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 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]

Mostly Sindhis and Punjabis, and most of their ancestors were converted Hindus. Converted muslims are rare although not non existent, and Pashtuns and Baluch are all 100% Muslim, and have extremely tribal cultures with honor codes.Rajmaan (talk) 01:36, 4 April 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]

Until recently, Cyprus played the role of a trusted offshore tax haven.^[1] It's likely the article is talking about the financial assets of foreign investors "fleeing" Cyprus to other known tax havens such as Switzerland, Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands, Dubai and Singapore, among others. According to the New York Times, in the aftermath of the Cyprus crisis these other tax haven countries have been quietly marketing their banks as "stable alternative[s]"^[2] for financial investors "fleeing" the bank crisis in Cyprus.

But are not investors businesses, not depositors?Curb Chain (talk) 11:22, 3 April 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]

My understanding, and I could be totally wrong here, that the yield of every test so far has been small enough that it could have been fake. That is, conventional explosives were used to fake a nuclear explosion so that everyone would think that North Korea is a nuclear power. The third test in particular showed no radiation at all, last I read. I thought that was kind of suspicious. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:24, 4 April 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]

The potential nuclear threat from NK is definitely not "ignored". On March 15 2013, United States Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, led a press briefing at the Pentagon announcing that The Department of Defense would be investing $1 billion into ballistic missile interceptors along the US Pacific Coast to counter North Korea’s potential weapon capabilities. ^[3] General C. Robert Kehler, the commander of the United States Strategic Command, is quoted as saying: “Deterring North Korea from acting irrationally is our No. 1 priority.”^[4] No matter the nuclear capabilities of NK, the Pentagon is not ignoring their hostile posturing.

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]

Why, Bugs, what a nice bridge you've found to live under... --Mr.98 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 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]

It should probably have its own article; it's a common topic in international security discussions, whether it really exists or not, how it came about, what could lead to its dissolution, etc. It's not MAD. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 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]

The fears of most of the DPRK wonks at the moment are that the North might go too far and provoke an actual response from South Korea, which would be very hard to back out off. It's saber rattling but saber rattling can be dangerous. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 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]

I'm sure the White House is just itching for your well-thought out, well-researched policy paper on the subject... --Mr.98 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 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]

Somewhere I read (Therefore it's true!! Right?) that the Islamic belief is that Jesus did not in fact die on the cross, so the resurrection was illusory. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:27, 3 April 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]

Actually, Allah (God) did not talk directly to Muhammad... Islamic doctrine is that the Koran was dictated by the Angel Gabriel. The words were God's, but the voice was Gabriel's. Of course, to a non-believer that is probably just as seemingly improbable as God speaking for himself (or God engraving his words on stone tablets). Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 1 April 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]

Where have you been? It's pretty much the most clichéd atheist mockery of Christianity, along with the phrase "sky daddy". 86.161.209.128 (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the more amusing variants is the suggestion to publish the Bible as a pulp double feature, titled "War God of Ancient Israel" and "The Thing from the Crypt". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:11, 1 April 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: [1]. German Wikipedia has a brief article on him, too: [2]. 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 [3]. 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]

Colonia [something] is also a fairly common name for a housing development or neighborhood in Mexico. -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:37, 2 April 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]

Soapboxing followed by discussion irrelevant to the question

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]

--ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 2 April 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.[4][5] 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.[6] 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[7] 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.[8] 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."[9] 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 [10] and Seventh-Day Adventism [11] [12] which is interesting since they are both closer to the fringe of Christianity. Ryan Vesey 22:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. The only atheist I know that decided to find a religion settled on Mormonism for some reason. I never really talked to her much about why. It would be interesting to know why it draws more new people. 38.111.64.107 (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there reason to think it's anything other than Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses having aggressive proselytising tactics which target people who aren't actively looking for faith? 86.161.209.128 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 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]

In general, people who convert to Christianity as adults do so after talking/meeting/etc. with someone who already was a Christian, and it's natural for someone in that position to go to the same church as the "established" person. Think of it this way — your religious beliefs have changed to those of the "established" person; you're not very likely to say immediately "Your church has the basics right, but you misunderstand A and B and C, unlike that church over there". You may do that later, but you're not a new convert then. Sometimes people do convert after reading the Bible on their own or after doing something else without direct input from someone else, but that's much rarer; for those people, Bielle's answer is spot on. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 2 April 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 – — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamTamUy (talk • contribs) 02:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the Suzani textiles page here, the last paragraph in this weblink indicates that this style is still being produced in Uzbekistan. Whether you're a wholesaler, retailer, or retail customer, note that a web search on "fair trade"+Uzbekistan+textile reveals that there's a Uzbek-British Trade and Industry Council (UBTIC), an annual International Uzbek Cotton and Textile Fair in autumn, and that the the Ecologist recently reported that Anti-Slavery International contends:

[I]n 2012 hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in Uzbekistan were forced to work harvesting cotton. Activists who spoke out on the issue were arbitrarily detained and threatened, claim the campaigners, who have targeted clothing giant H&M over the issue. The cotton trade is believed to be worth an estimated US$1 billion annually to the Uzbek government.

You might consider alternative sources, such as fair trade businesses that specialize in ethnic needlecrafts workers in the style and geographic locale of your choice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main Industries In China's Economy For 2000

Help in identifying the main industries in China's economy for the year 2000? (Can be approximately 10 years ago) 220.233.20.37 (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Economy_of_china#Sectors is a good place to start.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is extremely hard to determine which ones were more prominent in the time period of 2000. The information there ranges very much so time period wise. 220.233.20.37 (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? 220.233.20.37 (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what if you look for books published around that time? For example, searching google books for "China economy" brings up these kinds of things: The Chinese economy in crisis: state capacity and tax reform, by Shaoguang Wang, An'gang Hu, 2001, Growth without miracles: readings on the Chinese economy in the era of reform, edited by Ross G. Garnaut, Huang (Yiping), 2001, Models of the Chinese economy, by Peter John Lloyd, Xiaoguang Zhang, 2001, China and the Global Economy: National Champions, Industrial Policy and the ... by Peter Nolan, 2001, China's Economy Into the New Century: Structural Issues and Problems edited by John Wong, Ting Lu, 2002. You could also try searching the BBC news site for an article from 2000 - go to google and enter this string: site:news.bbc.co.uk +"2000" china economy sectors. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also take a look at the oldest version of the article Lenticel linked, from Feb. 2002. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skinning a cat

What is the history of skinning cats? --Carnildo (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of a dictionary, Phrase Finder is a good place to look up idioms like this. This one originated in 1840 in the U.S.. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy of the catholic priests

Can a Catholic Priest loses his priesthood if he was raped? And can he demand that the foetus be aborted so that he does not beget children? 220.239.37.244 (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Priests are not capable of giving birth. They lack the equipment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP means "raped by a woman," who has the foetus in question. I think a priest raped in this fashion can demand all they want, but there is no legal sanction for it, and there is likely no Catholic sanction for it (as they don't support abortion under any circumstances). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the first question, given that the Church has in the past actively sheltered priests who actually raped other people, I doubt they would kick out a priest who was himself raped. But it's up to them. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is a serious question, someone being raped does not in any way break their vow of celibacy. The discipline of priestly celibacy currently practiced in most (but not all) of the Catholic Church is a current law limiting the pool of priests to those who are not married. There is further Catholic dogma (unlike a discipline, this is held to be universally true and unchanging) which says sex is only to be within marriage. There is no dogma or discipline which says priests must not beget children: this is simply a consequence of the rest.

Add to this that the Church does not consider itself to have the power to revoke a Sacrament, so a priest cannot "lose" his priesthood, no matter what the Church wants. I gather there have been some quiet cases in which the Church has concluded a man never truly became a priest in the first place, because he lacked the mental capacity to meaningfully consent: the only cases I heard of involved the man having abused children while apparently a priest, and I don't expect to find good references for it either way.

And obviously, no, he could not demand that the foetus be aborted, should the woman become pregnant, any more than he could demand that the child be killed after it had been born. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Catholic doctrine, does a person even sin if he or she acts under duress, as in the hypothetical example? Sjö (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Catholic doctrine is that sin requires consent. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the word "celibacy" in the header is a red herring here. Celibacy is about choosing not to marry. It's not about sexual activity per se. The rules around sex are that it can happen only between a man and a woman, and only within marriage; and that's where the connection between sex and marriage comes in. Priests and anyone else who isn't currently married cannot have sex, at all. A priest who has a mistress or male lover is breaking the rules about sexual relations, but is not breaking the rules about celibacy. A priest who is raped is breaking no rules at all; unless they find themselves rather enjoying it and wanting it to go on. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, inflammatory, and unreferenced side discussion. APL (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would think the priest would almost certainly have to be "enjoying" it on some level, if a pregnancy results. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A common, if understandable, misconception. See Rape by gender#Rape of males by females. --BDD (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. It's an excuse, and I don't buy it. If a man is being terrorized, he is highly unlikely to get aroused, unless (1) he has no self-control; or (2) he's secretly enjoying it; or (3) both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously hope this is an April Fool's joke, and that you're not validating rape culture, denying scientific evidence, and blaming the victim. By the way, the same article says: "A woman's physiological response to sexual contact is involuntary. In some cases, women can become physically aroused, produce natural lubrication, and even experience orgasms against their will during rape." --140.180.254.209 (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What has that got to do with a man being terrorized by a woman yet somehow getting aroused and impregnating her? Sorry, the notion of male response being "involuntary" in that circumstance is highly suspect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're not aware that penises are renowned for having minds of their own, and they will often respond to any form of "encouragement", even if it's while the penis's owner is being raped. The rest is just plumbing and mechanics. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still say that's an excuse to rationalize a lack of self-control. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also think that a woman who becomes physically aroused during rape 1) has no self-control, 2) is secretly enjoying it, or 3) both? Are you disputing the scientific evidence that says otherwise, despite having done no research of your own? Are you not aware that human sexual instincts, just like the sexual instincts of other animals, are deeply ingrained in the organism's biology by a billion years of evolution, and a mere 100,000 years of sapience is never going to reverse the effects of natural selection? After all, reproduction is the goal of natural selection. Just to be clear, I'm not disputing your claim that men lack control of their penis or women lack control of their clitoris. I'm disputing that this fact has any other cause than basic mammalian biology.

The next time you consider it "highly suspect" that a response is involuntary, try suppressing your own patellar reflex or plantar reflex. Alternatively, try to stop your heart from beating faster while exercising. Remember that sexual reproduction is far older and more crucial to evolution than any of these reflexes. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A woman can be raped and impregnated while being thoroughly terrorized and without being aroused. The same is not going to be true of a man who's being terrorized. He has to get aroused if he's going to impregnate the woman who's terrorizing him. The idea that men "can't help" getting aroused or that it's a "reflex" is just part of the "look what she made me do" excuse. Men have used that excuse forever, to justify having committed rape and then blaming the victim for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this question again, because you avoided it: "Do you also think that a woman who becomes physically aroused during rape 1) has no self-control, 2) is secretly enjoying it, or 3) both?" I want a yes or no answer, without equivocation.

Again, you have presented nothing but moral blackmail, and certainly no scientific evidence, to support your points. Our own article on rape by gender contradicts you at multiple places, and provides references for its claims. Again, we're talking about a woman raping a man, not the other way round. You are the one blaming the victim. Again, try controlling your patellar reflex and get back to me on how successful you've been.

Do you think nocturnal emission is involuntary, or is the boy secretly getting aroused while asleep (and unconscious)? --140.180.254.209 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of various excuses, it is not possible for a man to impregnate a woman if she's "raping" him. I'll allow as how someone like a celibate priest, who might not be sufficiently in-tune to his own sexuality, might be able to be seduced by a woman. That's not the same thing as rape, which is an act of violence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's about as dumb as Todd Akin's claim that women who are legitimately raped can't get pregnant. It has been explained to you that those sexual responses can happen without desire or even the brain being involved at all. You might not be are aware that quadriplegic men get erections and orgasm, even though the brain isn't connected to the reproductive organs. Sjö (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men cannot get aroused unless they want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been in an article I would have tagged it "dubious", but I would like to ask you to provide your sources for that last statement. Sjö (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, it appears, has never been sixteen years old. --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Just the same, I sort of agree that the scenario is not very likely, though I wouldn't be confident in calling it impossible. --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, have you never read about men who are anally raped? They usually find there are various levels of shame, which often prevent them talking about it for a long time (sometimes never). A common issue is that, even though the victim may have been totally hetero forever, they find themselves with an erection caused by what the other guy (or gang) is doing to them. Here we have a situation that is like the nightmare from hell: they're being invaded in the most painful and horrifying and emasculating and degrading way imagineable, and they're totally revolted by the entire thing and just want it to end - but in amongst all that, they have a raging hard on (some even ejaculate), and that confuses the f**k out of most guys, so they just bottle it up, never report it, and take out their rage on their wives and kids, or kill themselves. Don't dare tell us this must have been what the victim wanted. That is tantamount to saying that any woman who's raped was asking for it, and you know how utterly offensive that would be. There's a lot of literature about this. Please read some of it, and please just stop saying ignorant and uninformed stuff. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear your explanation of how a woman can get pregnant by committing some kind of "impalement" rape on a man. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same way it happens if it's not a rape? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, she's going to be impaling him with some object, such as a broom handle, while "forcing" him into the "missionary position"? No, you'll have to do better than that explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who ever mentioned missionary positions? You made that up all by yourself, and now you're arguing against it. Classic definition of a straw man. It's you who will have to do better than that, Bugs. - Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manorial dues

My history textbook says: "In the Dutch republic, in Switzerland, in Italy and Germany, Napoleon simplified administratives divisions, abolished the feudal system and freed peasants from serfdom and manorial dues. In the towns too, guild restrictions were removed." What are manorial dues and guild restrictions? --Yashowardhani (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles Manorialism and guild should help. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that those articles offer obvious definitions of those terms, though the articles may be interesting to the questioner for background. Manorial dues were obligations that a serf had to the lord of his or her manor. The typical form of a manorial due was an obligation to devote a certain number of days each year (sometimes specific days of each week) to labor on the lord's fields or other property (for example, buildings on the property) or on tasks the lord wanted done, such as food processing, cleaning stables, etc. Other forms of manorial dues (not all of which applied on every manor) could be monetary dues instead of or in addition to labor dues, or dues in kind, such as so many bales of wool or so many eggs or whatever. Guild restrictions were rules in cities and towns requiring anyone making or selling a certain type of good or practicing a particular trade to belong to the guild controlling that good or trade in the city or town. Guild restrictions meant that guild members exercised a cartel over their business within their city or town. Marco polo (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is an April Fool Joke not an April Fool joke if it is real

If an newpaper publishes an article as an april fool joke where the article states that a scientist in China has invented a car than runs on cow manure and it turns out that someone in China did invent a car that runs on methane gas from cow manure in the tank. Then is the article still an April Fool's joke? 220.239.37.244 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... but the joke is on the newspaper. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God speaking to man... According to the Bible?

Just curious... if we examine the plot of the Bible (as if it were a work of fiction) ... we find several "scenes" where God appears and speaks directly to a human (Adam in Eden, Moses on Mt. Sinai, etc). What is the last "scene" in the plot in which God does so? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... it's definitely the New Testament. I'd go with either the Transfiguration of Jesus (with God speaking) or the Conversion of Paul the Apostle (with Jesus speaking post-ascension), depending on your preferred criteria. A case could also be made for the Book of Revelation. — Lomn 15:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely the Book of Revelation. Sorry for grabbing KJV here, but it was the first version that came up. It reads "[9] I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.[10] I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet," The Bible (TV series) depicted Revelation by showing Jesus standing before John dictating the opening of the book. Ryan Vesey 15:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... what about Old Testament? Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue offhand if it would make a difference, but are you thinking chronologically in the old testament or in order the books are written? Ryan Vesey 16:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) While the Bible is fiction, that doesn't mean it has a coherent plot. The Book of Esther, for example, has no relationship with the rest of the OT. It doesn't ever mention the Law, the Covenant, or even God. The Song of Songs is a somewhat erotic love poem that only has 1 reference to God. The Psalms are just a collection of 150 songs, with no particular structure and certainly no plot.

So, the answer depends on what you mean by "last". Do you mean the last reference in the youngest book? The youngest passage, because nearly every Biblical book had numerous authors separated by centuries? The last book in whatever order some Bible publisher decided to choose for the books?--140.180.254.209 (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bible is fiction" is rather presumptuous on your part. But in a similar vein, God spoke directly to Muhammad, hundreds of years after the Biblical era. (Feel free to call the Quran "fiction" also.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, it is fiction.

2. Even in Islamic theology, God didn't speak directly to Muhammad; the Quran was revealed through Gabriel.

3. Muhammad and most of his initial followers were illiterate. It wasn't until 2 decades after Muhammad's death that a man with a political agenda ordered his favorite version of the Quran to be written down, and all other versions to be destroyed.

4. None of this is related to the OP's question, so I don't know why you felt the need to comment --140.180.254.209 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's related in that the OP proposed thinking of the Bible as if it were fiction, while you asserted (with no evidence) that the Bible IS fiction. I just wondered if you had the guts to say that about the Quran too. And you do. So, kudos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were you trying to threaten me? Sorry, that doesn't work; better try it on a vulnerable child instead. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wondered if you were one of them guys that's quick to criticize Christianity but won't criticize Islam. Kudos for being consistent, if not necessarily correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking chronologically... in terms of the broad overall "story arc" of the OT .... not when the text itself was penned, or who by. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said, the OT has no broad "story arc". In fact, neither does the NT. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could Chronology of the Bible help? According to that it would be God speaking to Cyrus King of Persia per first verse of Ezra. (I think.) 184.147.116.201 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely not the latest. Several of the Minor Prophets (some of whom have uncertain dates) were active after the time of Cyrus, and all of them (like all the rest of the biblical prophets) are depicted as having God speaking to them; otherwise they wouldn't be counted as prophets. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting! So according to that article it could be Malachi, who is supposed to be contemporary with Ezra (480–440 BC); the article says the latest of the others were Haggai/Zechariah c. 520 BC. Were any of the non-minor prophets later than Ezra, or would he be the last? 184.147.116.201 (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Malachi is normally considered the last prophet in Judaism, and in Christianity he is known as the last prophet of the Old Testament period. The former view seems to correspond well with Jewish historian Josephus' assertion that books written after the time of Artaxerxes I of Persia (c. 465 to 424 BC) were not part of sacred scripture, because the succession of prophets had ceased in that time. - Lindert (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different versions of the Bible arrange the component books in different order. In the Hebrew Bible, the last time God speaks is in the Book of Job. I know this not because I'm particularly familiar with the Hebrew Bible, but because it is discussed in God: A Biography, which I think might be of interest to you. The book is not fiction, but it is a notable treatment of the Bible as literature and won the Pulitzer Prize for biography. John M Baker (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of reporter's privilege

Do we have any information on the history or origins of the tradition of Reporter's privilege in the US or protecting journalistic sources in the anglosphere? The article Shield laws in the United States mentions a 1972 Supreme Court case. Were there any instances of this in the 18th or 19th centuries? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this article. Seems that the issue of jailing reporters for not revealing sources starts in the 19th century. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before that time the "reporter's privilege" was to make stuff up, rather than using sources. Still, actually, too often. Looie496 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madonnina of the Streets by Roberto Ferruzzi (1854-1934)

An oil painting appeared recently that may be the original painting, but it has not been guaranteed by the agency possessing it.
The above info. was in Wik . article. Can someone tell me what agency is processing the painting?
Thank you.
Regards,
Gloria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloie31 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this refers to Madonnina (painting). Unfortunately, the two footnotes about the apparent reappearance are to a defunct website (BTW, I changed the layout of your question slightly, to improve its appearance. Hope you don't mind). Rojomoke (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well Known islamic universities in Pakistan and South Asia

Islamic University Bangladesh in Kushtia, Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia University in India are well known Islamic-themed public universities in South Asia. Is there any Islamic-themed Public university in Pakistan that is well-known in South Asia and is there any other Islamic-themed public university in South Asia regardless Pakistani, Indian or Bangladeshi that is well-known?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

List

Is there any article or list on books for those who are not really into reading? Pass a Method talk 18:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audiobook? Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the question is asking about good books to introduce people to the habit of reading? Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A person who is not into reading, but wants to be, and chooses to * read * something designed to help them get into it, seems to have already solved their own problem. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From a librarian, your best bet is to search for "reluctant readers" in Google or something. That's the term used in librarianship. Public and K12 librarians, especially, put a lot of emphasis on identifying books for such people (usually boys). If you're thinking specifically of adults, that may be a bit harder to come by, but there are surely some resources out there. Graphic novels are often thought of as good books for reluctant readers, but this isn't necessarily a good assumption. A comic book might be a good choice for a reluctant reader; Watchmen probably isn't. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is simplified material for ESL learners. Often they are both engaging and accessible for people with a poor vocabulary. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Seuss books are specifically designed to entertain young readers, versus the notorious Dick and Jane books. StuRat (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, if your goal is to learn the material in the book with minimal reading, there are condensed books and, specifically, CliffsNotes and Reader's Digest articles. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or wikipedia. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highest percentage of Orthodox Christians in the US

I was surprised to learn that 13% of Alaskans are Orthodox Christians, based on Demographics of Alaska#Religion (although the numbers there don't add up right). Browsing other articles on Orthodoxy in the US, it looks like numbers can be hard to come by given the diversity of Orthodox churches in the country. Does any other state have a higher percentage of Orthodox Christians? --BDD (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska was formerly owned by Russia. AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian America and Russian_colonization_of_the_Americas#Russian_Orthodox_Church explain the background. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlas of American Orthodox Churches has hard numbers per state - it wouldn't be labour-free, but you could work out the percentages from that. See page 27ff. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't crunch all of those numbers, but it looks like Alaska does have the highest percentage. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska was for a time not simply a colony of Russia, but (if I understand correctly) a part of Russia. The North American branch of the Russian Orthodox Church spread down the west coast from Alaska. After the Russian revolution of 1917, the bishops in North America refused to pledge allegiance to the Soviet government and the North American branch of the church was declared schismatic. In 1970 a rapprochement was reached in which the Patriarch of Moscow signed a tomos of autocephaly, and since then the Orthodox Church in America has been considered by itself and the Russian and other Slavic Orthodox Churches to be autocephalous. But the Greek Orthodox churches, despite the fact that they recognize that that church is part of the group of canonical Orthodox churches, refuses to recognize its autocephaly, and continues to regard it as part of the Russian church. Apparently there is a fear that it would claim authority over all Eastern Orthodox churches in North America, and that would deprive the Constantinopolitan church of revenue. The Orthodox Church in America reveres an 18th-century bishop, Saint Herman of Alaska, as a saint. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter the Aleut, an Alaska native said to be martyred by "Papists, is venerated as well. -- Vmenkov (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

has anyone seriously tried deflation?

whether as an experiment or simply centrally planned policy has there every been deflation for 5-10 years in an otherwise funcitoning economy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, deflation is a sign of an economy that is not working very well. But yes, there have been periods of deflation. The effect is usually that people don't spend their money, because stuff keeps getting cheaper, and credits keep getting more expensive in real terms. See Deflation#Historical_examples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself delaying purchases in areas where deflation is common, like consumer electronics. Why buy now when I can wait and buy something cheaper and better later ? StuRat (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because you want it, or because you need it, or because the use is worth more to you than the savings. But yes, in general the principle holds. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really deflation, that's supply-and-demand-driven reduction in unit cost for a particular item or type of item. During deflation, nobody has much money, so the prices of everything drop. As in the Great Depression. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

178.48.114.143 -- To those suffering under severe inflation, deflation can sound kind of restful, but deflation actually means that debts get harder to pay, and people continually defer purchases because they think that prices will come down in future. Theoretically, a period of brief mild controlled deflation could help to cool down an overheated economy, but a long period of sustained deflation isn't too compatible with healthy economic growth... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Side question, perhaps also an answer to the OP: Was the Whip inflation now program an attempt at deflation? Its goal was to reduce inflation, so I'm not sure if that is the same as a "deflation experiment". RudolfRed (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was an (extraordinarily lame) attempt at controlling inflation, not creating deflation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The gold standard caused deflation, the restriction on investment caused by the gold standard and its continuance of depression was a major reason for abandoning the standard. Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Deflation was a period when deflation was accompanied by rapid economic growth. Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Long depression, and Bland–Allison Act which was designed to counteract the deflation in the US. Dmcq (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taoist/Buddhist prayer?

I am wondering if Taoists and Buddhists do intercessory prayers. I am just asking out of curiosity, so I can pray for a Taoist/Buddhist classmate's good health after being on medications in the hospital for a month, out of school, gaining a few pounds while fasting, and going through marital issues/divorce, or in her words, "bad luck in the year of the Snake!" 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist prayers have nothing to do with begging for heavenly gods to obtain whatever. Try meditating for improving the Karma around her. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Meditating to improve the karma' is a practise latched onto by westerners and lay people and has nothing whatsoever to do with Buddhism, because it would be 'meditation to obtain something' (in this case, an improvement in the karma of the individual, which also makes no sense, as anything that is to happen in the future will be influenced by events that happened previous to it (past and present), and your meditating will not make any difference to her future. It would be better to cheer her up by doing something she would appreciate. I cannot help with Taoism, as I am not very familiar with it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you pay attention to the Taoist part? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How Find A Persons E-Mail Address

If I have 1 e-mail. Address from someone. How do I find all their other. E-mail accounts is there a way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.251.254 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried a People Search or White Pages? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the same thread at the computing reference desk. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deposed Monarchs in Britain

In what period I'm history did the UK had the most number of deposed (non-British) monarchs/consorts residing in the country.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1945 there was:- Zog of Albania, George II of Greece (not technically deposed, but awaiting a referendum on whether the Greeks wanted him back) and Peter II of Yugoslavia. Alansplodge (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed seems most likely that it would be sometime during the 20th century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would think that it would have been sometime near the turn of the 19th century, during the French Revolutionary Wars/Napoleonic Wars, there were scads of deposed European Monarchs, and nowhere for them to go. I'll have to do some checking, but I suspect that many of those deposed monarchs ended up in the UK. --Jayron32 01:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only deposed monarch I could find who spent time in the UK during the Napoleonic era was William V, Prince of Orange, and there's some contention as to whether the Stadholder of the Netherlands was a (de facto) monarchical or (de jure) republican position... --Jayron32 01:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the minor German princes? Did they all stay in Germany? Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those princes either allied with Napoleon and became part of the Confederation of the Rhine or high-tailed it to Austria or Switzerland, near as I can tell. I went through a whole bunch of them, and none that I can find went to the UK. --Jayron32 05:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Black Duke" of Brunswick briefly stayed in London as a guest of his uncle, George III in 1809, after an epic fighting retreat through Germany to the coast. He didn't stay long before heading off to the Peninsular War with his "Black Horde" to fight the French. Whether he counts as a monarch or not is questionable. Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William V, Prince of Orange took refuge in Britain twice during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, although he was the Stadtholder rather than the king. Alansplodge (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I already noted, the Stadtholder stradled a line between a monarchical and republican position. On the one hand, the United Provinces was a nominal republic, but on the other hand the Stadtholder position was essentially the heredity property of the Princes of Orange, and it functioned during this period like a federalized constitutional monarchy, with the individual territories (most of them hereditary principalities anyways) that made it up having a great degree of local autonomy and with the chief executive being essentially hereditary. --Jayron32 17:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I saw that just now - quick posts in lunch breaks rarely turn out well... Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, among other things he was trying to get his kid hitched to the Princess Charlotte. That didn't go as planned.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, two things 1) living royally in Britain was far more expensive than on the Continent and a princeling would be looking to economize if exiled and 2) if you go to Britain, you are telling Napoleon without any doubt you are not his friend.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly the "Napoleonic Era", but Napoleon III died in exile in Britain. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think WWII must be the answer. To those mentioned above we need to add Haakon VII of Norway and Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it would be rather unkind to call them "deposed" rather than "exiled". Wilhelmina had the use of a nice house in South Mimms. I'm not sure why Haakon chose Rotherhithe (it was a bit rough in those days), except that it has a Norwegian church and a hospital named after Saint Olave. Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that our articles are wrong - although Haakon was a regular worshipper in Rotherhithe and made radio broadcasts there, English Heritage say that he lived in up-market Kensington.[13] Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More details; Haakon lived at Buckingham Palace (June to September 1940), Bowdown House in Berkshire and Foliejon Park in Windsor Great Park.[14] His "official residence" was the Norwegian Legation in Kensington.[15] Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

The first woman cabinet minister in South Africa?

Who was the first female cabinet minister in South Africa? Did South Africa have a woman in any government before the abolition of the apartheid system? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Worldwide Guide to Women in Leadership: First Female Ministers, it seems to have been The Hon. Dr. Rina Venter who was Minister of Health and Welfare from 1989-94. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK and France elections political parties and regional councils in France

In United Kingdom, besides Parliamentary election last one in 2010 and local government elections last one in 2012, what other elections do political parties participate in to get elected by the citizens? In France, besides National Assembly elections, what other elections do political parties participate in to get elected by the citizens? According to Citizen and Republican Movement article, it says 19 for regional councils. Who are these 19 people in the regional councils what are regional councils? Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

There's the elections for the European Parliament in both countries. That's the only other British one I can think of. Rojomoke (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can refer to Regional Council (France), and more on French WP: [16]. In the latter, it is written: the number of [elected] members varies from 31 (French Guiana) to 209 (Île-de-France). — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 2010 the MRC (Citizen and Republican Movement) got 19 regional concillors (in total). — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The English electoral system's quite multi-layered, you know. Where I live we have a parish council, borough council, county council, national government and European parliament representative. All of these have been elected. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as I type this I'm looking at the poll card for my town council (a glorified parish council) election in two days' time. There are also of course the elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh, Northern Irish, and London Assemblies, and the Mayor of London and some other towns and cities, and Police and Crime Commissioner. -- 12:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Württemberg

What was Duke Alexander of Württemberg (1804–1881)'s religion? Why did his descendants become Catholics?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Württemberg was on the dividing line between Protestant Northern Germany and Catholic Southern Germany, and its rulers tended to switch between the religions on more than one occasion. The Duchy passed between brothers Ulrich, Duke of Württemberg (a Protestant) and Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor (a Catholic) a few times during the middle 1600s. The last of the Protestant branch of Ulrich was Louis III, Duke of Württemberg, who died childless, and the Duchy passed around through some various cadet branches for a few generations (information of which I can't find much about the religions of the various Dukes), however near as I can surmise, the Duchy remained in Protestant hands until the death of Eberhard Louis, Duke of Württemberg, when Eberhard's Catholic Nephew was his heir, he inherited the Duchy as Charles Alexander, Duke of Württemberg, being the first Catholic duke in some time. The Duke Alexander you note would have been a great grandson of Charles Alexander, and so it is likely he was also Catholic. --Jayron32 05:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the line that became king was also descended from Charles Alexander (he converted) and I am certain they were Protestant judging by the fact fact they married Protestant women (Catholic monarchs tend to marry within the limited reigning family that were still Catholic). Did Duke Alexander's marriage to a French princess prompted him to either convert or raise his son as a Catholic.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia article on Duke Alexander supports your theory; it says: Er heiratete am 17. Oktober 1837 die katholische Prinzessin Marie Christine von Orléans (1813–1839), die zweite Tochter von Ludwig Philipp, dem König der Franzosen. Das einzige Kind dieser Ehe war der 1838 geborene Herzog Philipp von Württemberg, der die katholische Linie des Hauses Württemberg begründete. (He married, on 17 October 1837, the Catholic Princess Marie Christine of Orléans (1813-1839), the second daughter of Louis Philippe, king of France. The only child of this marriage was Duke Philipp von Württemberg, born in 1838, who founded the Catholic line of the House of Württemberg.) The German Wikipedia article on Princess Marie says she married den evangelischen Herzog Alexander von Württemberg (the Protestant Duke Alexander of Württemberg). (Neither article gives a reference, unfortunately.) 184.147.116.201 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic fluency of cardinals and popes

Can a cardinal be elected pope if he is not fluent in Italian?

Of course, under canon law, the answer is "yes". For four centuries before 1978, only Italians served as pope. In 1978, a cardinal from communist Poland became Pope John Paul II during the cold war. In 2005, a German became pope. In 2013, an Argentine became pope. All of the above, moments after being elected, stepped out onto the balcony of St. Peter's basilica and addressed the crowd in fluent Italian.

What are the levels of fluency in multiple languages among the cardinals? Are bishops fluent in numerous languages favored over others for elevation to the status of cardinal? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed recently on the "Language Desk", the language of papal decrees and official pronouncements is Latin, but a lot of the lower-level administrative work is carried out in Italian, and it seems it would be very difficult to navigate the internal politics of the Vatican administrative agencies and gain firm control over the work of the Curia without a practical working knowledge of Italian. So under current circumstances, Bergoglio's ability in Italian was probably a definite plus. AnonMoos (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the last two elections, they didn't appear until about an hour after being elected, so presumably they had a bit of time to practise a short Italian speech. Ratzinger also worked in the Vatican for over 10 years before becoming Pope, so he had more of an opportunity to learn Italian first. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You think it's possible to become fluent in Italian, even for one speech, in an hour? Have you ever learned any language? --140.180.254.209 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we have a different idea about what "fluent" means... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he'd had a year of instruction in Italian a couple of decades ago and occasionally encountered that language, he could probably learn to read a speech in it in a half-hour. The hard part would be deciding on the content of the speech. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Ratzinger was already pretty old then. Can you learn a new language at 70? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that papabili would be expected to have at least some knowledge of Italian, and it seems to me a skill that ambitious young monseigneurs should acquire.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I find it very hard to believe that canon law has anything to say about the matter at all. What you probably meant is that there's nothing in canon law that would prevent a person not fluent in Italian from being elected pope. That is a very different thing from saying that it's permitted by canon law. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re your second question, "What are the levels of fluency in multiple languages among the cardinals?" Short of reading every name linked from College of Cardinals, I checked just those appointed in 2007, as a sample. You get:

Leonardo Sandri - "speaks English, French, German, Italian and Spanish"
Giovanni Lajolo - article does not say, but has lived and worked in both Italy and Germany
Paul Josef Cordes - article does not say, is German and has lived and worked in the Vatican and Central America
Angelo Comastri - article does not say, has always lived in Italy
Stanislaw Rylko - "Besides his native Polish, the Cardinal also speaks Italian, English, and German"
Raffaele Farina - is Italian, and "fluent in German, Spanish, Japanese, and French"
Giovanni Coppa - article does not say, is Italian and a Latin scholar

It seems being multilingual is just what most cardinals do, perhaps from serving in various countries on their way up. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

England's Vincent Nichols, not yet a cardinal but surely on the way, attended the English College, Rome for 7 years, so must have picked up a few phrases. Alansplodge (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fascists in Football.

It has been in the news here in the UK that Sunderland F.C in the UK has appointed an apparently self confessed Fascist into a club role.

This got me thinking, have their been any other teams in recent football history that have had openly Fascist officials or players?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Former Fallschirmjäger, Bert Trautmann would have been in the highest category of POWs, but went on to play for Manchester City F.C. However, he kept his political views (if any) to himself. Alansplodge (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an occasion when the whole playing team seemed to be a bit to the right. Of course they were just humouring Mr. H so as not to cause a hoo-ha. Richard Avery (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating , Both are things I didn't know about. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

federal corruption laws

This news item says federal authorities arrested people involved in corruption in local politics. Why is bribery of or by state or local officials prosectued under federal rather than state laws? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the "Federalism" section of our article about federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting ---- That does address the question.

Thank you. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reason is that the culture of corruption might well extend to local prosecutors, who can't be relied on to do their jobs, when prosecuting their fellow cronies. (A "culture of corruption" is where such a large percentage of officials are corrupt, it becomes the new norm, and it may no longer become possible to hold office in such a place without being in league with the corrupt politicians.) StuRat (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how did they know where the little stones in the mosaics go?

how did the ancients when putting a mosaic together know where the little stones or shards go? meaning what was the technique. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A simple explanation can be found at Timetrips - How were Mosaics made?. Alansplodge (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that it's the same way artists do things now: By visualizing it. Some folks are better skilled at that art than others are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to visualize it all at once, though.

Like a modern artist, most of them would sketch the design onto the floor with chalk or charcoal as a guide before putting down the tiles. APL (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sites that I visited looking for the link above, suggest that the area was given a layer of cement first, into which the design was drawn with a sharp implement. When this had hardened, a skim of wet lime-and-water plaster was applied. Then the tesserae would be pressed into the wet plaster along the lines in the underlying cement. The artist would make up the tesserae (from old tiles, bricks and natural stone etc) that he needed beforehand, so that he had them to hand once the work had started. Alansplodge (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many people take Conservapedia seriously?

How many people take Conservapedia seriously? What percentage? Does it have any significant following? Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very big following. WP:Statistics gives internal statistics and the history page or articles has a link for page view statistics. Alexa top 500 sites has it at 6th most used, and it tends to be believed [17] and provides a useful service [18] ;-) Dmcq (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether Dmcq is joking or doesn't know Conservapedia. A comparison of http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com#reach and http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org#reach (all language editions together) shows Wikipedia's "Reach" is around 5000 times larger. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I completely misread the question as referring to Wikipedia. Yes I am all too aware of Conservapedia and a constant question about it is whether it is a joke or parody site. Nope it is quite serious and quite a few people do actually believe that sort of stuff. Jsut think how many people are fundamentalist Christian, think the Tea Party was a wonderful idea, that scientists invented climate change to make money for themselves, that homosexuals should be stoned and abortion is murder and Obama is not American but a closet jihadist, that Einstein didn't discover the theory of relativity and anyway that is a corrupting influence and the Grand Canyon was carved out by the great flood. Yep there are actually a lot of people who accept all that and Wikipedia is definitely not going to change their minds. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Just think how many people..." Well, that's the hard part. Being European, I have no idea how many US citizens do believe in all that (and thus take Conservapedia seriously). Surtsicna (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia is considered extremely fringe even by conservative Christians. At a guess, I'd say that the people who take it seriously consist entirely of a few of the editors there. --Carnildo (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a conservative Christian and I consider Conservapedia to be lunacy. That being said, Conservapedia is pretty mellow when compared to Metapedia [19]. Ryan Vesey 01:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the holocaust denial (I can't link to it because of the spam filter) "The Holocaust™ — introduced by Elie Wiesel✡ to describe folk accounts of Jewish casualties during World War II, disputed by revisionists" according to their DABpage for Holocaust, I wonder if that website is illegal in Germany. Ryan Vesey 01:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to hazard a guess that there haven't been any (scientifically credible) studies or surveys of whether people take it seriously, since none are mentioned in the Wikipedia article. -- BenRG 22:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not fair to judge all American political conservatives, or all American fundamentalist Christians, or even the intersection of those two sets, by Conservapedia. Conservapedia does not appear to be about conservatism at all, but about a very specific and politicized interpretation of Christianity. (On the other side, it's not fair to judge rationalists by RationalWiki either.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any estimates then? To be honest, I am looking for a confirmation that a great majority of people find it as ridiculous as I do. The fact that such ignorance exists is disturbing enough, so it would be nice to know that it is widely seen as bizarre or as some kind of a joke. Surtsicna (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only public numbers are those regarding its Alexa "reach," which may or may not even be valid indications of traffic (which is not the same thing as "traffic who agrees with it"). But if you're looking for numbers on the sorts of people who believe the sorts of things that Conservapedia advocates, you can find all sorts of sources for opinion polls as to Americans who believe in all sorts of things. My general rule of thumb is that one out of ten Americans believe anything, no matter how silly or obviously wrong, and certain hot-button issues can raise the number quite a bit. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to the general beliefs that Conservapedia espouses, i.e. people who believe the majority of what Conservapedia says even if for instance they think Obama really is an American, I would say that is probably in the same order as those believing in Young Earth creationism, i.e. those who believe the earth was created within the last 10,000 years, and that people lived alongside dinosaurs until the dinosaurs were killed by the flood. Surveys say over 40% of Americans believe that, and I wouldn't be surprised if an even larger percentage of muslims held to the same beliefs. Dmcq (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking again about it, I would say less than half that figure as it looks like you need to be quite right wing as well, and belief in young earth creationism is fairly evenly spread between the parties. Dmcq (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to know where someone would get the idea that Conservapedia has anything to do with conservatism, or the impression that more than 1% of Americans had ever even heard of that site. I never heard of it till I heard some bizarre conspiracy theorizing on Wikipedia talk pages. Where would a European come across such notions? μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is that many Europeans find much of what happens in the US - and much of what many Americans appear to believe - at least as incomprehensible, and terrifying, as what seems to be believed in, say, North Korea or Iran. So, we wonder why that is the case, and find out about sites like Conservapedia. It's made worse by the fact that we speak the same language, so understand it. The apparent fact that, for example, "over 40% of Americans" believe that "the earth was created within the last 10,000 years, and that people lived alongside dinosaurs", is worrying, to put it mildly. Obviously, there are many even more extreme examples of what we Europeans are given to believe is mainstream US thinking, but this isn't the place to debate them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess then things like Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design and Creationist groups win Michael Gove's approval to open free schools fill you with a bit of apprehension. Dmcq (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of things in the European mindset that we Americans likewise find disturbing. As to the original question, I would be surprised if anyone outside the conservapedia users themselves (if even that many) take it seriously. Basically it's the choir preaching to the choir. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, such lunatic beliefs are indeed mainstream in the US, and to a lesser extent, in Europe as well. See this graph of belief in evolution. Only a few countries do better than 80%, Eastern Europe is comparable to the US, and Turkey is way down in the dumps. ~~I suspect~~ the same is true for other Muslim countries, although none of them are European. See Islamic views on evolution: "A 2007 study of religious patterns found that only 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians, 14% of Pakistanis, 16% of Indonesians, and 22% of Turks agree that Darwin's theory is probably or most certainly true". It's frightening what religion can do to people. --140.180.250.241 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not religion per se; most mainstream Christians in the UK are perfectly happy to accept the theory of evolution. The naysayers are generally members of US inspired evangelical churches that are a comparatively recent innovation here. I met my first creationist last year and I was frankly astonished, although I tried (out of politeness or cowardice; one wouldn't want to make a scene) to pretend that it was a perfectly acceptable alternative view. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It only matters if it has some negative ripple effect - such as refusing to help the poor because Jesus said "The poor will always be with you." I've worked with plenty of religious folks, and it didn't seem to impair their ability to do their jobs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find the Conservapedia parable of the good Samaritan quite interesting then! And there I was thinking it was just about answering the question of who is your neighbour. I don't doubt though that being religious they'll be more generous in general with charity whatever about funny interpretations of parables like that. Dmcq (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply repeating one's paranoia about what American's believe is not giving the source for where such paranoia originates. The fact that conservapedia exists is not evidence of anything except that the US has a free press. What source (some leftist European blog, or whispers from person to person, perhaps) is the origin of the notion that anyone takes that site seriously? μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you're saying that to me. I provided statistics on beliefs. Nobody said that Conservapedia was the original source for any of that, just that they reflect common beliefs even if they are more strident about them so why shouldn't people take them seriously? A lot of people find it hard to understand how different other people's values and beliefs can be, even for those they meet every day under other circumstances Dmcq (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

why do Asians like to sleep in libraries? (or why don't other races?)

As an Asian, I am puzzled why a group that makes up 13 percent of the college population at UVA constitutes like 85 percent of the population that can be found sleeping in the libraries between the hours of 2 and 7 am. 71.207.150.146 (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's UVA? (I'm impressed with your statistical work.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably University of Virginia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Gladwell discusses this in Outliers, where he essentially argues it's just another consequence of the work ethic found in many East Asian cultures (other consequences, of course, include higher math scores on academic tests compared with students of other races, etc.). He has whole chapters devoted to the purported reasons behind this cultural trait. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda stereotypical. One thing for sure... I don't sleep in libraries. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Stereotypical" does not mean "false". You certainly can't disprove a statistical rule with a single data point--see outlier. --140.180.250.241 (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any statistical rules in the OP. Just a bunch of made-up figures. I think WP:DENY applies here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this in terms of "race" rather than "culture" is a categorical error. The issue here isn't their biological heritage, it's their cultural makeup. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if it's true that Asians sleep more often in the library, it could have several different explanations. I think that some academic cultures allow for students taking a nap during class, so, it comes naturally to some Asians to take a nap while studying. Another explanation is that poorer students would sleep more often in the library after a full day of study + work. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So university libraries in the USA stay open all night? Ew. --Viennese Waltz 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some do, some don't. I think my campus library stayed open till 11 or so. But that was 15 years ago. Dismas|^(talk) 15:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

per Saddhiyama. Feel quite free to add citations from reliable sources outside the hat. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Asians sleeping in the library" is quite a famous tumblr. 128.143.185.217 (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTF. I googled that phrase, sure enough the tumblr exists but it has nothing to do with sleeping Asians, it's something to do with some reality TV show. --Viennese Waltz 06:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Revere's warning that "The regulars are out"!

It was told to me by a Mass. State Park Ranger that Revere's actual warning to the colonists regarding the British troops coming was actually, "The regulars are out," as to distinguish them from other troops. Apparently we Americans (or Revere) still may have thought of ourselves technically as "British" and chose specificity so as to avoid any possible confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.16.222 (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some accounts from around that time. Apprently, 'regulars' was a more common name for the British troops. It was only many years later that 'British' was used regularly. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a humanities-desk thread on the same topic, started by a very similar IP a week and a half ago. Deor (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew I'd seen it somewhere recently, but was unable to find it on any of the RefDesks. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Chongzhen Emperor

Why didn't any of the sons (a few survived) of Chongzhen Emperor ascend to the Southern Ming Dynasty either during or after the death of the Prince of Fu.

Is it possible they were all too young to make a power play? The Chongzhen Emporer was 33 when he died. At most they could have been teenagers. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Trade

When people, politicians talk of "international trade", do ports (such as port of seattle, port of hong kong (do they trade?)) barter, or do they buy and sell at market prices?Curb Chain (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the port of hong kong located?

What are the symbols in the left most column of "Wind Forcast:"?Curb Chain (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The port is in the middle of Hong Kong, fairly obviously - the SAR is not that big a place. The symbols are wind feathers which give a graphical indication of the direction and strength of the wind. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this fairly obvious? Seattle is not big compared with Los Angelas, and the port of seattle is not in the middle of Seattle.Curb Chain (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ports don't buy and sell anything. Ports charge fees or dues or tolls to unload cargo. If you have a ship full of stuff, and you need to unload the stuff, you pay the port for the right to unload your stuff. The port itself doesn't buy or sell what you unload; the stuff you unload has been arranged for already (you don't ship a boatload of goods with nowhere to go!). We don't have any Wikipedia articles on the subject, but if you search for "port dues" or "port fees" you can find information about the concept from other articles. International trade is important because governments can generate revenue directly or indirectly from international trade. Direct revenue comes in the form of tariffs or customs, though tariffs are more often used to keep imports out to protect domestic industries, such "protectionist tariffs" are frowned upon in modern economic theory and organizations like the World Trade Organization are based on keeping the free flow of goods by campaigning against protectionist tariffs. International trade also makes money indirectly as a company which is selling more goods overseas creates higher employment at home, which in turn generates government revenue in the form of things like income taxes, both corporate and personal, as well as excise taxes. --Jayron32 13:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this picture, what is a custom, toll and a duty?Curb Chain (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there are bright lines between any of those terms (and you could throw into the mix words like "dues", "taxes", "fees", "tariffs" etc.) Roughly speaking, "customs" and duties are near synonyms anyways, in modern usages customs is the government agency charged with collecting certain kinds of duties, specifically on collecting duties due on imports. A toll again doesn't have a precise definition which makes it different from other forms of taxation, but in general it usually means a usage fee: that is, money collected to use something like a toll road or even a water way (the Sound Dues were an historically important toll charged by Denmark for the use of its territorial waters to access the Baltic). But on that sign, I don't know that you could assign each item as specifically one of those terms. The general sense is "This is all the stuff you owe us money for" and I'm not sure you can parse it more specifically than that. --Jayron32 16:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

system for depiction of color in black and white printing

I'm old enough to remember this, hope someone else is too. I thought there might be a system for depiction of color in black and white printing-like old maps in books, they couldn't show red, so it was vertical lines, green was checks, orange was polkadots and so on. Does anyone here know about stuff like this or am I crazy? Not mutually exclusive, I know...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it too, but I can't immediately find an example on the net. Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not maps, but there's a standardised system for showing colours (tinctures) in Heraldry Rojomoke (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember something similar to this as well. I'd definitely like to know if anyone can find out what it was and when/how it came about. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the heraldry standard(s), see Hatching system. Rojomoke (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground used to (in fact, still do) print B/W maps using patterns to distinguish the lines. See http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/bw-large-print-map.pdf and http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/standard-tube-map.pdf for the coloured version. I don't think there is any particular 'standard' to the patterns used, though, and I reckon the patterns used have changed since the versions I remember from the early '90s. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I remember it. It was not just used for colours - it was also used for distinguishing things such as the distribution of agricultural products (wheat, rice, corn, etc.) and wealth, languages/dialetcs, empires, etc., on maps when I was at school. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a rather nice paper from the American Planning Association on 'Traditional Color Coding for Land Uses', which has two tables (at the end) that show parallel usage of colours and hatchings as used by the Denver Classification manual (I think it's used for some sort of census information). For instance, 'Lemon Yellow' becomes a 10% grey, and 'Orange' becomes a left-to-right diagonal hatching. The table refers to standard 'Zip-a-tone' patterns; see our article on Screentone. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of science - justification of evidence based belief system

Hi,

I was watching this classic clip of Richard Dawkins answering a question about why we believe in science ("it works, b******s") [20]. Don't get me wrong, I'm on Dawkin's side through and through, but I do think that the questioner has a valid question. I'm sure philosophers have dissected this problem already, and probably came to a similar conclusion and Dawkins, but I'd be interested in learning about this problem, but it's hard to google his rambling question - can you give me some pointers on where to read? Cheers,

Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the question is basically: "You only believe things that you have evidence to support. What evidence do you have to make you believe that?" Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Start at Brain in a vat and follow links from there. You experience all reality through the filter of your brain, so you first must ask the question of yourself as to how much you trust what your brain is telling you. --Jayron32 20:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You can give that answer for every question ever asked. Can we start a bit downstream of the Matrix? :P Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see, that's the problem, known in philosophy as the problem of solipsism. When you ask a question like "what evidence is necessary to believe something", in an unqualified way, you need to keep working backwards. Do we trust what we read that scientists have done? After all, scientists sometimes can't be trusted. So, do we only trust our own experiences? Must we experience everything before we can believe it to be true? Well sometimes our experiences can't be trusted either. So what evidence do we need to trust anything? What are you willing to accept on blind faith? The issue of solipsism is, the only thing that you can accept is your own existence, and really only the existence of your mind, not even your own physical form. All other experiences must be accepted on some level of faith: you need to believe those experiences to be trustworthy without any way to prove that they are. What the individual needs to decide for themselves is what level of faith they are willing to accept for any given bit of information or knowledge. And for every bit of information, individuals may set different criteria for acceptance. --Jayron32 12:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This is still a question that causes great difficulties to philosophers. The problem was explained very cogently by Hume: there is no logical reason to believe that patterns that have held in the past will continue to hold in the future. Philosophers have disagreed widely about how to resolve that problem. My own view is that the only workable solution is to assume that our brains are constructed to learn inductively. Looie496 (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, right, so we're talking about the "Problem of Induction". Thanks, got it in its box now! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the preference for inductive as opposed to deductive evidence is itself a historical development. (One way to phrase it is, "why we trust scientists more than philosophers and theologians.") Such, anyway, is the thesis of the classic history of science/sociology of knowledge book, Leviathan and the Air-Pump, which traces the key moment where inductive evidence (championed by Boyle) edged out deductive evidence (championed by Hobbes). It's an interesting read if you're interested in this topic, because it does a great job of making clear how difficult it is to argue with inductive evidence if you've got a lot of very smart people who aren't used to thinking about knowledge in that way. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a more general sense the area of thought you're looking for is Epistemology. Roughly : The study of Knowledge. APL (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent textual finds

What are some recent textual finds-- by "textual find" I mean such as nag hammadi, oxyrrhynchus, etc? I'm wondering if there are any recent finds which are of interest, but haven't yet become widely known so that most people don't know about them yet. 64.179.181.61 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can try find it yourself: [21] Rmhermen (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steam locomotive ID

Which steam locomotive is this type? Thnx. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a Tank engine of the 2-10-2 configuration. Edison (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted a more precise identification, you might try the clever chaps over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Locomotives task force who specialise in this kind of thing. Alansplodge (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The livery - black above the running plate and red below - suggest Germany to me. File:Steam locomotive 99 782 a.jpg looks very similar, which is a Class 99.77-79 locomotive of the Deutsche Reichsbahn, although I can't be certain that it's definitely that class. More photos of that class at commons:Category:DR Class 99.77-79. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and Off-Shore Tax Havens

The CBC in Canada today broke this story, naming at least one high-powered lawyer, the husband of one of Canada's Senators. One of the other big papers supposed to have been involved in the year-long project of analysing the leaked data is the Washington Post. I can't find the story in any U.S. source. Was it posted and withdrawn? Can anyone find an American report on this, aside from the ICIJ? Thanks. Bielle (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC) I found this report at the Herald Online, but it does little more than identify the report. Any other reviews? Bielle (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Nicholson Negro Achievement Award

Where can I learn more about the Jeremy Nicholson Negro Achievement Award? Wikipedia's articles on Edward Brooke, LeVar Burton, Rick James and Harry Belafonte all mention this honor. 173.29.132.240 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It ~~looks like~~ was a sneaky hoax. ~~I'm looking into it further.~~ I've reverted that and other "contributions" by that particular person. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that person's contributions [22] it looks like they have a history of malicious edits. Did you go through them all? I don't have time to do so right now so where would be the best place to mention this? --Viennese Waltz 08:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've checked them all for 216.134.248.174. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have missed a few in Rick James. Ack, I see what's going on. Rick James' "award" came from a different IP: 216.185.46.70. Not sure if I'll have time to check more than James' article tonight. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found another one in Redd Foxx and reverted it. --Viennese Waltz 10:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah nuts. That one was added by 216.134.251.242. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've checked the other two. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US citizen

Are citizens born in a territory before US rule eligible to be president? I know the US usually grant citizenships to people in area they officially annex. Like the US missionary descendants of Hawaii in the 1890s or a Russian settler around time of the Alaska Purchase.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best we can do is probably Natural-born-citizen clause. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)

You might check out the article Natural-born-citizen clause.

Basically ... we don't know. But there are a lot of theories.

The reason is that the law doesn't go into any detail. Usually in cases like that the issue is made clear by case-law. (The outcomes of court cases and the written opinions of the judges.) However, the only thing "Natural Born Citizen" status confers upon you that regular citizenship does not is the right to be president. So there haven't really been any court cases either.

John McCain might might have caused such a court case, had he been elected. (He was born in the Canal Zone before being born in the Canal Zone automatically made you a citizen.) However, it didn't seem like anyone seriously believed that he might get elected and then not allowed to become president. APL (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McCain's parents were natural born citizens, and as I recall, some inquiries were made before the nomination process was completed, and he was considered eligible. That's not common law, but it's a precedent that could be argued in case a similar situation arose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are they eligible, this actually describes about a fifth of all past presidents! 72.128.82.131 (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Constitution specifically allowed for the founding fathers to be eligible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you don't have to be a Natural Born Citizen to become president. Your other option is to have been a any sort of citizen on March 4, 1789. (The day the US Constitution went into effect.) APL (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory before it became a state, and there was minimal questioning as to his eligibility, but it wasn't followed up on. RNealK (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The operative word being citizen, not "within the United States" (let alone a State). Or as APL says, citizen at the time of the adoption. Shadowjams (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a US possession, though. The OP's question is like this: Suppose we were to purchase Canada from the British Commonwealth somehow. Would any Canadian born prior to that annexation be eligible for the presidency? As APL said, we don't really know. Logically, it would be unfair not to declare all Canadians to be U.S. citizens at that point. But I would think that the annexation agreement would include something about that. Now that I think of it, prior annexation agreements (such as the Gadsen Purchase) might have had language addressing that issue. Not sure where we would get hold of the text of it, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a tangent, but Canada is not a possession of the Commonwealth of Nations; it's a sovereign state. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to figure out exactly how we would obtain Canada seemed like even more of a tangent. Let's just suppose it's possible, for the sake of the example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that we may have already had a Canadian President. --Jayron32 12:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Austin, Texas

Recently, a number of news websites have shown photos of Kim Jong Un planning missile attacks on the US (bizarre tactic - "While you are using real weapons and personnel for your wargames, here is a picture of me with a map"). Most of the targets were heavily built-up areas of major strategic importance, but one target displayed on the map behind him showed Austin, Texas. I know Google and Apple have some interests there, but what other reason could there have been to choose that particular place? Or, was his map basically showing the maximum distance his missiles could reach and this just happened to be there? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea does not (yet) have missiles that could reach Austin Texas. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example of such a map? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim is targeting our supply of slackers? Deor (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph says it on this page, plus Googling 'austin texas north korea' gives a few hits. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the assumption is that by attacking Austin (the capital), the Texas government structure will be disrupted (causing economic and social chaos, which would severely hurt the rest of the country).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think North Korea's leaders have been a dark world version of Unn, Ooo and Eee and their plans are just as realistic as the rest of In the Night Garden. Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Austin City Limits inexplicable snubbed Kim Jong Un, who, among other things, is the best bluegrass musician in the world, at least according to the (surviving) citizens he asked. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

It's really not clear what the map is targeting — the general's hat is in the way and the resolution is too low (even on the higher-resolution versions that are floating around). There are many possible military, industrial, and infrastructural sites in the region of Southern Texas obscured by the hat. It is hard to know, without much other evidence, what the thinking is behind any potential targeting scheme — there are lots of different ways to decide what targets are the most valuable to one, ranging from the highly analytical to the highly idiosyncratic. (Recall that Kyoto was taken off the atomic bomb targeting list during World War II merely because the Secretary of War liked the city a lot.)

As for capabilities, in theory the Unha-3, if it worked ideally, if it was adapted for weapons use, could reach pretty much wherever, but all of this is "in theory", and reaching such a place within the accuracy needed for their warheads is probably not within their capabilities at the moment. (The lines drawn are not great circle paths and so are not showing missile paths, theoretical or actual. On a great circle route from North Korea to the US, though, the distance between Southern Texas and Washington DC is about the same — ~6800 miles or so) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three Wise Men

Where in the KJV of the New Testament does it speak specifically of "three" Wise Men?--LordGorval (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere. The tradition that there were three may have been based on the mention of three kinds of gifts that they brought (gold, frankincense and myrrh, Matthew 2:11). - Lindert (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not, at least not directly. The account of the magi, or wise men, is in Matthew 2. The number of magi is not specified, but three gifts are named, and so tradition has equated the number of gifts with the number of magi. — Lomn 13:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise tradition has assigned names and appearances to them. None of that stuff is Biblical, any more than the notion that the "forbidden fruit" of Adam was an apple, or that Satan has a red body with a pointed tail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that, as far as I know, no translation indicates that there were three wise men. Such a thing is not unique to the King James Version, which it must be remembered is but one English translation. There are dozens of other translations into English, and into many many other languages, and as far as I know, there's no reason to suspect that any faithful translation would indicate that there were three magi. Three gifts, yes, but the number of magi, as noted, is unspecified. --Jayron32 16:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See List of common misconceptions#Christianity.—Wavelength (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dry media and liquid media definitions and lists of both

I am trying to find the definition for liquid media and dry media and then I must list them all. this is for my art class and I am having trouble with a definition on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.97.200.194 (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean, for example, colored pencils vs. paint? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article List of artistic media, which lists media for various artistic categories. As B/Bugs implies, the difference is fairly intuitive. --91.115.57.179 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Oops, I forgot to log in. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discount bank (finance)

I can't find an article for 'discount bank' which apparently is a British term for a bank which buys and sells financial instruments at a discount (may have something to do with getting government bonds into circulation too). Is there another term for this? RJFJR (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the term in the U.S. is a discount brokerage, as firms that deal in investment interests are usually called brokerage firms in the U.S. Of course, some banks also do the same thing, though they often deal with institutional investors and large personal investors rather than the average person, such banks are called Investment banks. The lines in the U.S. between brokers, investment banks, and commercial banks used to be rather stark, but in the past 15 years (since the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act), such lines have become increasingly blurred. --Jayron32 21:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is possible that you are looking for a 'discount broker' which gives a discount on financial products to those who do not require financial advice. The article Discount brokerage is almost totally US focused while Fund platform is about the UK situation. This article from the Daily Mail is aimed at starters and the three red links explain the various "non-advised" options. Sussexonian (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the term I meant to write was "discount house". Is that the same thing? RJFJR (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's at the retail level, probably the same thing. If it's referring to a wholesale activity, I don't know. When you get into merchant banking and credit swaps, CFDs, spread betting, shorting, googlewhacking, futures trading, all that stuff, there's probably a "discount house" somewhere in there. I don't think their bonuses are discounted though. Sussexonian (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Actually, a discount house was a specialist bank in the City of London financial market. More information at Britannica - discount house. They no longer exist. The Georgian era at the Bank of England says; "The Bank (of England) ended the privileged position of the discount houses in 1997 by switching its daily open market operations to a gilt repo system open to all comers, and the following year the last discount house returned its licence to the Bank." However, according to The Scotsman, the last one closed in November 2000. I'm not really sure that I understand all of that; I can try to find a simpler explanation tomorrow if required. Alansplodge (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly more layman friendly explanation from a discount house in Ghana is here. Alansplodge (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An institution that buys a letter of credit at a discount engages in factoring. DOR (HK) (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics, law, female French philosopher

4-4-13

I recall that some years ago (in college) I read about a (female) French philosopher who wrote using a man's name who said something to the effect that "a man is not ethical if he just follows the law'. He/she wrote about this several HUNDREDS of years ago.

I'd like to read more. Who was this person?Dtansik (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only several hundred years ago? I'd be shocked if many of the classical Athenian philosophers didn't write the same thing, over 2400 years ago. In fact, I'd be shocked if this wasn't a common belief in the first society with a law code. If you can remember any less trivial claims, it would help us look for the philosopher. --140.180.248.141 (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's specification that it's a Frenchwoman writing under a male nom de plume narrows it down a lot. Dtansik, does anyone on List of female philosophers or List of women philosophers look familiar? 184.147.116.201 (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many sponsors salons during the French Enlightenment were women, this sounds like the kind of thing one would hear from an Enlightenment philosopher. I can't, off hand, recall any such women who went by a male nom de plume, but Category:French female salon-holders may also be a good place to start researching this. --Jayron32 04:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's not a philsopher, but George Sand is the most famous French female author who wrote under a male name. The first half of the 1800s is not quite hundreds of years ago, but it may appear to be more distant than it actually is. --Xuxl (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

Morals, ethics, and values in the Church of Scientology

What are the Church of Scientology's views on morals and ethics, and how to treat others? As far as I know, traditional religions have a penchant of expressing their beliefs creatively in stories, oral or written, and poetry. Traditional religion is not just about faith, but also about cultural identity. Traditional religions also seem to be more collectivist, while the Church of Scientology seems to be so individualistic and materialistic by my judgment of their videos. How does this religion express its beliefs - by telling people or by showing to people through art and folklore? Can a person become a "cultural Scientologist" - meaning not necessarily adhering to the beliefs but identifying with the culture? What's up with the proselytizing? Traditional religions typically have a non-commercial, moral reason to proselytize, but the Church of Scientology seems to divorce proselytism from morality. It seems to me that this church also performs marriages and special ceremonies, but how exactly do they fit within the Scientologist cosmology? Why do they perform wedding ceremonies in the first place? How do they perform wedding ceremonies? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Scientology parlance, "ethics" basically means internal church discipline. I have the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics by L. Ron Hubbard, ISBN 1-57318-132-3 (which I paid only $1 for), and it has chapters on "Scientology Justice Codes and their Application", "Scientology Justice Procedures", "Conduct of Justice and Forms of Redress" etc. The term for "cultural Scientologist" in the sense of someone who adopts part of the Scientology system without accepting the leadership of the official hierarchy is "squirrel" (highly derogatory among official Scientologists); they prefer to call themselves the "Free Zone". AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound very fun. There is no story? No humor? No drama? No rhyme and rhythm? No song? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Scientology uses its members for slave labor, orchestrated the biggest infiltration of the US government in its history, conspired to have a critic confined to a mental institution after years of lawsuits and harassment, and installs malware to "protect" their own members from sites critical of Scientology. Its method of "treating" mental patients included locking the patient in a cockroach-infested room for 17 days and denying her food and water, at the end of which she had 100 insect bites on her skin.

Does that sound very fun to you? The Church of Scientology is nothing more than a criminal organization, and only exists because religion is generally accepted as an excuse for nonsense among the general public. --140.180.248.141 (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That sounds like a cult. If only the general public is more aware of the distinction between cult and religion. The most important distinction is that the cult focuses on the power of the leader while abusing its own members, whereas a religion would not coerce or bully a person into doing something that they don't want to do. Sure, there may be some religious people who may exercise spiritual abuse, but the abuse is mostly caused by the perpetrator, not by the actual religion. The ethical teachings of religions may be taught in schools and can be extraordinarily alike. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any hope for a neutral, referenced answer or are we just going to post a bunch of links strung together with polemical commentary about them? --Jayron32 05:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for someone to tell us that scientologists have horns and/or stripes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While my answer was not neutral, it does provide information about the morals, values, and ethics of the Church of Scientology. --140.180.248.141 (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral does not mean denying reality. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well 140.180, your answer provided your opinion as to the morals, ethics, values, etc. of the Church of Scientology, that is you gave us how you feel about actions of some Scientologists, rather than providing those behaviors without commentary. The first answer by AnonMoos, which provided sources to Scientology's own internal documents, is closer in line to what we do here, rather than merely express our own feelings about things, which is essentially all you did. Cherry picking specific incidents involving scientologists and then tell us what you think about those incidents isn't a means of providing someone with references to answer their questions. That isn't what we do here. --Jayron32 12:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While providing a link to Scientology's website might be useful, the website is by no means a reliable source. Would you trust what North Korea writes about itself? Is linking to the Korean Central News Agency a good way to answer a question about North Korea's intentions? If you think my examples were cherry picked, you should read our article on Scientology, especially the last paragraph of its intro. Legal harassment and fraud are typical, not exceptional. --140.180.248.141 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, anyway...it's possible to be a "cultural Scientologist", and the first one that comes to mind is Beck Hansen. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And he highlighted the Narconon success rate as a good thing about Scientology. Which I'd agree with if it was true - I'd prefer people following some peculiar cult than taking drugs - but the evidence I've looked at indicates it is no better than any other treatment, it may be a bit better but it also is altogether possible it is worse and I certainly can't recommend something that isn't properly checked compared to tried and trusted ones. As to the previous answer saying providing references to internal documents was more in line with standards here, that is not true. The best standards here are to provide reliable secondary sources rather than just repeat what a primary source says about itself. For myself I think both are required for a question like this one - their documents say what they say about themselves and the other says how it actually works in practice. Dmcq (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "no better than any other treatment"; in actuality, it's substantially worse. Our article says "this hypothesis is contradicted by experimental evidence, and is not accepted by mainstream medicine or education.[7][27][28][29][30][31] Narconon's claimed 80% success rate has been described by drug experts as 'simply untrue'" and "Hubbard's theory (that niacin promotes the release of fat into the body) has been shown to be invalid; niacin in fact has the opposite effect: it binds to and stimulates a G-protein-coupled receptor, GPR109A, which inhibits fat breakdown in the human body's fat cells." Also according to our article, multiple deaths have been caused by the Narconon program, mostly due to medical conditions that can easily and effectively be treated by mainstream medicine. --140.180.248.141 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of this propaganda technique

Say I have to write a short piece of anti-capitalist propaganda. Now I write, "Capitalism is the worst form of economic system. Here, on one hand abject poverty, on the other hand obscene display of wealth, on one hand people spending million of dollars for leisure, on the other hand people unable to afford medical treatment for thousand dollar, on on hand people decorating homes with million-dollar furniture, on the other people living in streets." Note I have emphasized contrast. I know their is a name of this propaganda style. It is definitely not rhetoric, but there is a name, I can't remember it. What is the name of this propaganda technique where contrast is emphasized to make a point? --Yoglti (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the answer at "Outline of public relations".—Wavelength (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No the answer is not there, it is a particular propaganda technique with a term. --Yoglti (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be called Card stacking? --Yoglti (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. It's a type of appeal to emotion, whatever else it is. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are terms like rhetoric, cliché etc. Can anyone name similar terms used as persuasion techniques? May be one of them applies here. --Yoglti (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven

[2] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/business/global/as-banks-in-cyprus-falter-other-tax-havens-step-in.html

[3] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/world/asia/us-to-bolster-missile-defense-against-north-korea.html

[4] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/world/asia/us-to-bolster-missile-defense-against-north-korea.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]