the first place. I believe (though I may be mistaken on the specific book) that this is covered in either 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus or 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created or a similar book. --Jayron32 00:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Tamfang -- In most cases, Indians were not found to be usable over the long-term as a labor force in centralized slave-worked plantations raising commercial crops such as sugar, indigo, cotton etc. Spanish attempts to use Indians in such roles was partly what led to the depopulation of a number of Caribbean islands in the 16th century (leading to the perceived necessity to import Africans as a substitute). AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The New World, particularly the Caribbean, would have fewer African-descended inhabitants. —Tamfang (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The USA these days would be much less obsessed with race. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

...and the country would have to find another excuse for a holiday on the third Monday in January. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. used to celebrate Lincoln's Birthday (a few weeks later) in its place. Lincoln's Birthday and Washington's Birthday got smashed together into Presidents' Day when Martin Luther King, Jr. Day became a holiday. They didn't give us one extra day, they just swapped out one that was previously celebrated. --Jayron32 03:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This being one of those rare blue moon events where HiLo and I agree... I thought I'd point that out. Excellent points. You're forgetting one small detail... large swaths of the British and Netherlands, and also the rest of Europe in general, would not have gotten rich despite banning it in their own countries. Shadowjams (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No Chuck Berry. No Michael Jackson. No Oprah. No Jimi Hendrix. No Billie Holiday. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Musically speaking, no Buddy Holly, no Elvis, no Tom Petty either ... ---Sluzzelin talk 03:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Slavery was never as simple as from Africa to the Americas. Some 12 millions Africans were enslaved and sent to the Americas but 10 to 18 million were enslaved and sent to the Muslim world (as well as at least a million Europeans). (Arab slave trade) The American slave trade lasted some four hundred years while the Arab slave trade lasted over 1,000. Slavery in Africa between tribes was also common. Rmhermen (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There wouldn't have been an abolition movement to end slavery in Britain, France (by extension their colonies), or the US. So perhaps slavery would still be legal. That's a strange thought. OttawaAC (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't really a very ref-desk-friendly question. We can point you in the direction of outside sources, as some have astutely done above, but this sort of speculation is really outside the ref desk's purview. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Siberian and Central Asian slaves from Russia. Indian slaves from India. Muslim slaves from North Africa and the Ottoman Empire.
Sleigh (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Chinese slaves from China.
Sleigh (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Our OP geolocates to New York. I suspect his "alternate history novel" will be based on the American slave trade having never happened. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

People would probably still make zombie movies, but almost certainly nobody would call them that. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 18

Inauguration day falls on a Sunday

When January 20 falls on a Sunday, as it happend in 2013, the president is officially sworn in the next day. What about other public officials in the USA? Are senators, representatives, governors and mayors also not sworn in on Sundays? I know that some governors are sworn in on the first Monday (or something), but others have fixed inuaguaration dates. Cheers --78.51.171.36 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

New Senators and Congressman are sworn in at the start of their January session, which is theoretically the 3rd, although obviously it can fall on a Sunday also. Poking around Google, it seems that Congress can start pretty much any day they want to. As noted here, the starting date has varied from the 3rd to the 7th since 1996. I suspect the practical rule is that Congress starts no earlier than the 3rd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

However, note that plenty of presidents, senators and congressman have been sworn at on Sundays, taking the Lords name in vain or not. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not correct that "the president is officially sworn in the next day": see United States presidential inauguration. Several presidents have been sworn in on a Sunday, but delayed the public ceremonies until the next day. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Normally, inaugurations do happen on Sundays, but one President, Zachary Taylor, refused to be sworn in until ed: insert the following: "the day after..." Sunday. That event led to the apocryphal belief that David Rice Atchison was President for one day. That actually isn't true; no serious U.S. Constitutional scholar believes that; the Presidential term begins on the day it is mandated to begin, regardless of when the oath is taken. --Jayron32 19:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. (I assume "until Sunday" should read "until Monday".) The Constitution doesn't stop him from becoming President - it just stops him from performing any official duties. Since he wasn't inclined to take the oath until Monday, presumably he wasn't doing anything else presidential on Sunday either, so no problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

So corrected --Jayron32 00:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Just making sure. :) It's kind of neat that he knew about this at the time and had a sense of humor about it, reporting that he had slept through most of his "term". Ironically, though, given his pro-slavery views, had he actually become president he might have started the Civil War sooner, as opposed to letting the problem fester as Taylor and his successors were content to do. Did you ever notice how much Taylor looks like Mel Brooks? Zachary Lepetomane Taylor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of the Presidents prior to Lincoln were anti-abolitionist (or, at best, agnostic on the matter). Given the electoral politics of the time, it was VERY difficult for either major party to get an anti-slavery northerner elected President, and anti-slavery southerners didn't exist in the political realm. All of the Virginia Dynasty owned slaves. Martin Van Buren was morally opposed to slavery, but agnostic on the issue, instead deferring to its legality in the Constitution. William Henry Harrison initially opposed slavery as a rebellious youth, but eventually lobbied in its favor for the Northwest Territories. James Tyler and James K. Polk owned slaves; the former somewhat reluctantly, the latter with no shame. Zachary Taylor was opposed to expanding slavery into new states (Wilmot Proviso), but was a political pragmatist and considered the issue negotiable. Millard Fillmore was notionally anti-slavery, but also opposed the Wilmot Proviso, and like Taylor, supported political compromise over the issue (Compromise of 1850). Franklin Pierce, like most of his predecessors, opposed slavery on moral grounds, but was anti-abolitionist for political reasons. James Buchanan was more of the same (opposed to slavery on moral grounds, opposed to abolition on political grounds). Lincoln was the first President to openly consider abolition of slavery a political possibility (not even assuredly, but merely to float the idea that it could be discussed) and the Civil War started before he could even be inaugurated. Being anti-abolitionist was the ONLY way one could get elected President for the first 80 years of U.S. history. --Jayron32 01:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What happens with the bail money?

There are offenses which are bailable. My question is, when someone pays the bail, what does the court do with the money? Do they donate it to NGOs or is that simply extra money for judges like a bonus for CEOs, for e.g.? 112.198.79.136 (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It's returned if the person in question shows up in court on the specified date. There have been cases of quasi-corruption or blatant money-grubbing connected with civil forfeiture, but I don't know that the same is true of bail funds... AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

But what happens if the person doesn't show up of their own free will ?

1) Who gets to keep it if they never show up at all.

2) Do they get it back if they change their mind and come back, or are arrested or brought in by a bounty hunter ? StuRat (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

According to this: The judge will issue a bench warrant for the defendant's arrest, and the bond will be in forfeit (default). In this instance, the only way you will get your cash bond back is for you to find the defendant and bring him or her back to jail within 90 days of the forfeiture OR for the defendant to be arrested by a law enforcement officer and brought back to jail within 90 days from the date the bond was forfeited. There is more but I didn't want to quote the entire thing. I still don't see what happens to it if the person comes back (by whatever means) after 90 days. And I would think that it differs from state to state and/or country to country. I noticed that the OP never specified that we were talking about the US. Dismas|^(talk) 15:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

After a reading of bail and various sites on the 'net, the person who posted the bail gets the money back even if the defendant is found guilty. It's basically just a deposit saying that you'll appear back in court. Dismas|^(talk) 15:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that with regards to StuRat's question about 'do they get it back', there's the obvious issue of who's 'they'? AFAIK and supported by our articles, in the US where I think the predominates anyway, bounty hunters are generally paid by bail bond agents who posted bail on the defendants behalf. This is unsurprising since someone needs to pay the 'bounty'. In the case where a bond agent was used, they may get some or all of the bail back if they recatch and force the defendant to appear within a certain timeframe but the defendant may not. In fact our article suggests in most cases the fee the bond agents charge for their services is non refundable although our articles have enough problems that I wonder if this is really the case. (Beyond the risk of being pursued by a bounty hunter, it would seem wise for the bond agents to give some other incentive to the defendants to appear on their own. Particular as I don't think they generally give as much consideration as the court does in deciding the risk of the defendant disappearing, although the size of the bail is probably a hint.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but we still haven't addressed the issue of where exactly the bail or bond goes when it is forfeited. I doubt if the judge is supposed to pocket it. Does it go to support the running of the court ? Does it go into the city, county, state, or nation's general fund ? If it goes to the court, that might lead them to hold hearings at 3 AM, to increase the number of no-shows and hence how much money they can grab by forfeiture. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Disposition of forfeit bail bonds seems to vary by jurisdiction. Idaho, for example, first pays court costs and then distributes the rest according to a densely written statute that I am too lazy to read in full. Up here in BC, bail forfeitures are described as simply debt owing to the Crown, which suggests they go into general government revenues (though I expect there is some obscure regulation specifying exactly how they should be allocated)

As to 3 am hearings, the references I have seen all seem to allow a period of time to fulfill the terms of the bond, (i.e. if you miss the 3 am hearing, your surety has an opportunity to produce you along with a valid excuse to avoid forfeiture). There also seems to be a consistent requirement for hearings before declaring bonds forfeit, which could allow one to argue against onerous or impossible conditions - Eron^Talk 21:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully such hearings manage to avoid the obvious conflict of interest of having the same people benefit from the forfeiture who decide on it. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

One assumes the judge at least won't be pocketing the money. But there is certainly precedent for worries about the abuse of forfeiture proceedings in general. - Eron^Talk 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

And don't forget Judge Roy Bean, whose fines always miraculously happened to match whatever the "criminal" had in his pockets. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mention this before and from this discussion I'm not sure if anyone else noticed but our bail bond agent article I linked above actually mentions a bribery scandal in Louisiana. From what I can tell per Ronald Bodenheimer and [3], the scandal involved judges accepting bribes, allegedly including to set generally lower bond requirements on behalf of a dominant bond agent. This may seem counter-intuitive at first since bond agents making a percentage obviously don't want bond requirements to be too low. (In fact, our article suggests there is generaly controversy over bail not being granted for a relatively minor offender who would generally expect a low bond, but being given for a serious offender who would expect a high bond with the obvious suggestion this is done to benefit bond agents.) Probably the wording used in the blog is better, affordable as I would assume the bond agents wanted a bail set such that the criminal could barely afford to pay the 10% or whatever fee a bond agent would demand, but not the whole lot.

Perhaps more germane to this discussion, in a somewhat our of place and unsourced manner, the article also mentions that in Louisiana a 2% fee is charged to bond agents of which 1/4 goes to judges. I presume they mean this is always paid in any case when a bond agent is used and it's non refundable but I dunno for sure. I would also presume this goes in to some general fund which is them distributed to judges rather than being paid specifically to the judge who set the bond.

BTW, one thing I did miss until a few days but in retrospect should have been an obvious possibility, our article suggests bond agents may sometimes require a security againsts the defendants assets for the full amount. (I.E. In these cases there remains an incentive for the defendant to show up to the bond agents beyond the risk of being pursued. Of course if you're going to run away it may be hard to use your assets in the future. But I guess it ideally stops you trying to sell them secretly. And also prevents you running away while providing leaving some security for your family. )

Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Formologics?

Is there such a concept in Philosophy? thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you thinking of formal logic? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess. Thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Pentecostal Parenting

Why do Pentecostal Christians use "scare tactics" (note the quote) to teach their kids about morality? Or is this just the impression that their ex-Christian atheist/agnostic/deist/humanist/skeptic/freethinker children have? What is really going on? Please give me examples of Pentecostal parenting. I suspect the "scare tactic" is really the "speaking in tongues with the devil" in Pentecostal churches. 140.254.226.206 (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, speaking in tongues in the Pentecostal tradition is linked with being touched by the Holy Spirit. It is not associated with the devil. - Eron^Talk 19:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What about Pentecostal exorcisms? I think I meant that. 140.254.226.206 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm entirely uncertain why you believe that Pentecostals use "scare tactics" as a parenting technique. Near as I can tell, you're under any of a number of really ridiculous misconceptions based on your comments here, and I'm entirely uncertain which misconception to disabuse you of. 1) Pentacostal Christians do not use exorcisms as a parenting technique. 2) Pentacostal Christians are likely to use a wide range of parenting techniques, probably representative of the range of techniques present in the population at large. Teaching about morality takes many forms, and there are many techniques to do so. There is not a monolithic set of behaviors one finds in Pentacostal families. "Scare tactics" are just as likely in Baptists or Sunni Muslims or Agnostics; while calm, reasoned discussions about morality are perfectly acceptable parenting techniques among many Pentacostals. --Jayron32 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, "Do as we tell you or you will burn in eternal Hell" sounds like a scare tactic, to me, but certainly not one limited to Pentecostal Christians. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not going to work for Jehovah's Witnesses or Christians (i.e. Catholics) who do not believe that Hell is a physical place. 140.254.226.206 (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, your answer presumes that Pentecostals believe in Hell as place rather than a state of being. 140.254.226.206 (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that the Catholic Church teaches that Hell is not an actual place? It absolutely does teach that it is a place: that this place is also a state of "the absence of God" does not prevent it from being a place that people can actually end up going. Of course, the Catholic Church also teaches that we have no way of knowing who is in Hell, or how many people, but it definitely considers Hell a place that people are in danger of ending up for all eternity after they die. Hell is one of the things that Jehovah's Witnesses claim the Catholic Church made up: it's not something the two groups agree on. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I got the idea on Wikipedia. 140.254.226.206 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That's just a modern way of saying "I read it on the internet". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Those pesky premoderns and their Wikipedia-less Internet. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah’s Witnesses have published an article about "hell" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001978, where you can see what they actually claim.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Having followed the above reference, I'm no clearer as to what Jehovah's Witnesses do actually claim about this.--rossb (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Things it claims: "Hell" is a misconception; "Hell" as a place of firey punishment is a pagan Babylonian/Assyrian idea. (N.b., calling an idea Babylonian is often code for Roman Catholic. It doesn't tell you what they actually believe about Hell (they believe that it doesn't exist, and that the wicked are simple Annihilated), nor does it spell out precisely how they think Christians came to believe in it (although it hints). 86.146.28.229 (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a theological conundrum with the idea of Hell as a place in the absence of God - namely, how can something exist if God is absent? That suggests the idea that not only there could be vast other universes that exist, but don't have God, and therefore perhaps follow other Gods with the same power as God, but also that people might plausibly travel to them, which contradicts the entire monotheistic idea. Indeed if one suggests that Hell is apart from God, with presumably Satan controlling it, it seems to make him out as a near equal, perhaps a younger brother like Hades. It seems easier to suppose that the idea of the "outer darkness", however put, is as a "place" that doesn't exist, that is defined by nonexistence, you might say. I suppose there must be terms of art for all these statements somewhere in the past two millennia of theological debate. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of our stereotypical images of hell are derived from Dante's Inferno. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

April 19

Do Japanese people have special beliefs about being beheaded?

I just recalled from some book and internet sources I read some years ago saying that during the Second Sino Japanese War Japanese soldiers feared Chinese Dadao not only because it was a deadly weapon, but also because they believed if one lose his head he will not be granted a reincarnation in the afterlife(or granted entrance to Yasukuni Shrine, in some other version I had seen). Did this kind of belief exist anyway? Besides, I also know that it is common to cut off the suicider's head during a seppuku, for example Yukio Mishima(that is after WW2), which should be contrary to the belief above.--chaoxiandelunzi (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This could be the case. I found one source indicating that dismemberment of a corpse meant it could not be revived in the afterlife, according to old Chinese and Korean beliefs.[4] Decapitation was considered the most severe punishment in Japan, and there is some evidence that elaborate seppuku rituals were meant to restore dignity to the spirit of the warrior. I haven't come across anything conclusive regarding Japanese beliefs though. OttawaAC (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In actual fact, the sword was hardly used in feudal Japan, contrary to modern films and romanticisation of Japan's earlier times. The bow was the most-used weapon, because it was easier, safer, and far better to kill from a distance, than to engage in blade-to-blade combat. The sword was considered a last resort, and was therefore thought of as an inferior weapon. To be killed by an inferior weapon meant that both your archery skills and swordsmanship were inferior, thus meaning you were inferior. It was only with the advent of the gun, that archery went out of fashion on the battlefield, but guns were a foreign weapon, and prior to the coming of the Black Ships, foreign things were inferior, but as the sword was still carried as a last resort, and was a native weapon, it became a symbol of Japan's earlier majesty, and after the Meiji Restoration, when Bushido was invented, it became an even more powerful symbol of Japan. Yukio Mishima's suicide was in 1977, after a failed coup attempt. The Second Sino-Japanese War was in the Showa Era started in 1929. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 22:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Bushido itself was "invented" but certainly the term didn't come into general use until the end of the 19th century. It describes a code of accepted behaviour for the Samurai class, our Bushido article lists the many written sources that define it from the 8th century AD onwards. In the Shinto creation myth, the goddess Izanami-no-Mikoto after giving birth to the various Japanese islands, gives birth to the incarnation of fire, Kagu-tsuchi and is burned to death in the process. Her distraught husband kills his son the fire god by beheading.[5] Beheading with a sword was the preferred form of execution for Edo period criminals, usually after various kinds of inhumane treatment was used to gain a confession.

Beheading, as previously mentioned, has for several centuries been the final part of the act of seppuku, performed by an assistant called a kaishakunin, a practical solution to the problem that cutting your own guts out could take an awfully long time to kill you. The assistant was not supposed to cut your head right off, but to leave it attached by strip of skin,[6] possibly because of the religious injunctions mentioned by OttawaAC above. Possibly by this route, beheading acquired a level of respectability, although I couldn't find a source that says so. Note that attitudes to beheading in the west have undergone something of a transformation, from being the privilege of the nobility in the 17th century, to humane dispatch in the French revolution (they were still chopping criminals' heads off in the 1940s) and finally to the abhorrence we have for it today. It's understandable to us, although maybe not to the Japanese, how WWII photographs of Allied POWs being beheaded by their Japanese guards probably caused more outrage than perhaps a picture of a firing squad would have done (I couldn't find a source for that either). Alansplodge (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

After a bit more digging around, it seems that having your head cut-off was a very bad way to go, but having your head almost completely cut-off was far more acceptable. "The skin of the throat must not be cut to stop the head rolling on the ground. Completely severing the head is considered to be considerably impolite. This technique was used for convicted criminals. Completely cutting through the neck is morally rude and degrading. However leaving thin skin of the throat is not an easy technique to do."[7] An editor's note at the bottom of the page says: "The partially severed head of the deceased could be sewn onto the body. The cut area would not show when dressed in a Kimono". A few other sources that confirmed this, but none so eloquently. Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Frank Hird

I'm interested in Frank Hird, the companion, lover, and adopted son of the artist Lord Ronald Gower (redlinked on our article about Gower) and the subject of a painting by Henry Scott Tuke. He's described as a journalist, and another source says he was the author of a biography of the explorer H. M. Stanley. Is any more known about him, for instance place/date of birth/death, etc?. --rossb (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This book says "in the early autumn of 1897", Hird was "on the staff of the Morning Post" as a foreign correspondent "at the age of only twenty-three". It goes on to say the Gower met him in "June 1893, when he was secretary to Lord Thring". According to a 15 February 1913 newspaper article, both lost large sums of money due to fraud - the headline states "Lord Ronald Gower ruined". FindaGrave has an entry for him, stating he lived from 1873 to 2 November 1937. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the information. I've incorporated it into an article on the LGBT History Project, but I suspect Hird might be considered not notable enough for Wikipedia.--rossb (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

In Dearly Beloved Friends: Henry James's Letters to Younger Men edited by Susan E. Gunter, Steven H. Jobe, a footnote on page 18 says; "The journalist Frank Hird (b. 1873) was also the author of disparate books, including The Cry of the Children: An Exposure of Certain British Industries in Which Children are Iniquitously Employed, Rosa Bonheur, Victoria the Woman. Lancashire Stories, The Bannantyne Sapphires, H. M. Stanley: The authorized life". There are a number of other works on Amazon's list. This page says "HIRD, FRANK; [i.e., Robert Francis Hird] (1873-1937)". This page says (scroll nearly halfway down) "HIRD, FRANK [ROBERT FRANCIS HIRD]. 1873-1937. Born in Hull, England; died in Westminster, London". Find A Grave gives an exit date of 2 November 1937 and has a photo of his memorial stone in St Paul Churchyard, Rusthall, in Kent. That's all I could find I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a close look at the monument image shows that it is shared with Lord Gower - they are buried together. There is no birth date inscribed for Hird. I could just about make out the epitaph which is from Deuteronomy Ch. 33: V. 27 "The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms". Alansplodge (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Again many thanks for the information. my article on the LGBT History Project is now looking quite respectable, and possibly worth copying over to Wikipedia at some point. --rossb (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April 20

Coffee, tea, or alcohol.

A friend is curious what would be more culturally appropriate to offer as a drink in this case; a 16 y/o Irish girl has just spent a long day at the hospital with her dad in Belgium, and found out that her father is undergoing probably routine but emergency surgery, say for an impacted gallbladder. Would a fellow Irish businessman, acting as informal guardian, assuming he wanted to offer a pickmeup, offer the girl coffee, tea, or an alcoholic beverage? (Nothing sexual is implied, he's a friend of the family.) This is for a short story, all that is wanted is cultural authenticity in regards to a mood improver. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Tea_culture#Ireland would imply tea would be appropriate. To wit: "Ireland has, for a long time, been the biggest per-capita consumer of tea in the world." --Jayron32 03:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

According to Legal drinking age, in Belgium, it's "16 for beer and wine, 18 for spirits", so he could legally offer beer or wine, but not hard liquor. In Ireland, the drinking age is 18, so if she's a good girl, she's never had any alcohol in the homeland. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The author originally had him offer coffee. That struck me as an Americanism, and most kids don't drink coffee that young, and are just beginning to experiment. Tea seemed right, but I wasn't sure if that was just British. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

In the Irish TV comedy Father Ted, the eponymous priest has a housekeeper called Mrs Doyle who continually pesters guests to the presbytery to drink tea. When one visiting priest tells her that he's allergic to tea and will die if he drinks one drop, he's still not let off the hook. BTW, please remind your friend that tea in these islands is almost universally drunk with milk, none of that lemon malarkey thank you. Alansplodge (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Re your last comment, μηδείς, in the UK (and I would have thought also in Eire, though I have only visited and will stand correction) there is no widespread stigma against teenagers drinking coffee, other than their own personal taste. Of course, most of the coffee consumed here is rather innocuous Instant coffee, not percolated. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't take it as stigmatized, just possibly inauthentic. The author's concern is that she is writing about Irish characters but is not Irish herself. She has decided tea is the "correct" answer for her purposes. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I took a course in Critical Incident Stress Management (helping people to deal with the immediate aftermath of a critical incident, e.g. a death or serious accident) here in Ireland. It was noted that the default setting for almost all Irish people dealing with a serious event is to 'put the kettle on' - that is, to make a cup of tea - and, in fact, we were advised that if we are ever in the position of having to help someone 'defuse' after an incident, we should get tea brewing as a matter of priority. So yes, for the purposes of your story, offering tea would be just right. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

how much profit do mobile manufactureres make?

how much profit do mobile manufaturers make on the MSRP of a product? for example, a Galaxy S5 will cost USD 971 for an end buyer. now out of this USD 971, what percentage goes to Samsung and what to the retailer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorMakingEdits (talk • contribs) 11:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

To US English speakers: This Q is apparently about cell phone manufacturers, not manufacturers that change location frequently. StuRat (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The quick answer is that (according to our Samsung article) Samsung reported profits of $27.6 billion in 2010. How that relates to the profit on individual products would vary enormously and would be very difficult to calculate.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

that is gross profit. i need to know how much money the company gets by selling a single unit of galaxy s5? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There will be no fixed amount. The unit will be sold at different prices to different wholesalers in different countries, depending partly on the quantity sold, but also on how keen Samsung is to break into a particular market and how good the wholesaler is at negotiating the price down. Even if you knew this price (which you are unlikely ever to find out because it is commercially sensitive), to find the profit per unit you would still need to proportion out Samsung's manufacturing costs and overheads to particular products. No doubt Samsung do this internally, but they are unlikely to publish the information. I suspect that they have actually made a loss on the first few hundred thousand sold, and will not start making a significant profit until the product becomes popular and sales reach a million or so (mileage will vary depending on product.) Dbfirs 07:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Religious prohibitions on the celebration of birthdays and holidays

One of the Jehovah's Witnesses' most famous practices is their non-celebration of birthdays, Christmas, Mother's Day, Halloween, New Year's Day, Valentine's Day and other holidays other than the Memorial of Christ's Death (although they do celebrate weddings, anniversaries and funerals). From what I read, this was not one of their founding doctrines (unlike their 606, and later, 607 B.C. date for the Babylonian Captivity); in fact, this doctrine comes only from 1951, long after various splinter groups (both from the Witnesses, and from the Bible Student movement) had formed, and six years after their prohibition of blood transfusions.

Now here are my questions: 1. Do any of the non-JW groups in the Bible Student movement also share this practice of not celebrating birthdays and holidays? 2. Are there any other religions outside of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Bible Study movement or not, Christian or not, or organizations, religious or not, that also share this practice? And among these other groups (if there are any), why do they follow the practice? 3. How did this doctrine develop? Our articles do not mention how the doctrine was formulated, although our article on Jehovah's Witnesses practices does mention that at least some practices are formulated at meetings of the JW's Governing Body; however the Governing Body did not exist in 1951. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Not so much a ban on all forms of celebration of those events, but some types of celebration, like singing, dancing, drinking alcohol, and mixing of opposite sexes, might tend to be banned in some conservative religions. They might even object to strip bars. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

However, my questions only refer to prohibitions/discouragements of celebrating holidays and certain forms of occasions, not how they are celebrated. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The only holidays that fall under the scope of religious guidance are religious holidays. If a religion doesn't celebrate that day as holy, it ceases to be a holiday. If it ceases to be, its presence can't be ignored. If a church commands a flock to not observe certain secular customs on particular days, then that forced non-observational practice becomes its own annual religious tradition. To think about not thinking of something requires just as much devotion. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:05, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

For your question number 3, there are answers in their article (about holidays) published at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989235.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC) and 15:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

(Note: This only applies to "birthdays", not "birthdays and holidays"). Our Birthday article does have some more information on celebrating or not celebrating birthdays throughout various cultures and religions in general, as well as within Christianity in particular. Some of it is referenced. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Only one real answer here, and it refers back to the official page for the religion. No actual answers for the OPs question. Shadowjams (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The Saudi authorities have basically decreed that all celebrations/observances other than Ramadan, Hajj, Eid, and ordinary Friday prayers are un-Islamic (list from memory; I may have missed one). This applies to both Western holidays such as Valentine's Day and a number of Shi`ite holy days... AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Valentine's Day is not a holiday. Not religious, not secular, nothing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Saudi religious authorities are zealous in condemning it as un-Islamic. From past news accounts, stores in Saudi Arabia can sometimes get in trouble for displaying red items in their windows as Feb 14 approaches... AnonMoos (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Do they condemn the serving of green beer on St Patrick's Day?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Beer of any color is un-Islamic, of course... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It somewhat depends on what your definition of "holiday" is, but going by definition #1 from Wiktionary, "A day on which a festival, religious event, or national celebration is traditionally observed", the Wikipedia article would disagree with your assessment: "Today, Saint Valentine's Day is an official feast day in the Anglican Communion, as well as in the Lutheran Church." (Though in 1969 it was dropped from the official Catholic calendar.) -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Active Financing Exception and CFC Look-Through Rule

I have received two petitions in the past week or so asking my support to end the "Active Financing Exception" and the "CFC Look-Through Rule." I have never heard of either of them. What are they, and how do they compare fiscally to negative interest on excess reserves? Cc User:Farcaster EllenCT (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it racist for someone to call themselves white Canadian/American of European ancestry?

And is it also racist for someone te describe someone with pale skin if they are talking someone they met? Because for example if someone says their college professor is of Japanese descent, is it rude for someone to say for example the person I'm dating is white, has European ancestry or pale skin? Is this culturally acceptable? Venustar84 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm from the Southern United States, so my situation may be a bit different, but so far as I and probably most of my family and friends would ask in what context.

"I'm dating someone (white or European-American), (6'2", 220 lbs, male, brown hair and eyes, late twenties)" would probably not be racist, just merely describing how someone looks.

Bragging about dating someone for their race as a matter of status probably is racist, even if it is not actively and malevolently so. There are inactive, unconscious, and (for lack of a better term) "benign" (rather, "less harmful" than "safe") forms of racism.

If someone states their race online merely to establish what they look like offline, again, no real harm.

If someone states their race online to look for some sort of social credit, I'd be at least concerned unless there's a good reason for them to mention their race (for example, a user mentioning that they're a minority in a discussion on discrimination against their group).

That said, there are some individuals who identify as African-American who have paler skin than some people of European ancestry. Many of them would be offended (even if they completely hide it) at being told they "look white." They may well have some European ancestry as well, and they're likely well aware of it - but pointing that out may be literally the same as pointing out to someone that one of their ancestors was a rapist. Most multiethnic persons I've met were usually proud to be so, and the issue would come up in conversation if relevant. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone states their race online merely to establish what they look like offline, again, no real harm. - That makes it sound as if it's not really OK to state one's own colour or race, not even in a completely benign context, but it's a victimless crime so you shouldn't lose too much sleep over it. I have to completely disagree with that, which sounds like PC gone mad to the Nth degree. People are surely permitted to say whatever they like about themselves, as long as it's truthful and doesn't harm or belittle anyone else. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That might be the case if you don't take into account my first statement, that "merely describing how someone looks like" is fine. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, but "no real harm" means there is at least some technical harm even if there's no actual harm. That's what I disagree with. There's not even any technical harm in stating one's own race or colour in the context we're talking about. It's perfectly acceptable if you want to do that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"No real harm" doesn't necessarily mean that there was harm, but that if there is harm, it's negligible. At most, it acknowledges the possibility of harm, not the reality of it. Especially if one pays attention to what I already said for proper context and doesn't look for a reason to argue by putting words in my mouth. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Let us agree to disagree. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's agree to not twist my words out of their given context into something that contradicted other things I clearly stated. You misunderstood what I said despite it not being all that obscure (especially in its context), I clarified it, and you've continued to argue that what I said really wasn't what I said. That's stubbornly mistaken behavior at best on your part, if not rude. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

For Japanese, they usually say their partner is a 'gaikokujin' (or more colloquially 'gaijin', which contrary to urban legend, is not at all derogatory) - this means 'foreigner'. For someone who is white, specifically, it can be 'hakujin', which literally means 'white person'. 'Kokujin' (black person) is generally shyed-upon, for similar reasons that 'black person' is not used in the US, but used in the UK, quite freely. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of white Japanese foreigners, when Jinsei Shinzaki came to America, he was named "Hakushi". Contemporary TV often called him "The White Angel" and our current article says it means "White Messenger". But Google Translate says it means "white/blank paper". Is there a truly wrong meaning here, or is it a Japanese rhetorical thing (angels deliver messages, messages are written on paper)? And when The Great Muta became Kokushi, is it the same deal, only black? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

• No. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

It's never racist to describe reality. To believe otherwise is to subscribe to some weird religion of unreality for some other reason, often a self-serving one. At the point that accurately describing reality is considered a problem, free thought is dead. Shadowjams (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Getting away from the OP's question here, but "describing reality" in certain contexts can indeed indicate racist ideas from the speaker. Consider this conversation: "Dad, I can marry a black guy if I want to- he really loves me and will make a great father for my kids!" dad says, "I doubt it- Black men are six times more likely to end up in jail than white men." See how dad is "just stating a fact", but doing it in order to express his own prejudices. The fact itself isn't racist of course, but how and when you choose to cite various facts says a lot about your intentions. Staecker (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Whether mentioning a particular reality is "racist" or not depends on why one is bringing it up. In the OP's case, stating the race of one's dating partner for no apparent reason might result in a response on the order of "Are you bragging or complaining?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not racist to describe reality, but reality is often the way it is because of racism. E.g. the incarceration rates of black males in the USA is mostly due to institutional racism. See also Racial_inequality_in_the_American_criminal_justice_system. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "most" incarcerated black males did not actually commit the crime of which they were convicted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but there are real differences in sentencing based on race. That is, when two people are substantively convicted of similar crimes, white defendants tend to get proportionally lighter sentences, and tend to avoid prison time at a higher rate. These studies have a long history in the U.S. See here for scholarly papers going back decades, and they always come to the same general conclusion: white convicted criminals get more leniency, while black convicted criminals get stricter penalties, when they face substantively the same crime. --Jayron32 18:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

SM referred to the incarceration rate, which I took to mean that a higher percentage of blacks get incarcerated than whites. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

April 21

Circumcision

What is the real reason the Jewish people adopted the practice of circumcision of male baies? Was it to prevent the boys from obtaining easy sexual gratificatin in accordance with old biblical laws?--31.55.123.188 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you read circumcision? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There's our coverage on the Jewish reasons for circumcision. 00:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Are there Biblical laws against sexual gratification? Does circumcision prevent sexual gratification? (You will find that the answers to both are "no" but you may not have thought to ask.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason I'd always heard was a visual way to distinguish themselves from non-Jews. StuRat (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a somewhat anachronistic way of looking at it, popularized by Christians a bit more than by Jews. Justin Martyr was fond of the idea that God had ordained circumcision (c. 1200 BCE, or so the story goes) as a sign to make the persecution of Jews following the Bar Kochba revolt (135 CE) easier. "...that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolate, and your cities ruined by fire; that the fruits of your land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem."

That said, circumcision is called a "sign" in the Torah, but so is the rainbow. The idea seems to be that it served as a visual reminder (for Jews? for God? for both?) of the covenant God originally made with Abraham. Lest ye forget... and all that.

Circumcision has historically been one of those things that makes Jews weird compared to the general population. During the Hellenistic period, it made it particularly difficult to visit the gymnasium without getting dirty looks, and some Jews took to primitive (and, I have to imagine, incredibly unpleasant) forms of foreskin restoration surgery. This culminated in the 160s BCE when Antiochus IV Epiphanes outlawed circumcision (among some of those other weird things Jews do), which made some people rather upset. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

According to this page, it wasn't always surgery but a leather thong called a kynodesme which looks more inconvenient than painful. The same page also discusses other stretching methods used in classical times. According to this page, in "about 140 C.E., the Jewish authorities modified circumcision procedure to make it impossible for a Jew to appear to be an uncircumcised Greek. A radical new procedure called peri'ah was introduced by the priests and rabbis". Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That second source is truly horrible, not least because the Hellenic period never occurred outside Greece (and the Hellenistic period, which I assume is what the author meant, ended about 220 years before the given date of 140 CE). Priests weren't calling the shots in 140, anyway. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe, but the same information is in our article Brit milah#Uncovering, priah: "David Gollaher has written that the rabbis added the procedure of priah to discourage men from trying to restore their foreskins". The source quoted is David Gollaher (2000), Circumcision: A History of The World’s Most Controversial Surgery, Basic Books (p. 17). Alansplodge (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Preventing sexual gratification (e.g. masturbation) was the reason that the Americans and British started circumcising boys in large numbers, according to our article, with citations therein -

"British and American doctors began recommending [circumcision] primarily as a deterrent to masturbation". SemanticMantis (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It didn't work. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Very few British males are circumcised (unless they are Muslim or Jewish), it's much more of an American thing. DuncanHill (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe an obsession with cleanliness? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not even close to answering the question. Evan (talk|contribs) 22:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also note that male genital mutilation is luckily not common at all in Britain these days, obviously excepting in the relevant religious groups. Fgf10 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Circumcision is not genital mutilation. --Jayron32 20:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Is that your opinion, or the opinion of the babies who are too young to consent? If a parent cut off any other body part from a baby without a clear medical reason, I guarantee that everybody, including you, would call it mutilation. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC) The genitals are still completely functional after, the only stress the kids encounter by the time they can remember anything is bigots telling them they've been mutilated. At the worst, it is a cosmetic procedure, and if you actually read our article on circumcision, you'll see plenty of medical benefits from the procedure (including reduced risk of STDs and UTIs). I've seen parents get their kids ears pierced before they were too young to make the decision for themselves, because that was part of their parents' culture. Would you tell their kids that their ears were mutilated? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, I would (well, not to the kids' faces). But calling people bigots for preferring to have their bodies left the way they were made seems somewhat POV. On that basis, how about we routinely remove kids' appendices to preempt appendicitis, peritonitis etc, which have killed many people. It's not as if the appendix has any known function. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC) It helps to not use loaded terms like "mutilation". Scientifically, we can all agree that circumcision of male infants involves the irreversible removal of genital tissue. In most jurisdictions, infants cannot legally consent. So we have a non-consensual and irreversible removal of genital tissue going on. Whether or not anyone thinks that's ok is not a matter for the science reference desk. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words, as I had no intention whatsoever of starting a debate, but yes, preforming an completely unnecessary medical procure on a non-consenting infant is obviously mutilation. This is why it has been the subject of numerous court cases and legislative debates in many countries worldwide, so far the adoption of prohibitive legislation has only been stopped by the religious lobbies. Calling caring and 21st century parents bigots is ridiculous and insulting. Fgf10 (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) If removing the appendix didn't involve invasive surgery, why not remove it? Jack, you're citing POV in this discussion, like it's an article? Like this isn't inherently a matter of POV? Don't want to get circumcised? Fine. But don't tell people who are that they're mutilated, because, when it's done as a baby, they don't have a problem with it except bigots who tell them they're mutilated. It's not like circumcised people are crawling into people's house at night to steal foreskins, so it is bigoted to react to circumcised people not having a problem with having been circumcised by saying they've been mutilated. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Guys, please stick to the question. Your opinions on who is bigoted and what constitutes mutilation are not was has been asked here. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Need help finding a short story

I'm trying to find a short story I read a long time ago. The details in my mind are really hazy, but as best as I can remember it's about two boys who spend their time shoplifting and spraying graffiti. By the end of the story the boy who is the main character sort of "sees the light" and starts taking an interest in learning. The story starts out with the two boys going out to spray graffiti (the name the other boy signs is "weezul"), then there's a flashback to where they were both in a store shoplifting, and the narrator recalls the other boy telling him "don't look at him" (the store owner) before they went in. In the last scene the boy is reciting all these things he's read about to his teacher just out of eagerness to share them with someone else. Those are the only details I remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.254.5.219 (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Mongoose and Weasel the Taggers in the collection The Library Card by Jerry Spinelli. OttawaAC (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Where does confiscated money go?

You sometimes here in news after some police raids, that reasonable amount of money as result from illegal business has been confiscated. My question is, where does the police send the money then after investigations were concluded? I always wondered. 112.198.79.233 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

See asset forfeiture. In the US, it's supposed to be used "for law enforcement purposes".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

In some places, other seized assets are also used "for law enforcement purposes", e.g. D.A.R.E._Car. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Civil forfeiture is not without controversy, for at least two reasons: 1) conflict of interest on the part of law enforcement agencies, and 2) violation of constitutional guarantees against seizure of property without due process and trial. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It says only "without due process of law". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing

What is wikipedia's formal stand on paid editing? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's frowned upon, because anyone editing for money is liable to have an agenda. However, editing that conforms to Wikipedia standards is the first priority. Look in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest under "Paid editing". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

These recent articles from The Signpost do a good job of explaining and contextualizing the recent trends in broader community perspectives (and the WMF's stances) on the issue. Many more can be found via the paper's archives. Needless to say, the issue has gotten around many different Wikipedia administrative pages -- here's a lengthy, but dated, discussion from Central Discussion. If you wish to see yet more discussions on the subject, the archives for WP:RfC and WP:Village pump will supply plenty, with a significant portion being from the last couple of years in particular, during which this issue has grown significantly in relevance and exposure. Snow (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Law and Gospel" and 16th Century Western European Christianity

Martin Luther made a distinction between the Law and Gospel, when discussing the Old and New Testaments. Was there such a concept in the Roman Catholic Church at that time? What was the Roman Catholic opinion of the Old and New Testaments? 140.254.227.103 (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

See Christian_views_on_the_old_covenant#Roman_Catholic. --Jayron32 18:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

poetry

I am looking for the correct wording (along with the title and author) of an old poem that goes something like-- Out of the moon and the stars and the flowers out of the....... out of the..... came mothers, the live giving(or God given?)thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:9200:520:C43D:F00B:1278:65E4 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

April 22

biographical details of Jakob Lorber

hi, all - I'm working on a project about Lorber, and although there's quite a bit about him on the web, a lot of it is of a religious nature, talking about his writing, whereas at the moment I'm looking for stuff to do with his quotidian existence - there's a thing by Eggenstein that purports to be a biography, but gives only Lorber's early years; what I'm hoping for is something about his life when he was writing; it seems as if he did nothing but write for 25 years - where was he living? - how was he living? - did he have enough of a following in life for them to support him financially?

Thanks for any answers.

Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a three-page "digression" about him in this book about Schubert. [8] It describes him living simply in a room in an inn, and conducting seances for friends. OttawaAC (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's a wonderful find - thanks so much, Ottawa! Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The biographical accounts by his acquaintance Karl Gottfried Ritter von Leitner are available online here, but, alas, in German, though transcribed to modern Standard German orthography, which makes it a bit easier for machine translation, yet still hard to parse — I just tested the second (shorter) link). Let me (or people at the language desk) know if you need help. I couldn't find KGRvL's writings in English. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

It is almost 2 months, till a single wreckage is not found. Is there any historical example where the first wreckage was found long after the original accident date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorMakingEdits (talk • contribs) 04:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not quite what you're asking for, but with Air France Flight 447 in 2009, wreckage was found five days after the crash, but the black boxes weren't recovered until 2 years later. Of course, some planes, such as Amelia Earhart's and Frederick Valentich's, have never been found. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the best example is probably the 1947 BSAA Avro Lancastrian Star Dust accident, where an airliner crashed into a mountain in the Andes and intensive searching did not find it. (Of course the technology they had was far behind what is available today.) Some of the wreckage was found in 1998 in a glacier and it was realized that over the intervening 51 years the glacier had moved it to a lower altitude on the mountain.

Also, there have been several examples of military flights that were lost during World War II and the planes were found decades later, but I don't have specifics to cite. Another somewhat well-known civilian example involves a small plane: hockey player Bill Barilko was killed in a crash in 1951 and the wreckage was not found until 1962. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Now another question. Why is it taking so long to find the Malaysian plane despite all the modern technology? And it was a huge plane, not a tiny plane, so the wreckage must be clearly visible. --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you appreciate the huge area they need to search? And how deep the water is there (c. 5 kilometres)? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

History on Author & Occultist Donald Tyson.

I am interested on the history on Author & Occultist Donald Tyson. Also any reference or reviews of his writings & work. Here on Wikipedia I read somewhere that his page was deleted for some reason. I have come across his fictional work for sale many times on Amazon.com so I would like to know why he was not any longer included on this site. Even if he was considered to be irrelevant or not perhaps an established or successful author, it seems to me that a reference on him no matter how small should at least be put on this site. Is there a reason someone can tell me of why this person had a page and then had it deleted? Was it nonfactual? I use Wikipedia all the time and after hearing of this, I think I would like to understand the sites policies more in depth. Especially concerning this author. How can it hurt anything to include at least a list of his known writings and whatever history is known or unknown on him. No author that has had his work published should be considered too small in my opinion to be on Wikipedia. If not for anything but just as a reference and maybe even a review area to highlight his work be it good or bad. Any reference is better than no reference as long as it is considered to be established & factual, right? That's all. A response will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Signed Timothy M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.225 (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Tyson tells why it was deleted. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)