Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

March 27

Australian aboriginal poetry hoax

Hey everyone - I remember reading about this on Wikipedia, but now I can find no trace of it here or anywhere else online. The gist of it was that someone in Australia presented some poetry as being the newly-discovered work of a homeless aboriginal woman or something like that, while it was actually just quasi-gibberish he had thrown together. It was massively acclaimed, but then he either confessed or was found out and everyone was angry and embarrassed. The article went into some depth about how its acceptance was due to the Australian art establishment's longing to find a critically-beloved "native voice," and I even vaguely remember one of the lines from one of the poems being something along the lines of "The tax collector came today to make an assessment, but he missed my many friends and acquaintances." But everything I search is coming up blank and I'm starting to think I might just be crazy. And no, it isn't Ern Malley, Wanda Koolmatrie or Eddie Burrup. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This rings no bells with me at all, I'm afraid, Elmer. The closest thing I've found, and it's not a great fit, is Oodgeroo Noonuccal. I quote from our article:

This first book of poetry was extraordinarily successful, selling out in several editions, and setting Oodgeroo well on the way to be Australia’s highest-selling poet alongside C. J. Dennis.[7] Critics’ responses, however, were mixed, with some questioning whether Oodgeroo, as an Aboriginal person, could really have written it herself. Others were disturbed by the activism of the poems, and found that they were "propaganda" rather than what they considered to be real poetry.

Then there's this:

Initially, critics responded harshly to her poetry, claiming it was amateurish or not verse at all. It did not conform to accepted forms of verse. Critics also did not like the Aboriginal voice that came through in the poetry, and claimed her verse to be inauthentic as Aboriginal poetry, because true Aboriginal poetry came from their oral traditions, that is, any European influence invalidates Aboriginality.

There are 163 of Oodgeroo's poems here, searchable by keyword. I found 2 hits for "tax", but nothing like what you said. You may have better luck searching yourself.

If it's not her, you're crazy. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I dual-license modified versions of software under GPLv3 under GPL and a copyfree license?

Anyone modifying that modified version must still license it under the GPL, because that derivative work contains original code, which is licensed under GPL. It may be a break of the wording of the license, but not of the spirit of the license. Therefore if the copyright holder sues me for licensing it (my modifications) under both BSD and GPL rather than only under GPL, he/she is a copyright abuser. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't provide legal advice but without getting in to the legal aspect, the spirit of a GPL or copyleft license is usually that people taking advantage of the licence are expected to follow the licencing terms including the copyleft requirement. The GPL of course comes from FSF who's intentions with their licence (i.e. spirit) is well known and often made clear by them. If you try to re-licence the content without following the copyleft requirement or getting permission of all copyright holders, you are the one who is seemingly not following the spirit of the licence. Furthermore, the vast majority of people who support or use BSD licences are not going to want such improperly licenced content so there's also no point making such a licencing claim. Other then to waste the time of people who took you at your word who will have to throw out any of their work (whether proprietary or made freely available) derived from your content once they find out. And possibly annoy people who's copyrighted work (copyrighted to be copylefted) you are trying to mis-use. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it's okay to violate what the license explicitly states as long as you don't violate its spirit -- what a fun idea! Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be best to read the various guidance the GNU or whoever administers the various licenses (it's hard for me to keep straight sometimes) [1], short of asking a lawyer for help. Don't think you can hide behind the "spirit" of the law to do something you expressly agreed to not do. Shadowjams (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaʻieʻie Waho Channel

Is it physically possible to swim the whole length of the Kaʻieʻie Waho Channel, separating Kauai and Oahu, alone without getting out of the water? There was a six people relay team that did this but no one has yet swam it on their own.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently an Australian named Penny Palfrey has tried it a couple of times, but failed because she ran into Portuguese man-o-war -- so presumably it is possible in theory. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The thing is, "is it possible?" doesn't lend itself to a firm "no" answer in many cases (firm "yes" answers are pretty obvious). The swim in question has not been completed with reliable verification (probably someone somewhere has claimed to have completed it). It's beyond the scope of many people's abilities. But its length (72 miles) is comparable to the record for the longest solo unassisted ocean swim of 70 miles. Given that, I would conclude that it's certainly physically possible, and it's probably practically possible, but that no objective answer can exist unless and until someone does it. — Lomn 16:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shas involvement in Rabin's death

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Due to the fact that Yigal Amir was a Mizrahi and religious Zionist, could it be possible that Shas party was involve in it because they were against Oslo Accords? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.146 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything's possible. We don't do speculation here. Rojomoke (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey Beard

Dear Wiki,

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Beard

Question: Who wrote this article and would they be willing to make contact?

Reason: My grandfather was a personal friend of Dewey’s and, I being the youngest in my family [born 1946] only met him twice. I would like more people to know about him and have information and a means to bring it about, but would appreciate a more educated opinion. I am making lame attempts to do so now, and this author has accomplished more than I in my lifetime, I can help him or he could help me if the interruption and inconvenience would not be too great. Most gracious thanks. I have a copy of The Indian interviews of Eli S. Ricker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmans2001 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is the best place for this sort of question. If you have material from a reliable source that you'd like to add to the article (and it sounds as though you do), feel free to add it yourself, with appropriate references. See WP:CITE on the procedure for adding references to the article. Tevildo (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles don't really have authors. Anybody can contribute to an article, and most have multiple authors, sometimes even hundreds of authors. In the case of this article, though, based on the article's history, most of it seems to have been written by 7mike5000, whom you can contact through his linked user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't. That editor has been blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks, with talk page access disabled. Looie496 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manchu

Did Emperor Guangxu, Puyi or Empress Dowager Cixi know how to speak Manchu? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Studies of Manchu-language use at court, for example, almost all conclude that the loss of Manchu as the first language of the rulers and the conquest elite implies their absorption into Chinese culture.... Nineteenth-century Qing rulers seem to have been more comfortable using Chinese" Rawski, Evelyn Sakakida. The last emperors: A social history of Qing imperial institutions. Univ of California Press, 2001. p.4 "the veritable record of the Guang-xu Emperor, which was the last veritable record in the Qing Dynasty and only used Chinese)" Yoshida, Jun, and 吉田純. "On Intellect and Intelligence in Qing China: Languages, Education and Philology." (1990). p.52 198.151.130.153 (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source I am recalling may have been Nicholas Poppe's Mongolian Language Handbook or Introduction to Altaic linguistics neither of which I have in front of me, but I remember reading the Manchu dynasty lost native fluency in Manchu within about a century of coming to rule. Sorru I don't have an exact reference and I wouldn't swear to that in court, but it's certainly not too far off. You can get his works by interlibrary loan. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More I think on it, this book by Ramsey may have been the source. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember of Puyi's autobiography, while Manchu education was still compulsory for princes, all that he could fluently say were short ceremonial phrases, such as used when greeting ministers and guests. I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe this was in the early chapters, as he was describing life in the palace. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good source on the declining use of the Manchu language in the late Han is: Edward J. M. Rhoads, Manchus & Han: Ethnic Relations and Political Power in Late Qing and Early Republican China, 1861–1928. University of Washington Press, 2000. Pages 52–54. ISBN 0-295-98040-0. Partially available on Google Books. It doesn't seem to specifically discuss the late-Qing emperors' personal Manchu fluency, though.

Empress Dowager Cixi knew Manchu fluently,Puyi [2] did not speak Manchu, his ability was limited to single words which does not even qualify for minimal fluency.Rajmaan (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banks in occupied Europe

During the German occupation in World War 2, did the occupied countries (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.) keep their own banks? Or were they taken over by the German Reichsbank? I've tried to find this info in Alan Bullock's treatise on Hitler vs. Stalin, but there's no specific answer in it to this question. Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National commercial banks were kept, but the Germans introduced a new policy to strengthen the "Germanic element." That actually meant that Polish without German heritage, for example, wouldn't get their savings from their Polish saving bank, in contrary to ethnic Germans living in Poland. In Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg, on the other hand, the policy was less extreme, since nationals of these countries only had to recognize their "Germanic" element and commit to the German cause to still be allowed to perform financial transactions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also check [| this book], p. 53, available in Google books, for the fate of the central banks, which had to cooperate with the German monetary policy. Any similarity with the present situation in Europe is mere coincidence. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, in western Europe under the German occupation, people had to sign a loyalty oath to the Nazi regime in order to be able to access their own accounts, right? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 28

Canadians supporting and contributing Bangladesh Liberation War

Were there any Canadians who gave support Bangladesh's Liberation War, contributed to the Liberation War and spoke out against genocide on Hindus during the Liberation War?--Donmust90 (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Jesus's Resurrection

How do Christians reconcile Jesus's resurrection with the geological doctrine of uniformitarianism, the idea that influenced Charles Darwin on his famous theory? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you expect any deeper reconciliation than "it's a miracle" aka "God can break the laws of nature"? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read the article on uniformitarianism, it actually says that "uniformitarianism is an assumption..."; therefore, it is an assumption. Personally, I find the assumption very plausible. The statement that "God can break the laws of nature" assumes that the laws of nature are temporarily broken during Jesus's resurrection. However, the thing is, the Bible is not a science textbook or a history textbook. The New Testament is a collection of writings recording the gospels and the letters. There must be some explanation as to why the authors wrote that Jesus "resurrected" or thought that Jesus rose from the dead. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in uniformitarianism says that resurrection cannot happen. The fact that the Grand Canyon was carved over millions of years does not, in itself, mean that Jesus could not have been resurrected. Furthermore, uniformitarianism was modified long ago to incorporate new geological knowledge. In particular, we know that many processes that heavily influenced Earth's history were catastrophic by any definition of the word. In the Late Heavy Bombardment, Earth was bombarded with solar system debris. One of the impacts was so powerful that its ejecta formed the Moon. As recently as 65 million years ago, an asteroid hit what is now Mexico, killing off 75% of Earth's species in the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event--the same one that killed the dinosaurs. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could simply be that Jesus survived his crucifixion -- which is unlikely but possible. (It could even be the case that getting stabbed in the side saved his life, by allowing accumulated fluid in his lungs to drain out and thus allowing him to continue breathing.) FWiW 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be possible that the entire story is a legend. I still don't see how any of this has to do with uniformitarianism, or for that matter, any part of geology. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody got some links to Christian perspectives on the resurrection and how Christians actually interpret the event instead of basing on speculations?65.24.105.132 (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have still not pointed out a single connection between uniformitarianism and resurrection. Why would any Christians write about it if there's nothing to write about? What you're doing is similar to asking what your shoe size has to do with Sun's solar activity. If there's no imaginable connection, why would any scientists write about it? --140.180.254.209 (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been attempts to explain the Jesus story with naturalistic assumptions. Either the assumption is "he wasn't really dead" (see e.g. Jesus in India (book), The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail), to "it wasn't really Jesus, who was crucified, just a lookalike" to "it's just an invented story, like many other resurrection stories from middle eastern mythology". None of these is compatible with even moderately lax interpretations of Christian belief, where the death and resurrection of Jesus are the central element of the religion (modern English translation of the Nicene Creed have "he suffered death and was buried"). Ultra-liberal Christians can live with some of these interpretations, of course (and the original Greek version of the creed, as I understand, makes no explicit reference to death, only to crucifixion and suffering). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, the straightforward answer to the OP's question is "They don't reconcile it, they accept it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They accept the resurrection, by definition. Their attitude to the geological doctrine of uniformitarianism could include (a) total acceptance, (b) total rejection, (c) something in between, (d) indifference and (e) ignorance. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...where many hold several of these attitudes at the same time, sometimes even including (a) and (b). See Compartmentalization (psychology). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compartmentalization is one theory. Another is the acknowledgment by believers that just because we don't understand something doesn't make it false. (The trap avowed atheists typically fall into.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand something, being a believer is no better than being a denier. You're confusing scientific skepticism with pseudoskepticism. A scientific skeptic places the burden of proof on the claimant: if you don't have evidence for your claim, others should not believe you until you do. It is not necessarily wrong, although experience shows that pseudoscientific claims of this kind have almost always been wrong. A pseudoskeptic unwittingly places the burden of proof on himself, by declaring that a claim is false. Of course, the principle of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence applies. If you claim to have a flying reindeer, I can be 99.99999% confident that you don't, even if I've never seen your reindeer and have no idea what evidence you have. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are like a billion Christians, so that's a poor comparison. The atheist attitude is, "I've never experienced faith, therefore faith is false." Hardly a scientific conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the predominant atheist attitude. Even if it was, it's no better or worse than "I've experienced faith, therefore what I believe is true". Most atheists would argue that faith is not a good way of finding out about the world because 1) the universe does not bend to an individual's beliefs, 2) religious faiths contradict each other and cannot be all correct, 3) no religious claim about the world has ever been confirmed, and plenty have been falsified, and 4) it is inconsistent to believe in X but not Y, if neither has any supporting evidence. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Experience tells me otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is based on a total and utter lack of understanding of the other's viewpoint; like a Christian who, upon hearing his friend is an atheist, says, "So, you do realize you're going to hell?" There would have been no attempt or desire by his followers or believers to speculate on some (pseudo-)scientific explanation like the restorative powers of Redbull, hibernating mitochondria, or the ability to fix anything with WD40 and duct tape. That sort of "explanation" would be as beside the point as would asking for the molecular weight of Hamlet's soliloquy. μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's premise is indeed flawed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question about John Sturart Mill's first book

John Stuart Mills was born in 1806, but he had published a book in 1822 according to the "Major publications" section. That means that he was 15-16 years old when he wrote a book. I want to ask if it was really published around 1822. If it is true, then he is one of the youngest philosophy writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 06:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grotius published his first book at the age of 16 (although this was a translation rather than an original work), and Kripke's first published paper was written at the age of 17. Mill is probably the youngest published philosopher (for any reasonable definition of "philosophy"). Tevildo (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article notes that Mill was a child prodigy, who had read Aesop and Herodotus in Greek at the age of eight, and Plato in Latin at ten. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited by our article actually says he was reading Plato at eight, not ten. Plato wrote in Greek, not Latin. Plato is significantly harder to translate than Herodotus. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan, OJ, and Judge Ito

What, if anything, did the Japanese media (or populace) make of Japanese-American judge Lance Ito's involvement in the OJ Simpson trial? I don't want speculation, just info, thanks. Thedoorhinge (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OJ Simpson was not very well-known outside of America before the trial - I myself, as a Brit living in Japan, only heard of him from my American colleagues when they were talking about the trial (a year or so after it was over) - so there was not much coverage of the trial in Japan or most other countries. Lance Ito does not even have a Japanese Wikipedia page. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B.G. FONTANA

I am trying to find some information about a 19th Century Americam composer named B.G. Fontana.

Dispite numerous internet searches I been unable to find anything.

If you think you could assist I would be pleased to hear from you.

Kind Regards

Barry Hines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryhi2013 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's G B Fontana, a seventeenth-century Italian composer - I assume it's not him? Tevildo (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GB is the only one I know of. Where did you hear or read about BG? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Julian Fontana, nineteenth-century Polish. Tevildo (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a B.G. Fontana who composed Joy and Tears Mazurka, Blue Glass Waltz and other pieces. However I can't find any information about him/her, not even birth or death dates.--Cam (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - this is the B.G. Fontana I am looking for and am having the same problems - just no info ....

Lineage of Prophets of Islam

Is there a website that shows a family tree or lineage chart that shows how the prophets between Abraham and Muhammad peace be upon them are related to each other thus making Abraham the father of prophets and Muhammad (PBUH) the descendant of Abraham?--Donmust90 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Is Muhammed's descending from Abraham a standard claim of Islam? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

harassment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bugs, are you aware we have an encyclopedia here, with an article on Muhammad? Are you aware how silly it is that the first answer to a question on the Ref Desk is given by someone who is ignorant of the topic and unwilling to bother looking it up? --Mr.98 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with all things theological and deep-historical there is controversy. One vague genealogy I have seen basically just goes Abraham -> Ishmael -> Kedar -> the Quraysh tribe -> Muhummad. Others trace Muhumaad more specifically from Adnan. But we're talking hundreds of generations here. Whether any of this has any relationship to actual historical fact is of course controversial and hard to establish. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of generations seems a bit of an exaggeration. Ibn Ishaq counted only 30 generations between Abraham and Muhammad (9 from Abraham to Adnan). Admittedly, this is historically quite implausible. This website gives five suggested genealogies, the longest of which is 62 generations in total. This still requires rather long generations (c. 40 years) however, if any credence is to be be given to Jewish accounts. - Lindert (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if you believe the biblical or quaranical accounts of Abraham, you'll believe that he was an ancestor of Muhammad; anyone who lived approximately 2000 years before an event (in this case, the birth of Muhammad) either has no descendents or is the ancestor of millions of people, and someone in the ancient world with numerous children would be the ancestor of virtually everyone in the region. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but historically this was not really deemed important, only a straight male line constituted one's ancestry, in which case only one person living in Abraham's time would qualify. - Lindert (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. Most gay male lines die out pretty quickly. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I'm responding to Bugs' first statement. Abraham is spoken of as the ancestor of the Arabs via Ishmael, and Muhammad (obviously) is believed to have been an Arab; besides that, I was meaning that anyone who believes that Abraham existed (in a manner identical or akin to what the Bible or the Quran describe) and had descendents must believe that he is the ancestor of most of the Middle East, simply by statistics. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Jesus, they made the point of Mary being of the House of David, in order to keep the prophecy intact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not quite accurate. There are two contradictory genealogies of Jesus, one in Luke and one in Matthew, and both clearly state the decent from David as being through Joseph. Luke states that Jesus was the son (it is was supposed) Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat... That is, Mary is never mentioned. In the Matthew genealogy, it works the other way, starting from the past and working forwards, and the Matthew genalogy ends with "...Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus" so Mary is mentioned, but the text clearly draws the line from David down to Joseph by noting Joseph's father and then that man's father. The discrepancies between the two genealogies cannot be explained or dealt with by the text of the Bible itself. The notion that one of these genealogies is of Mary and not of Joseph is one way to resolve the discrepancy, but that notion is NOT apparent from the text itself and is merely one of several later traditions to resolve the discrepancy. Genealogy of Jesus covers this. --Jayron32 18:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves them with a slight problem, as Joseph was not the father of Jesus. What's the Greek equivalent of "D'oh!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are, surprisingly, not the first person to notice this. --Jayron32 03:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone asked how Christians "reconcile" the resurrection with science. The answer is that faith enters into it. The descendant-of-David situation is hard to reconcile by faith alone. So how do staunch believers reconcile it? Or do they just ignore it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical inerrantists give lots of interesting explanations, none of which are particularly convincing. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That inadvertently raises another question, the one so often raised here about Jesus: Is there any evidence, outside religious writings, that Abraham actually existed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen a discussion of the subject, but I would presume not; I can't imagine the existence of any contemporary evidence for the actions, names, family members, etc. of nomadic pastoralists so far back. I don't know the quaranical account, but it would seem that the biblical account puts him as living away from literate societies except as an insignificant younger man in Mesopotamia and as a very short-term visitor in Egypt; neither one would be likely to attract appearances in written records. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No, I think scholars of all persuasions are in agreement that the Torah is the oldest source we have for Abraham. The name "Abarama" is however attested in contemporary cuneiform tablets, though there is no indication that these refer to the Biblical Abram/Abraham (source). - Lindert (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get into some serious genealogy, we have exquisite documentation of the family of Frodo, son of Drogo, son of Fosco, son of Largo, son of Balbo, father of Mungo, father of Bungo, father of Bilbo Baggins, peace be upon him. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Thorvald Nlodvisson, the son of Gudleif, half brother of Thorgier, the priest of Ljosa water, who took to wife Thurunn, the mother of Thorkel Braggart, the slayer of Cudround the powerful, who knew Howal, son of Geernon, son of Erik... Tevildo (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tecon

Hello!

I'd like help, if possible...

I was searching (Wikipedia) for information on Clint Murchison - connected with John J. McCloy, and others involved in secret intelligence work - and read that he owned a company named TECON, a marine construction company. No further information was provided; i.e., corporate officers, projects the company worked on, etc.

I clicked the link to find out more about TECON, and discovered that all references to the company had been removed from Wikipedia's database.

In the past several years, I have found that many (MANY) references to activities and businesses owned by those involved in Intelligence Services have been 'cleaned up' or completely erased.

Have you any suggestions how I may pursue my search?

Gratefully,

Sean Galvin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.221.236.188 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some information on Tecon Ltd, and here's some info on Clint W Murchison III, the son of Clint Murchison, Jr.. Our article on John J. McCloy doesn't mention any connection with the Murchison family. Our article on the Tecon Corporation was A7'd (no assertion of notability) in 2009. Tevildo (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest warrants new york city

Can an arrest warrant be issued by a judge or magistrate without a grand jury indictment? Who else can issue arrest warrants?200.32.229.203 (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the New York Criminal Procedure, Article 120.30, an arrest warrant can only be issued by a local criminal court at which an "accusatory instrument" has been filed. According to Article 100.10, there are several forms of "accusatory instruments" which do not require grand jury indictment. You should contact a lawyer (as a matter of some urgency) for a definitive answer if you're likely to be facing a warrant - we can't give legal advice here. Tevildo (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pornographic habits of straight men

Do most straight men prefer to watch lesbian porn or straight porn? Academic research please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.117.58 (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enter your search terms here. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Barbara FitzRoy

The Lady Barbara FitzRoy says that Charles II acknowledged her as his daughter, but his article says she was never acknowledged. Which is it? RNealK (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Lady Barbara FitzRoy article says she was acknowledged in the lede, but also includes a quotation stating she was never acknowledged in the body of the article. And the article is full of opinions on the matter without any matching citations. If no one has the answer handy, I will attempt to find my Bastards book... She appears in the Complete Peerage's appendix on the bastards of Charles II, but that list doesn't address the question of whether she was acknowledged. - Nunh-huh 23:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't her surname strongly suggest that she was acknowledged? Surtsicna (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does to me. I suspect she was [1] acknowledged but [2] not his. In the Addenda and Corrigenda volume (1998) of the Complete Peerage, there's a note regarding the Appendix which lists fourteen of Charles' bastards: "Two of the fourteen listed here, Anne Palmer and Barbara (Benedicta) FitzRoy, are queried in Geneal. Mag., vol. 22, 1987, p. 246. " "Geneal. Mag." is CP's abbreviation for The Genealogist's Magazine. So if anyone can get ahold of that, it would probably be a good reference for this question and for the article. - Nunh-huh 00:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Bastards book? I've been wanting to get my hands on a good one. I know there's one written by a descendent of Charles IIs - via Nell Gwyn, her older son, Charles, who survived childhood, & was created the Duke of B-something (Burford?) not long before Charles himself died.

As for the query, yes, Barbara Fitzroy was acknowledged by Charles, but largely thought to be the child of one of her mother's later lovers, John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough. Apparently it was less scandalous to be the king's mistress & mother to 4 of his bastards than it was for the king's mistress to publicly acknowledge a child who wasn't sired by the king? Anne Palmer, also obvious by her surname, was Roger Palmer's only child by Barbara Castlemaine/Cleveland, & was never acknowledged by Charles. Anne was Roger's sole heiress after he died. The 4 children who came after Anne were all by Charles, & the hapless Earl of Castlemaine knew it even without Charles's public acknowledgment of them, so they were excluded from inheriting anything from Roger. ScarletRibbons (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

Roman Catholic marriage

Out of curiosity, can a Roman Catholic choose to marry outside the church if the Roman Catholic has family members who are not Christians and hold a wedding ceremony without a wedding officiant, or at least follow old family customs and traditions (e.g. ancestral worship, holding a wedding banquet)? Or does the Roman Catholic have to give up the culture of his/her upbringing to get married "the Catholic way"? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Marriage (Catholic Church) which will answer all of your questions, and more. --Jayron32 01:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ancestral worship is not part of the list of impediments, so I assume the answer is a "yes". 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. A person who is a practicing Catholic, and wishes to remain so, must get special permission from their bishop to marry a non-Catholic. That permission is not automatically granted. --Jayron32 02:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does that have to do with ancestral worship? What if the Roman Catholic does marry another Roman Catholic? Can they still choose to marry outside the church? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even then it's not a Catholic marriage if a priest doesn't co-officiate or perform a Catholic ceremony at a different time. But I am uncertain if I fully understand what the OP means by "outside the Church" here. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

. . . . but it can be a deacon rather than a priest. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] If by outside the church you mean not in the building, then that's fine, though dispensation is still required. Likewise, family traditions can be accommodated. I went to a church wedding between a Catholic and a Muslim, mostly officiated by the Catholic priest, with some bits with the Muslim cleric. But a Catholic isn't even necessarily "married" at all in the eyes of the church if certain condtions aren't met. Mingmingla (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your question then. Ancestor worship is not part of Catholic theology, so a marriage between a practicing Catholic and another person who practiced ancestor worship would still require the dispensation of a bishop in order to proceed, for the Catholic member of the couple to remain in communion with the Catholic church. So it has everything to do with "ancestor worship". Unless I am misunderstanding your question. Can you state exactly what the beliefs of the two partners are that you are asking about? Though, even so, basically any marriage that is not Catholic + Catholic following the prescribed Catholic ceremony in a Catholic Church Building would require special permission, so I'm not sure it matters what particular beliefs the non-Catholic has, except to note that (as I already have) that the permission is not automatic, and that I suspect that non-Catholic Christians would have a higher likelihood of getting the proper permission than non-Christians of any sort, though as noted by the example of Mingmingla, that permission can be granted as well. --Jayron32 02:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was referring to the instance where a Roman Catholic, who comes from a non-Catholic, or even non-Christian, background holding an ethnic wedding that is closely tied with family traditions and customs. For example, an ethnic Jewish family with a child who converted to Catholicism, or a Chinese family with a child who converted to Catholicism. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case the answer isn't complex. There's a prescribed Catholic ceremony, and any deviation from it requires permission from the Bishop. That's noted above and in our article. So, if one wanted to deviate from the prescribed ceremony, permission needs to be granted. Now, for any events after the actual marriage ceremony in the actual church itself (for example, at the wedding reception), I'm pretty sure that the Church doesn't care too much (within reason, of course). So the question is are you asking if the deviations are occurring during the actual sacrament of marriage or during the extended celebration thereof. The former definitely requires special permission. The latter, not so much. So, for example, if a former Jewish person who converted to Catholicism wanted to step on a lightbulb, if they wanted to do so during the ceremony itself, that requires the special permission. If they wanted to do so at the wedding reception outside of the context of the formal Catholic ceremony, they wouldn't. --Jayron32 02:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that's correct. As I understand it, there are certain regions of the world where "ancestor worship" is practiced by Catholics in good standing (off the top of my head, I would look at places like Sub-Saharan Africa and Mainland China), though it may be couched in such terms as "veneration" as opposed to "worship." I don't have a source for that, but I do remember reading about such things in the past. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are Catholics who are Yankees fans as well, but I still don't know that prayers to Derek Jeter are sanctioned as part of the Wedding Mass. The Catholic Church is unusually particular about what goes on in the context of religious ceremonies and I don't know that any actual Roman Catholic parish practices ancestor worship as part of the Catholic religious ceremonies themselves. --Jayron32 02:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll first remark that Catholics don't always have Catholic marriages. One couple I know involved a Catholic and a Lutheran, a Catholic priest would not officiate the wedding as a result. When the wife later converted, they went to the Church to have their marriage blessed by the priest. In regards to the specific question asked by the OP, a Catholic can get married in whichever manner they want, it just won't always be a Catholic wedding. A devout Catholic is unlikely to get married outside of the Catholic church, and is almost guaranteed to have a religious Wedding. A Catholic who isn't particularly religious would probably have no problem having a secular wedding. Ryan Vesey 02:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My now late, catholic mother-in-law was told by her priest that because she married a non-Catholic in a non-Catholic church she would go to hell. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did she have a snappy comeback, such as, "It will be worth it, as long as you're not there too!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo's comment is dubious. It wouldn't matter unless it were said to her in confession, and it would only be said then if she refused to ask dispensation or get a Catholic blessing. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's dubious about it? It was said in the 1940s. Bigotry was alive and well. She was a very young adult, up until that point in awe of priests and the like, but perhaps not as well informed as you might be today about all the options available to her. Priests held a lot of power. There was a lot of hatred between the Catholic and protestant churches in Australia back then. My mother-in-law was a completely honest person. It was said. She despised the Catholic Church from that day on. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the time period, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it happened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. The issue of ancestor "worship" was apparently an issue for the Church in China, but an accommodation was reached, see Roman Catholicism in China. Second, there's nothing preventing a Catholic from participating in any ceremony he likes separate from the Catholic ceremony, so long as it isn't in itself sinful for being blasphemous or idolatrous or such in some other way. It's a little difficult imagining how a Jewish wedding might be problematic, for example, unless it strangely includes the Birkat haMinim. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the page you meant was Jesuit China missions which seems to show as much argument as accommodation. Rmhermen (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article on the actual controversy itself is at Chinese Rites controversy, which refers to the accommodation issued in 1939, which the article says is consistent with the principles of the Second Vatican Council. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Odd, because according to my browser I have never read either of those articles, yet I have read Catholicism in China, which I did during the recent conclave. But I see the matter is not addressed there now. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: There is a LONG tradition of Catholics marrying non-Catholics in Catholic churches. What makes it happen with the RC Church's blessing is the promise to raise any children of the marriage as Catholics. If either party isn't willing to make that undertaking, no go. I suspect that accounts for Ryan Vesey's example. Priests don't just refuse point blank to officiate at a mixed marriage. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the story of what my grandmother said when they finally worked up the courage to tell her my cousin was marrying a black girl: "I don't care what color the children come out as long as it's Catholic." μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The child rearing issue actually didn't occur here. I think it had to do with the fact that the wedding was both inter-denominational and outdoors. Ryan Vesey 03:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Curaçao

The worldwide and regional pages about LGBT rights are quite comprehensive, but I was unable to find the country of Curaçao addressed. We've determined that Curaçao is one of the 4 countries that comprise the Kingdom of the Netherlands (the Netherlands, Aruba and Sint Maarten are the others.) In similar political configurations (Denmark/Greenland/Faroes come to mind) the component entities are individually addressed.

If all 4 countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands are uniform, then it should be indicated as such in the checklist chart (again see Denmark et al.) In the meantime, can someone advise me the status for Curaçao in particular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearWiki (talk • contribs) 04:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laws are not uniform throughout the kingdom. Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten has more on this. - Lindert (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

information requested about a person and a debt

(Redacted) now lives in geneva, NY USA is accused of or convicted of not repaying his debt in the UK (england) possibly in connection with a hotel/motel or cottage rental. can you help me find out more information on the case against (Redacted)? 96.249.57.107 (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make allegations about living people here (or anywhere else on Wikipedia) without providing evidence. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Pre-Raphaelite painting

I'm looking for a painting which I'm sure I've seen some years ago. It is definitely Pre-Raphaelite.

It is of a young woman, long dark auburn hair, ivory complexion, in a flowing emerald green robe. She is standing full face on and painted in full. She is surrounded by flowers - maybe standing in a bower - and carrying a basket of flowers. She is very similar to the central character in the "Beloved" picture, but she is alone in the painting.

I have done Google searches on "Dante Gabriel Rossetti paintings" "Millais paintings" and "Pre-Raphaelite paintings" but to no avail. I'm beginning to think I've made it up!

--TammyMoet (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be "The Day Dream" by Rossetti? Here's a poster of it for sale (other on-line poster retailiers are available). The model is sitting, not standing, and holding a book and a rose, not a basket of flowers, but the other elements are as you describe. Tevildo (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, although it's definitely the same model. She must be full face with a basket of flowers wearing emerald green robes. (By the way the link you gave didn't come up with the picture, just a photo of a white sofa, 3 scatter cushions and a floor lamp!) Thanks. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The model in "The Day Dream" was Jane Morris. I don't immediately see the painting you describe, but maybe someone with better Google skills can track it down. John M Baker (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In that case, check out Jane Morris - there's a list of Rossetti pictures featuring the same model. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The description seems to be a mix of Astarte Syriaca (at the top of this page) and The Blue Bower. Are either of these any good? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The composition is similar to Venus Verticordia (which reminds me somewhat of the Blind Faith album cover), but with the robe and full length. I do wish I'd paid more attention to it 40 odd years ago! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you some background which may help searches. I believe I saw this picture when I visited the Birmingham Art Gallery in the mid-60s with my school. I've since found they hold a large collection of Pre-Raphaelite works, and I've browsed the online catalogue to no avail. Of course, as I was only about 7 when I went, I may have conflated two paintings. Unfortunately I was more interested in the attached Museum because it had a massive Irish Elk skeleton at the time! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mnemosyne (Rossetti), perhaps? Ms Morris, green dress, full-face; not a _basket_ of flowers, though - a lamp(?) and an anenome. Tevildo (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's more like it. Is the linked picture cropped, do you know? Because I do remember the flowers around her. --TammyMoet (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have been this? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be the one! Thank you! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, but I too remember seeing a picture of a lady in a bower-thing. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you wanted a REALLY "flowing" robe, how about John Everett Millais - Ophelia. Alansplodge (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that used to scare me...! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "complete" Bible?

I'm not a Christian, but I am interested in reading the Bible. I understand that different strands of Christianity rely on different collections of books and/or different translations of those books to make "their" Bible, but I'm wondering if there's such a thing as a "complete" and more-or-less neutral version. That is, a version that set out to provide all the texts that could reasonably be included rather than including or removing bits to fit into a particular theology. Kind of analogous to how collections of Greek myths don't worry about whether they're "true" to Homer or Hesiod and just throw it all in there. Browsing WP seems to show that what I'm looking for would have to include the so-called New Testament apocrypha, but are there other apocrypha-like texts that could also be included? There are a ton of articles, to the point where it's frankly a labyrinth and I could well have missed a seemingly obvious article that would answer my question. Ultimately, what I would like is a single "book" (electronic or dead tree) to read, preferably annotated to help me follow along, but I can't order one from Amazon until I know what it's called. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two terms you are looking for are the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanonical books, which include those books which are in some denominations but not others, including both new and old testament books. There are English translations of those books; AFAIK no bible includes many of the Apocryphal gospels, which were excluded from the canon very early on; though those books are, of course, availible in English for you to read. As far as the old testament Deuterocanonical books many of those are available as part of Roman Catholic bibles. Christian biblical canons covers the various books used by various traditions, so if you don't want to leave anyone out, you can know which books to read. I'm not sure there are any single bound copies that contain every single book of the Bible together with theall of the books of the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanonical books, but you can certainly read all of them as you wish, as they are widely available in English. The ones that are usually included in some bibles are listed at Biblical apocrypha. --Jayron32 14:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of humour, the earlier a non-canonical text was excluded, the more interesting it is for people who treat these texts as merely documentary records or literary texts. The only non-canonical I'd highly recommend is Thomas (a sayings gospel), due to its relationship to Q / the earliest canonical texts. Thomas is also pretty readable and lacking in weirdness. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Biblical canon should cover what ought to be included. Particularly for a first pass, I would skip all of the New Testament apocrypha, as very little if any of it falls under "could reasonably be included" given that the big three divisions (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) don't use it. To include the Old Testament apocrypha, make sure you grab a Catholic or Orthodox bible, as they've got a consistent canon that is more expansive than the Protestant canon (I think, but am not sure, that the Catholic and Orthodox OT canon match each other -- if not, it's pretty close). You also should be aware of dynamic and formal equivalence with respect to translations, and select accordingly. All that said, my particular suggestion for purchasing would be as follows:

Two bibles, one with a more dynamic translation and one more formal (but both avoiding stuff listed under "paraphrase"). Newer translations (i.e. not King James or similar) so as to benefit from the additional scholarship and manuscript discovery since that point. At least one with the OT apocrypha. At least one as a "study bible" that includes notes and commentary. Particularly, I'd suggest the New American Bible (Catholic, dynamic) and the New Revised Standard Version (exists with and without apocrypha, formal). Both are widely-read, modern, and well-thought-of translations. It's possible that you can find all this crammed into one multi-version study Bible, and if that's the case, hey, single volume. But two separate volumes may be a lot simpler for shopping purposes. — Lomn 14:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lomn on all of those points, especially with using multiple translations. There also exists "parallel translation" Bibles, where a single page of text contains multiple common translations side-by-side for comparison. Personally, I use the New International Version for everyday use because I find the language to be the most "natural" among any translation I have read. I find "paraphrase" or "vernacular" Bibles like "The Message" to be far too colloquial and informal, almost to the point of being distracting, and I find the language of the various King James derivatives (such as the New King James and English Standard Version) to be awkward, and I find the NIV hits the perfect medium for me. However, I also recognize that there are problems with the NIV, especially on the way the translation treats certain passages which may present a different meaning than other translations (or the original languages) do. So, I always have other translations handy for when I am trying to answer a "hard" question; and where multiple translations appear to disagree with the NIV, I go with them over the NIV. --Jayron32 14:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NIV is also my standard text of choice, but based on our formal/dynamic article above, it aligns closely with the NAB on that count. I figure NAB is probably the most-read modern English translation that will include the apocrypha by default, and so that left the NIV as somewhat superfluous for my recommendation. Also, regardless of translation, make sure you've looked at the guide for whatever special formatting within the text (as opposed to the study bible non-scriptural addons) means, and make note of them when they appear. For instance, the NIV puts half-bracket thingys around words that have been inferred but don't actually exist in the original texts, such as ˻this˼. I assume other translations have similar notations, though I'm not familiar with them offhand. Ditto textual notes for things like "the earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20" -- these are part of the translation proper and should, in my opinion, be accorded higher status (and in this particular case, "older" is generally a stand-in for "more likely to be what was originally written") than study bible content. — Lomn 15:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As was noted above, the New Testament apocrypha have almost no relevance to any contemporary strand of Christianity, though the Deuterocanonicals/apocrypha of the Old Testament certainly have.

If you are prepared to read several translations (keep in mind that the reading will take a lot of time), you might also consider reading a translation of the Septuagint, the ancient Greek Bible. Most English translations are based primarily on the Hebrew (Masoretic) text of the Old Testament, but the Eastern Orthodox prefer to use the Greek Bible as the standard, which is quite different in some places. You could try A New English Translation of the Septuagint. - Lindert (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worth looking at the NT Apocrypha, if only to learn what doesn't count as canonical as well as what does! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most comprehensive 'canonical' Bible that I'm aware of is the NRSV 'Common Bible' edition, which includes Psalm 151, 3-4 Maccabees, and various other texts only considered canonical in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, in addition to all the regular apocrypha included in Roman Catholic and some Anglican Bibles, and the core text. If you are interested in NT apocrypha, the best I've ever seen is M R James's Apocryphal New Testament, which includes many, many wacky apocryphal gospels. You may also want the recent new edition of the Gospel of Judas, and any of the several recent-ish books to include the Gospel of the Thomas (not the infancy one, but the 'Didymus Judas Thomas' one that was found in a rubbish pit in Egypt). Thomas may represent an authentic, otherwise-lost 'saying source' - but the only copy we've got shows clear signs of Gnostic influence. Another set of intertestamental apocrypha are the Dead Sea Scrolls; I recommend Geza Vermes' The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to start with a copy of "The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha", probably the most recent one based on the New Revised Standard Version. I can't recommend any particular book for the Gnostic Gospels, and such like: most of the ones I've seen seem to have been very poor. 86.164.59.34 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, crap! I was typing a reply shortly after Tammy's post, hit 'save page' and left the house only to return some hours later to see the edit conflict screen and my reply vanished. I haven't had a chance to really look through Alex and 34's comments and links yet, but some of the earlier stuff can maybe help me phrase my request a bit more intelligently. In the article on Biblical canon (thanks for the link!), there are a couple of charts handily coloured in to show which streams of Christianity include or ignore various books. What I want (I think) is something that at very least would create an entirely green column from top to bottom on those charts. Does that make sense? That article also led me to Antilegomena, which is a helpful word I'd never before encountered, and which also seems to include the kinds of things I'd like to see included (I don't think that stuff is on those charts, but maybe I missed it). I think perhaps my use of the word Bible was poorly chosen since it implies a particular "authorized" version; what I'm looking for might be better described as a bunch of texts a religious scholar might want to have on hand so that when some crackpot starting quoting the Apocalypse of Peter or something, he could pull the book of the shelf and check it out. Matt Deres (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it depends on what sort of stuff you want. There's certainly books that collect New Testament Apocrypha (Gospels, Acts, Apocalypses), but would you also want other early Christian writings, such as Liturgies, Martyrologies, Epistles, instructions (the Didache, for example), the Early Church Fathers, etc? Once you start broadening your net, the quantity of stuff that has survived is vast. Not everything is available in English. 86.164.59.34 (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found Robert J. Miller's The Complete Gospels an excellent work. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much recommend that book as well, though the translation (formally known, I believe, as the Scholar's Version/SV) is not the best. It gets the point across well enough, but something about "μαμμωνά" being translated as "bank account" strikes me as a little... well, what's a nice way of saying "half-assed?" Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Semi-buttocked"? "Unicheekular"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Sorry, my bad. I own and can read the Greek New Testament, so I sometimes forget that not everyone else has recourse to the primary source for at least the canonical four. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's some food for thought. Or canon fodder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EU/Canadian Citizenship

Because Canada is part of the British Commonwealth, it is technically part of Great Britain (UK). Since the UK is an EU member, are EU citizens allowed to reside in Canada without long-term visas just like EU citizens are allowed to reside in other EU countries without long-term visas? If so, would the inverse be true as well: EU citizens residing in Canada without long-term visas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.37.22 (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first statement is wrong. Canada is part of the Commonwealth of Nations; it is a co-equal part of that organization with other members, including the United Kingdom. It is not technically a part of the United Kingdom in any way at all. Any question that follows from that assumption is unanswerable, because your premise is completely wrong. --Jayron32 16:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be completely clear, Canada is not a member of the EU and does not offer visa-free residence to the citizens of any EU members, not even the UK. Marco polo (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The connection to the UK lies only in the shared Monarch. It can be confusing, but here: Monarchy in Canada. Mingmingla (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being British makes things easier to obtain residency, but for other reasons. Canada has a point system in place, proficiency in English brings 24 points, and the passing mark is 67. Other criteria are degrees, work experience, age, spouse, and French. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that by "inverse" you are asking about Canadians residing in the EU, then no, that is not possible. As mentioned, Canada is not part of the UK and therefore not part of the EU. When I (a Canadian) lived in France, I had to get a long-term visa and work permit from the French consulate, which was valid for several months, and then I had to get a residence card from the Prefecture in the département in France where I was living, which had to be renewed every year. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article that covers a modern war on the Korean peninsula?

There's a lot of information floating around about the likelihood of a war with North Korea, and what it would look like if it actually happened. Does such an article exist already? All I can find is one about the war in the 60's. I'm looking for something like World War III, but specifically about North Korea. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused what you want, so you're probably going to have to clarify: 1) Do you want a Wikipedia article about such a possible conflict, or are you looking for an article somewhere else in the world? 2) Do you want serious academic articles about a possible new Korean conflict, or do you want some "alternate history" or "future history" type fictional accounts of such a war? Or do you want something else entirely? If you can tell us more specifically what you're looking for, we can maybe help you find it better. --Jayron32 18:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm looking either for a Wikipedia article about such a possible conflict, or academic articles about a possible new Korean conflict. I've been browsing reddit and everyone has their own theories. I'm curious what the experts are expecting. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea–South Korea relations may present the best starting point for post-Korean War conflicts on the Peninsula. There are links to follow from there to various actual fighting as well as various summits and talks that discuss such issues. --Jayron32 18:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyvm! PraetorianFury (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the Korean War was in the early 1950s. You were probably confusing it with the Vietnam War, which reached it's peak in the 1960s. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, the Korean War has never ended, it's just been under a truce for a few decades. Jayron's link should help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to "what it would look like if it actually happened"; see North Korea: The War Game, "In recent years Pentagon experts have estimated that the first ninety days of such a conflict might produce 300,000 to 500,000 South Korean and American military casualties, along with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. The damage to South Korea alone would rock the global economy." Rather more detail is in an article called N Korea Military Tactics In A War With US by Han Ho Suk, Director Center for Korean Affairs, which seems to have been written from a North Korean perspective. It rather amusingly refers to the North Korean strategy as "Blitz Klieg" (several times). Alansplodge (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather more realistic is Korean nightmare: Experts ponder potential conflict (CNN). Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read both of these articles from top to bottom. Chilling how 100,000 South Korean casualties is an optimistic estimate. And then running around in the anarchy of post-Kim North Korea trying to find all the WMDs before terrorist capture them... This is a nightmare. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though wikipedia got a article on Predictions of Soviet collapse it does not have article on Predictions of collapse of North Korea

which I will pray to happen as quickly as possible. Solomon7968 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was pointed out on the evening news today that North Korea does kind of thing every year about this time, except they're rattling the sabers a bit louder this year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is something I have not seen before. Not in recent years, at least. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Server location and law

If I have a company in country A and am running a company website from a server located in country B, which law applies to the website/server, country A's or country B's? More specifically I am interested in the following situation: A=Poland, B=France and law="the law which says that there should be a message warning users that the website uses cookies". Just out of curiosity, what if the website is run from several servers in more than one country (e.g. via Load_balancing_(computing))? bamse (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although specific info about that subject, concerning Wikipedia itself, pops up from time to time, for a given hypothetical situation you would need to consult an expert on international law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The law isn't even clear on this. Kim Dotcom, physically in New Zealand, a citizen of Germany, operating a company in Hong Kong, with servers in Canada, was charged with violating laws in the United States. These things get complicated, and even the legal system isn't quite sure what's supposed to happen. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this _specific_ case, the law Directive 2009/136/EC applies to both countries, as both are members of the EU. However, it's not possible to answer the more general question. Tevildo (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See personal jurisdiction, extraterritorial jurisdiction, and long arm statute. Shadowjams (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 30

How "freely given" are the sacraments?

"Seven in number, by tradition, they must be asked for and freely given."

So, anybody can come up to a Catholic priest and ask for a sacrament? And they are freely given? How freely given is "freely given"? So, an unbaptized person may ask a Catholic priest, "May I please receive a baptism?" and the Catholic priest would immediately baptize the person at that moment without checking on that person's sincerity on becoming a Catholic? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be looking for an argument. But assuming you aren't, freely means voluntarily, not unconditionally. The priest is not being coerced. See Baptism#Roman_Catholicism and Religious_conversion#Christianity as a start. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Haha. I guess I interpreted it as voluntarily. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about immediately, as the priest may a) have a few questions and b) may wish to make arrangements for a proper ceremony to be held. But in general, no, a priest will not deliberately withhold baptism from anyone who earnestly seeks it. He may ask you questions to learn how earnest you are, and you may be required to go through adult catechism, as adults that seek conversion to Catholicism typically go through a procedure that involves combining baptism, first communion, and confirmation, and there are classes to take which prepare you for it. It should be noted that if you have questions in this regard, you're free to call your local Catholic parish. Literally every priest in the world will answer them for you and will do so without making you feel bad or in other ways doing things that will make you uncomfortable. They would be glad to answer those questions, and do so without obligating you to anything. If you want to read more at Wikipedia Sacraments of the Catholic Church has more information. --Jayron32 00:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An old Jewish man is crossing the street and is hit by a car. A Catholic priest witnesses the accident, and while not knowing the old man, he begins to administer the Last rites: "Do you believe in the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost?" The old man looks skyward and cries, "I'm dying, and he's asking me riddles!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral Creation of Microstates

I was researching on Foreign Relations of Israel. The major supporters of Israel except the United States are the Island Nations like Marshall Islands, Nauru etc which does not matter in diplomacy but as they yield a position in the United Nation they play a major role in votes on Resolution. I am curious whether a big country such as United States or Russia, India can unilaterally make Microstate enclave within their territory so as to increase the number of follower state of it within its Sphere of Influence.

Prominent Examples coming in my mind include:

United States can make Alaska a independent Puppet state
India can give independence to Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Though none of these places have actually any secessionist movement but are there any international law about whether such creation of sovereign states are allowed. Prominent example of such unilateral declaration include in the independence of Singapore though Singapore is not a ally to Malyasia Solomon7968 (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The USSR did it in the 1940s. Through their demands, Belarus and The Ukraine were given full member status in the United Nations, even though they themselves were constituent republics of the USSR (which had its own seat). It would be sorta like if the U.S. had gotten separate seats at the UN for California and Texas. See Member states of the United Nations. --Jayron32 01:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they tried to get UN membership for Georgia, then the US could ask for membership for Georgia, too. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The United States cannot make any of its constituent states a puppet state, as secession is illegal. Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands could be granted independence... RNealK (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it is not right that secession is illegal. But that the Constitution does not clearly mentions the topic of Secession in the United States Solomon7968 (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Right" in the legal sense, or the moral sense? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major tangent from the OPs question. Shadowjams (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nanny speaketh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the OP meant 'correct' so I agree with Shadowjams here. The OP may be mistaken, but there's no reason to go off on this tangent. Nil Einne (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Texas v. White, secession is illegal in the United States. RNealK (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to apply for UN membership. See Member states of the United Nations. And see Bantustan#International recognition for a South African apartheid policy that didn't work well. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of states with limited recognition is relevant for the general question of international recognition. If you're worried about vote packing in the U.N., it's practically irrelevant for the permanent security council members; they'll just veto anything of significance. The microstate article doesn't really describe what I think you're asking about. I suppose larger non-security member countries could attempt to gain voting for states they prefer or control or influence, but that's hardly new. That the other members need to agree to their inclusion is a check. Shadowjams (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christians in Pakistan ethnic groups

How many ethnic groups is the Christian community in Pakistan divided into?--Donmust90 (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Christianity in Pakistan would be a good place to start your research on the subject. I would be shocked if any of the major ethnic groups in Pakistan had zero Christian adherents. --Jayron32 02:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Christian community divided? HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus And Foreign Investors Fleeing

... big foreign investors are expected to seek ways to flee from the country Why?Curb Chain (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if they're speaking literally or figuratively. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get this north korea thing

I read somewhere that North Korea officially declared war on the united states. isn't NK also a nuclear power? why would america just kind of ignore this. I don't really get this. --86.101.32.82 (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The North Korean state has a history of making bellicose and vitriolic threats to South Korea and other nations which it perceives to be its enemies; until an invasion is staged or a rocket is fired the overwhelmingly likelihood is that it's just rhetoric which shouldn't be taken seriously. North Korea, despite having one of the largest militaries in the world, isn't a nuclear armed power, despite it's attempts at nuclear proliferation. North Korean society places a huge emphasis on military drills, parades etc. However, many countries believe that the majority of North Koreas weapons are outdated. It's also almost universally accepted that North Korean weapons are incapable of being successfully fired at the mainland United States; however, some of their rockets may be able to reach the Hawaiian archipelago or Guam. I think that the general consensus is to worry about it when something actually happens, not just when the heavily government controlled North Korean media say it will. Hope this helped --Andrew 12:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Korean War ended in a stalemate and a cease fire agreement, but no formal peace treaty was ever signed. So technically, North Korea and the United States have remained "at war" with each other since the 1950s. The United States respects the cease fire agreement, and will not be the first to violate it. If North Korea violates the cease fire, the U.S. will respond. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"North Korea.. isn't a nuclear armed power." Well, it depends on how you define that. They have detonated weapons in the 10 kiloton range — that's enough to kill many tens of thousands of people if targeted in the right place, and we don't really know whether the devices they've detonated were done so at full power or whether their yield was correctly estimated (there are reasons why a state might detonate a nuclear device at partial yield — the Soviets did it all the time — and there are difficulties in estimating yield through seismic evidence alone). They probably have a nuclear capability for hitting South Korea or Japan or China. They don't yet have the rocket capability to accurately hit a target on the American homeland. So that's still pretty "nuclear armed" by most people's definitions, though they aren't really in a true second strike status with regards to the United States. But since Japan and South Korea are key US allies, there is potentially a form of extended deterrence at work. -Mr.98 (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for why it is "ignored"... it's not ignored. There are heaps of analysts, politicians, planners, diplomats, and so on doing a lot of not ignoring it. If you're really asking, "why doesn't the US attack them?", it's because the consequences of such a thing would be unpleasant enough to be worth avoiding if possible. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to attack them, at least not yet. One issue is practical: How many wars can we afford to be involved in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The United States doesn't like to declare war. It never declared war on the Communist Koreans or China when they entered the Korean conflict in 1950. Instead, the United States acts on United Nations Secruity Council resolutions. It needs to be protected by the Secruity Council resolutions before engaging in military operations. The United States can't invade Syria because the Secruity Council resolution was vetoed by Russia and China.
Sleigh (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The United States doesn't like to declare war." Well, they don't declare them anymore, but they certainly [participate in them], hype them, encourage them, etc., when the government sees it as being in its interests. Since World War II the US has basically been at war at least once a decade, often many times more than that; arguably it has rushed to war numerous times when its interests (we now know) would have been better served had it not (Vietnam, Iraq II, etc.). The US instigated the Security Council resolutions in question, and has acted unilaterally a large number of times. The simple fact is that attacking North Korea at the moment is not in US interests. North Korea knows that and is exploiting that fact for political gain. The real question on everyone's mind is, how far can they go before not attacking becomes more costly than attacking? If the North invaded the South tomorrow, you can bet the US would get involved no matter what the UNSC said. If they nuked Seoul tomorrow, you can bet there would be a heavy retaliation (though not necessarily a nuclear one). But in between what the North is doing now, and those particular outcomes, is a gulf of undetermined size. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the North nuked South Korea, I think a nuclear retaliation by the U.S. is a realistic possibility. At the very least a complete invasion of North Korea would occur. I don't think they're suicidal though. Shadowjams (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An invasion wouldn't work, NK has too large of an army with too many weapons. Even manned airplane strikes would be risky. That leaves missile strikes, either conventional or nuclear, and UAVs. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the revisionists who think we didn't need to drop the big one on Japan to get them to surrender, can offer some advice on how we should deal with the North Korea situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, you're probably right, about Syria for example. The issue with North Korea is somewhat different, in that (1) we're already involved; and (2) there's a reasonable chance China and Russia could take action themselves, as North Korea has now become "bad for business", at least for China. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the nuclear taboo (that's a red link??) would have a heavy retaliation for sure. Threatening to do it, apparently doesn't ensue a concrete predictable response, although I am sure South Korea, Japan and the US would be happy is North Korea just crumbled or entered in a kind of North Korean spring. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try the link without the word "the". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, still doesn't work. Where should it redirect to? Mutually assured destruction? Tevildo (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A search indicates that the term "nuclear taboo" appears in several articles, but there's no article with that name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NK doesn't perceive SK or its Western allies as enemies. It perceives them as easy marks, especially as it was encouraged to do so by Jimmy Carter's "negotiations" for "humanitarian aid" during the Clinton "administration". Do we have an article playground bully? μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's simplifying things too much. I get the impression that North Korea believes a lot of its propaganda a lot more than the rest of the world gives it credit for. That said, the high ranking officials are logical and so in effect, it is saber rattling for certain ambitions. There are some very good strategic defense blogs that talk about North Korea from people that have spent time in diplomatic or military contexts and have reason to comment, if you're interested. I won't link any here, but a quick google search pops up some good ones. Shadowjams (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the US ignores NK enough. In particular, flying a pair of stealth fighters over SK was not wise. It just feeds right into NK paranoia. I wonder who approved that exercise. They apparently aren't very bright. StuRat (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection of Jesus

Does it not seem more plausible that Jesus wasn't actually killed on the cross, just severely wounded to the point of appearing dead. This seems to me to be infinitely more plausible than rising from the dead. Do any theologians support this view? --Andrew 11:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of any theologians who support the idea... I can think of a lot of "speculative historians" (or pseudo-historians, depending on ones POV) who advocate it. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can form the concept of something, I'm sure somebody somewhere believes in it deeply, but it's sure not a mainstream thing. It's not a new idea. On the other hand, if you subscribe to the Christ myth theory that Jesus was part of the Dying-and-rising god continuum, then it would seem that the dying portion was of paramount importance, having been part of the story since long before it was attached to Jesus. Matt Deres (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to check out Historicity and origin of the Resurrection of Jesus. IBE (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or... not. That is an awful article. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made it somewhat better. Could probably be trimmed a little. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. Hence I downplayed it a bit, "you might like to" - I still think people should check these kinds of things out. Otherwise they appear to be seeking a debate, even when the question itself is perfectly reasonable. IBE (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once you start getting into "what's likely", there are lots and lots of "more likely" scenarios than a guy getting killed and magically coming back alive three days later fit as a fiddle. The key thing about guessing likelihood or probability is that it is based on "normal" experience. The miraculous, by definition, is not meant to be parsed through such a way of thinking. Either you believe it or you don't. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - it is all about faith. For a different take on the same subject, see Islamic view of Jesus' death. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer I (as a Christian) would give is that neither of these things is likely, or plausible. Substituting a possible, but implausible thing for an impossible, miraculous thing does not actually tell us any more about Jesus the man, or about the story. The key thing is that the disciples clearly thought Jesus had returned to them in some sense - at least, according to early accounts. You can also consider (1) querying the reliability of the gospels, bearing in mind that Mark's Gospel, the earliest, seems originally not to have included any resurrection appearances, or (2) querying the necessity of a corporeal resurrection - the ability of the risen Christ to pass through locked doors, and appear and disappear at will, does not sound like an ordinary corporeal human. I don't think we can draw firm conclusions, but I prefer to think at least that the gospel-writers did not deliberately falsify their accounts; so something strange happened, but who knows what? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One recent theory is that the Turin Shroud was used to somehow demonstrate the Resurrection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Turin Shroud appears to originate in Turkey quite a while after the life of Jesus, I doubt it. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that question has been settled yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favourite titles for a Wikipedia article is "Swoon Hypothesis", which is about this very subject. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per David Hume:"When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable that this person should either deceive or be deceived or that the fact which he relates should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other and according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce my decision. Always I reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates, then and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.” --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a long winded way of saying Occam's razor. However, Christianity says that, despite the logical absurdity of a truly dead person coming back to life of their own volition (or even due to some external agent), it really did happen that way. That's the point of the faith. Nobody could ever prove it happened, but followers are enjoined to believe it happened. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus rising from the dead, and God talking directly to Muhammad... two seemingly improbably events, and the bases of two of the largest religious faiths in the history of humankind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: Comedian Sam Kinison had a wonderfully irreverent routine about the reaction of the Apostles to the resurrection... "AAAHHHH... the dead walk!" (I am surprised that the idea of Zombie Jesus has not been more fully explored.) Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Largest Muslim population in numbers France Italy Netherlands by city

Which city in France has the largest Muslim population in numbers only, not percentage?; which city in Italy has the largest Muslim population in numbers only, not percentage? and which city in the Netherlands has the largest Muslim population in numbers only, not percentage? Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Donmust90, why do you keep asking us for these individual bits of data, rather than following the frequent well-intentioned advice you receive on how to do the research yourself? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in France, Islam in Italy, and Islam in the Netherlands seem to be good starters. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do seem to have a bizarrely large number of Reference Desk questions (148 of them) on this topic. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Islam in France, Islam in Italy and Islam in the Netherlands seem to be good starters but unfortunately they are not. The reason I want to know is because recently two years ago, Birmingham in England had the largest Muslim population in the nation with 234,411. Ever since then, I have declared Aston Villa F.C. as my favourite soccer/football team in the Premier League because of the Muslim population. In Ligue 1, my favourite is Marseille but I am not sure if it has the largest Muslim population in the nation. In Serie A, my favourite team is AC Milan but again same thing as Marseille case and in Netherlands, it is either Amsterdam or Rotterdam and once again, same case like Marseille and Milan. Besides that, I want to play these teams including Aston Villa on XBOX 360 FIFA 13 once I get it. When it comes to results, all I get is percentage of Muslim population in France, Italy and Netherlands.--Donmust90 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Donmust90, a percentage is as meaningful as a number. You could always calculate the approximate number of Muslims in a given location using the percentage of Muslims of that location and the total population of people in that location. I also wonder how soccer/football has to do with countries with the largest Muslim population. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might just search google for "muslim men in tights". Make sure that's a safe search. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis and 65.24.105 are not helping. How can I calculate the approximate number of Muslims in a given location using the percentage of Muslims of that location and the total population of people in Marseilles, Milan, and Amsterdam. My math power is not that great. Is there a website that shows how to do it? Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Donmust90, I'd really appreciate an answer to my question above. Why do you keep asking us for these individual bits of data? However, I can tell you how to calculate percentages: take the number of the subgroup (eg Muslims), divide it by the total population in question, and then multiply the result by 100. There is nothing magic about percentages: they are just ordinary fractions multiplied by 100. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer your question AlexTiefling. It was about that I can claim team of Serie A, Ligue 1 and Eredivisie is my favourite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask 'Why do you need to know this?'. I asked 'Why don't you do the research yourself, instead of demanding the data piecemeal from us?' That question has absolutely nothing to do with football. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be more direct. The purpose of this page is (sometimes to identify objects and then) to point you to the relevant articles or reference materials for your investigation. It is not to do your homework for you, even if, as in your case, the question "which cities in various local regions have the highest muslim populations so I can root for their soccer teams" is self-assigned.
You have, in good faith, by patient editors, been told repeatedly what sort of resources are available. We can't do the necessary reading or calculations for you, or update you every time one city pulls ahead of another in a certain demographic. Considering your editing habits, why am I reminded of this recent story in the news? μηδείς (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No statement of use filed"

http://trademarks.justia.com/853/47/phineas-and-ferb-85347421.html

This page says that Disney applied for a trademark on "Phineas and Ferb", for category 29, which includes meat, jams, eggs, etc. They abandoned it. Does this mean that I could start a meat extract business, apply for the name "Phineas and Ferb", and possibly be legally allowed to call my meat extract the same name as a major media brand, so long as I didn't use their images? Completely theoretical, of course, I don't want to become a food processor, let alone one with the same name as a cartoon. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering this would be giving legal advise. Even if you used the word "theoretical" in your question. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A (somewhat) useful non-answer would be that it's quite likely that Disney's lawyers are among the very best in the US at trademark and copyright law. It's not called "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act" (in jest) for nothing. Regardless of whether your use is illegal or not, you would find yourself in for a very vigorous response from the company. Up to a point, the sheer will and money they can throw at you would likely be overwhelming. Matt Deres (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 31

Bardi in Hawaii

What were Prince Henry, Count of Bardi and Infanta Adelgundes, Duchess of Guimarães doing in Hawaii in 1889? re there anything written about this visit even if it was a private excursion like in books, diaries or newspapers?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They visited Hawaii while returning home after a two-year trip to Indonesia, according to this. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom troupes

While I was hiking with my friends at Mt. Manalmon here at the Philippines, our guide told us about the bandang gala (literally wandering band). This band will play musical instruments in one part of the dense mountain jungle. When a curious soul attempts to follow where the sound comes from, they would not see the band. Instead, the band will resume playing on another side of the jungle.

Are there any similar mythological creatures in your countries? --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no music involved, but the apparently evasive "behaviour" is somewhat similar to the will-o'-the-wisp. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the leprechaun with the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, which, of course, you can never reach. StuRat (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems that these creatures belongs to the subgroup that wants you to get lost in the forest :)--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allegory of Goodness?

In the article at Dresden one of the photos includes a statue referred to as the "allegory of goodness". I tried a Wikipedia search and it didn't return an article. Who or what is the allegory of goodness? Is it like a Saint? RudolfRed (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, a saint is a real person, who has been elevated to the rank of saint after death (there are other definitions, but I think that's the one you're using here). The Allegory of Goodness sounds like a personification of an intangible quality, not unlike the Statue of Liberty. In other words, not a real person. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some info on the artist, Peter Pöppelmann, and some of his other works: [3]. German Wikipedia has a brief article on him, too: [4]. StuRat (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks. RudolfRed (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have commons:Category:Allegories of virtues... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apartment building called colony in South Asia

Why in South Asia, especially in Bangladesh, they call some apartment buildings "colony"?--Donmust90 (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Well, a colony is a group of organisms working together. This sounds like an optimistic view of the dwellers of an apartment building. StuRat (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, in India the term is used for various levels of administrative districts or geographical subdivisions although usually smaller neighbourhood level and sometimes unofficial ones, often with some degree of shared purpose (e.g. there is at least Air India colony, see for example Santacruz, Mumbai). There is some discussion of the term here [5]. I'm less sure in Bangladesh but even in that case from what I can tell the term isn't generally used for apartment buildings per se, but for a subdivision, such as a group of apartment buildings. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We also have our colonies in Edinburgh. Dalliance (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

different gun control campaign

Shortly after the Columbine High School shooting, there was this gun control campaign. It was called "Butterflies Not Bullets". Many celebrities, including Sting, called for more stricter gun laws. The campaign even sold T-shirts to raise more money for the cause. Is the campaign still in existance? If yes, does it have a website?142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there was such a thing, it didn't have much impact -- a Google search for that phrase shows nothing whatsoever. Looie496 (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where the money raised went. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All that gun control money from Bloomberg could save thousands of lives in Africa with polio vaccines and eliminating malaria (way more than the thousands of non suicide homicides from guns in the U.S.), but I guess they don't vote in New York Mayorial Elections. Shadowjams (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although you could make the same argument (that more lives could be saved if the money was spent in Africa) about any domestic charity. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you describe Bloomberg's anti-gun campaign as a charity? μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did. Alansplodge (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most infamous was the Beryl H. Buck will case, where $400 million in 1980s dollars was left to charities in Marin County, California (hardly a high-needs area). We don't seem to have anything about it on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of proper life skills education on women

Have there been any studies measuring the impact of giving proper life skills education to women. I am particularly interested in knowing which (if any) life skills are more important for women then men, and how much is the school education system in India able to impart such skills. Has any study attempted to measure this? Thanks--Shahab (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to list which "life skills" you mean. If you mean education for traditional women's rolls, the most obvious would be child-rearing skills, since almost every society gives that roll primarily to women. So, if women are taught those skills, the next generation should benefit (unfortunately, if child-rearing skills are just passed on from generation to generation, many wont do as well). Or do you mean life skills like handling money and budgets ? StuRat (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the core life skills as per WHO: Decision-making and problem-solving (skills); Creative thinking and critical thinking (skills); communication and interpersonal skills; self-awareness and empathy; and coping with emotions and coping with stress (skills). Now there is no way that these skills can be quantified absolutely, but if they can be measured in some way then the question arises as to what is that way, which of these should be emphasized in women, and whether it is done so. I am searching for studies which answer this question.--Shahab (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean basic education? Well, want a short hypothetical? Let's say you have two identical populations of 1 million people, one population educates and governs everyone equally, the other educates only the men, allows the legal system only for men. The population that educates all million of their population is going to do better than the one that doesn't. At least I think. 2,000+ years of civilization have tended to favor civilizations that let everyone participate... Wikipedia is a brilliant small example of this in practice. Shadowjams (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I mean. I am not even sure whether what you mean by basic education is the same as life skills as defined above as per WHO. I am not talking of reading, writing, arithmetic etc here. And just to clarify even more my question is about what studies have shown that certain (which?) life skills are beneficial for women (individually) in comparison to men.--Shahab (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is not a bad place to search for studies, if you can find the right keywords. Some findings from there - Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India, The Differential Effect of Mothers' Education on Mortality of Boys and Girls in India, Education and Women's Labour Market Outcomes in India, Death Clustering, Mothers' Education and the Determinants of Child Mortality in Rural Punjab, Post-elementary education, poverty and development in India, and Maternal education and the utilization of maternal and child health services in India.

However, it might be better to search the WHO site to find studies that directly address life skills by their definition. I plugged in core life skills women india and got hits like these - Life Skills Education for Children and Adolescents in Schools and Skills for Health. You can also try emailing WHO, though they don't promise to answer :( 184.147.116.201 (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Variations upon variations

I’m not sure whether this question should be posted to the “Entertainment” or “Humanities” desk, but as the question is more about music theory rather than the music itself, I have decided to post here.

I have a few questions about “variations on a theme” in classical music that I hope you can help me with. I have read Variation (music) but am, I’m afraid, non-the-wiser.

1) Is each variation a different variation on the original theme, or a variation on the preceding variation? In practice, would there be any difference? I could imagine that the second scenario, variation on variation, would lead to the Nth variation having little or no resemblance to the original. Is this right?

2) Are both valid scenarios?

3) Could you point me to well-known examples of these two scenarios?

4) Is there different terminology to identify these scenarios?

Many thanks for your help. CoeurDeHamster (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says: ... material is repeated in an altered form. The changes may involve harmony, melody, counterpoint, rhythm, timbre, orchestration or any combination of these. That is, it's possible to vary a theme in many different ways, but it's not possible to utilise all these ways simultaneously, hence a number of different variations are possible, limited only by the imaginations of the composers involved. Each variation takes the original as its starting point and applies some change(s) to it. For two examples of how different composers have varied the same theme, see Caprice No. 24 (Paganini) and Vaterländischer Künstlerverein. I think that might forestall your later questions, but others might have a different view. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it's the first scenario, but to an extent variations are related: they will tend to build towards the climax of the piece. This article seems to suggest something like your second scenario in one example from Schumannn, though without reading the whole paper, I'm unsure how far the progression goes. Henry ^Flower 09:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If my recollection is correct, some of the Goldberg Variations could be seen as modifications of the previous ones, but that's not the usual case. Of course it is always desired to have a nice musical relationship between consecutive variations, but they are commonly more strongly related to the original simple theme than to each other. My favorite sets of variations are movement 2 of Schubert's Death and the Maiden Quartet, and the largo from Beethoven's 7th Symphony. Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to think if any of the Goldberg Variations did that (were modifications of previous ones), but I couldn't see that any really did. There's an overarching pattern that can seem like the variations are "building on each other" (the increasing interval width of the canons, for example). And some of the variations lead one right into the next. And var. 16 is in the style of a two part overture-fugue kind of thing. And there are definitely larger dramatic patterns, such as the increasing virtuosostic (sp?) rush toward the end. But I can't think of any examples where one variation is clearly a modification of a previous one without also fitting into one of the larger overarching structural patterns. I could be wrong through. I'd be curious to learn if such things did exist in the Goldbergs, as I'm quite a fan of them. Pfly (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuosic. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th movement of Beethoven's String Quartet No. 14 is a long theme and variations work. And if I remember right at least some of the variations evolve very smoothly one into the next, with "modifications" such as adding more and more trills and the like. Pfly (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a musical analogy of the mathematical axiom "Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other". Variation B might seem to have grown out of, and therefore related to, Variation A, but it could equally seem to have come directly from the original theme. It's all in the perception. The logical extreme of your 2nd question is that a set of variations each of which is applied to the preceding variation rather than to the original theme (apart from the first variation) will eventually result in a "variation" that has no relationship whatever to the original theme. In which case, it has ceased to be a variation on that theme. I suppose one could take the Moonlight Sonata and, by progressively varying it, turn it into Fur Elise. But that would be in the realm of the musical equivalent of word play, rather than variation per se. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

scenario pertaining to law

Sorry, we don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Say my friend gave me a package allegedly containing "herbs" – which were actually drugs. I didn't know; I wasn't aware about the contents. Does that make me innocent or still guilty? I have heard of such similar cases – they all got executed. Isn't that unfair? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent posts put you firmly in the assumed to be troll category. There's a legal doctrine related to your question though. Shadowjams (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Bonkers wrote Watermelon stereotype around the time (s)he posted another question considered "trolling", I'd reconsider. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, Bonkers... this isn't the place for legal discussions. I'd read up on the laws in your jurisdiction, mens rea, and perhaps Strict liability (not sure if it applies). Our article on Drug possession is useless. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Singaporean laws really regard mens rea when it comes to drug trafficking. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I, considering how they treat spitting. Strict liability would be something to look into... although I hope they still hold to reasonable doubt as a standard of evidence. Any further and you'd have to do your own research... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@shadowjams: How am I a troll? I don't get it dude. I apologise if I actually sound like one; just so to note Im not. Trolls are trolls; clowns are clowns. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I remembere:::d you don't give legal advice. This is a hypothetical question, though. Not that I ever will pedal drugs illegally. Thanks anyway. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pedalling drugs may have a comeback if fuel prices increase, but at the moment you probably not only don't pedal drugs, you also don't peddle them ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bit too close, I think. Especially for Singaporean law, which 99% of editors know little about. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How may a page describing a new philosophy of Arts be submitted, with only a website for reference?

I have developed a new philosophy of art, and wish to prepare a Wikipedia information page.There is a website, but at current time, this is the only outside verifying source...Is this sufficient for an acceptable Wikipage ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.75.225.139 (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. See our guidelines on notability for websites and notability in general. Wikipedia is not a place to talk about brand new things that have received zero independent coverage. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someguy is correct... your new philosophy may be excellent, but you are probably going to have to wait a while before Wikipedia can have an article about it... to qualify for coverage in Wikipedia the subject or topic must first be discussed in reliable sources that are independent of the subject or topic. Also... please note that as the originator of this new philosophy, you do have a conflict of interest. Assuming your philosophy does become notable enough for an article, it would be better to let someone else start the article on your creation. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, along with the page, would be to develop an article and submit it to a journal. Take a look at the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism and the British Journal of Aesthetics, among others. Look at recent papers and see on what people are writing. You can enter the debate by responding to the current topics from your own perspective. For example, in the most recent issue of the Br. J. Aesthetics there is reproduced a symposium on the topic of Catherine Wilson's "Grief and the Poet". The problem being posed is explaining why there is a desire for works of art which raise negative emotions like grief and fear. How does your philosophy answer to these issues, and, more importantly, why is your answer better than others'? That's something you can write on and, if reviewers find it sufficiently interesting, have published. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foreigner baptism in Church of England?

Out of curiosity, may a person travel to England from the U.S. and be baptized in the Church of England? Will the person's new faith cause a perception of a shift of loyalty from the United States to England even though the person is really loyal to Jesus Christ? Is that person still allowed to keep his/her American citizenship, or will that citizenship be revoked because that person is considered an Anglican? Or would the First Amendment of the Constitution grant permission for the person to remain a U.S. citizen, allowing the person to practice his/her faith? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of Anglicans in the US - see Episcopal Church (United States). If you become an Anglican in England, there is no requirement to take any oath of loyalty to the Queen, although you might hear prayers for her continued well being.[6][7] I'm certain that there are no issues that affect US citizenship. The Church of England also accepts those who have been Baptised in other Trinitarian or "mainstream" churches, without the need to be Baptised again.[8] Alansplodge (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you capitalize the 'b' in 'Baptised'? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My only excuse is that the almost obsolete Book of Common Prayer uses capitals for the names of the sacraments in some cases[9] and it feels rather odd to me not to do so. You'll just have to humour me I'm afraid, because I'm not changing now. Alansplodge (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you come up with these rather odd and very complicated ideas yourself, or did some source suggest them to you? Is there some reason why you would think a person could not travel to England, or be baptized while he was there? In whose eyes would there be a "perception of a shift of loyalty"? Is there a church of the United States? By loyalty to Jesus Christ, do you mean Jesus is English? Or a military ally of Great Britain? Or owes fealty to Elizabeth? Are you aware of some procedure by which Americans have their citizenship stripped due to religious affiliation? Does the First Amendment say anything about citizenship? Could you advise us of where these ideas came from so we can examine the source and criticize it directly? μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the OP, if you read that the CofE was the state religion, it might imply that membership of it involved some loyalty to the state, which might not be your own. It wasn't that long ago in the UK and the US that Catholics were suspected of having greater loyalty to the Pope than to their own government; I believe that this issue was raised about JFK.[10] If one wished to become a priest in the Church of England, one would indeed have to swear "the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign and the oath of canonical obedience to the Bishop."[11] Anyway; question asked - question answered - politely and I hope correctly. That's what we're here for, isn't it? Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What type of church would a new Christian choose?

Out of all the Christian denominations, in all places of the world, a Christian is presumably limited to the number of Christian churches in his or her geographical location, politics of the area, and family heritage. So, which church would a Christian newbie choose, provided that each church is allowed to be practiced in a certain area and that the newbie has no Christian ancestors? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question that anyone except the "newbie Christian" could answer. The choice could be predicated on something as simple as "How far do I have to walk to attend a service?" to something as complex as "What are the beliefs and practices of the current Pastor/Reverend/Priest?", and all the places in between. Bielle (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He would choose the one that feels like the right one. That feeling could be based on any number of things, not the least of which is how well he is treated by the congregation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. The decision would probably be 95% based on the attitude of the congregation towards the new Christian and 5% based on the beliefs of the denomination. That being said, at least in America, I'm finding sources that say Mormonism [12] and Seventh-Day Adventism [13] [14] which is interesting since they are both closer to the fringe of Christianity. Ryan Vesey 22:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your question means in that form. Surely in most cases someone would be attracted towards Christianity by having friends who were Christian or reading books or articles written by Christians, and therefore one would be likely to give first consideration to the denominations which the friends belong to, or which the authors belong to. Don't think it's too common for someone to self-convert to Christianity by pure cogitation in isolation from any surrounding social ties or intellectual context... AnonMoos (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Van Asten

GVA wrote three Arthurian type fantasy novels which I very much enjoyed in my teenage years.

The Blind Knight (1988)

Charlemagne's Champion (1990)

The Dark Sword's Lover (1990)

These appear to be her only books. Having recently rediscovered them, I've been searching for information on the author without success. I'd be interested in any scraps out there. Dalliance (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

Suzani textiles

Hi, I need to find a supplyer of this kind of textiles are there any sites on the web where you can find several suppliers and get in touch with them? I have looked in the web for this info but can't find anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzani_textile Thanks very much Tam –