Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 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)

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)

Thank you!--Aciram (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

You can refer to Regional Council (France), and more on French WP: [1]. 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)

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

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)

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)

Does anybody know who are the 19 Citizen and Republican Movement regional Councillors in France? --Donmust90 (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Interesting ---- That does address the question.

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [2] and provides a useful service [3] ;-) Dmcq (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

I'm a conservative Christian and I consider Conservapedia to be lunacy. That being said, Conservapedia is pretty mellow when compared to Metapedia [4]. Ryan Vesey 01:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

(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)

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)

Thank you everyone, that's a relief to know I'm not the only one to remember such things!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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") [5]. 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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You can try find it yourself: [6] Rmhermen (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Steam locomotive ID

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Looking at that person's contributions [7] 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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Of course, there were three: Larry, Curly and Moe. I think it was Moe who brought the gold, nyuck, nyuck, nyuck. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Weren't they Dismas, Gestus of Oz and Medeis? μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah, it was Dewey, Cheatem & Howe. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

The bill brokers of discount houses in the City of London (mentioned in the link above) used to wear a top hat when on their way to the Bank of England, a tradition that continued into the 1990s.[8] Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Fine, then provide references to reliable sources about Scientology from outside then, but you don't have to tell us how we're all supposed to feel about it. That's where the line gets crossed. --Jayron32 16:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

"Emphasising contrast in order to make a point" is antithesis - is that the sort of thing you mean? Tevildo (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You might also say it's a form of exergasia, since really the paragraph is restating a single idea (contrast between rich and poor) in a number of different ways. It might be an example of loosely associated statements in that all of the examples are being used as a condemnation of Capitalism, but none (within the context of the paragraph) are demonstrated to be the result of Capitalism. I think it's also a form of false dilemma, because the paragraph is implying that the results of Capitalism are either A) million-dollar furniture, or B) sleeping the streets, without touching the spectrum of possibilities in between. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Cherry picking is also involved, since it only mentions the extremes, not the majority that is in the middle.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Jewish states

Can someone give a list of all the Jewish states prior to the modern state of Israel and not including the obvious opines like Ancient Israel, the Northern Kingdom and Judah? Jewish state as a ruling entity with sovereignty distinct from another nation; it doesn't matter if the populace weren't completely Jewish only that there was a Jewish presence and a Jewish ruler or ruling class. Like Khazaria or the Kingdom of Semien to name two that I know.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Himyarite Kingdom, briefly (king converted and forced everyone else to as well). 184.147.116.201 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites might help as well? 184.147.116.201 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Adiabene is another. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Khazar Khanate is one. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast is a subnational state created out of Russia to serve as a Jewish homeland, though I don't know that it serves that purpose anymore. --Jayron32 00:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with the answers given to the same question a few weeks back? Use the search function at the top of the page. And what is so important about Jews anyway? μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

They don't have many sovereign states. It's neat. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this was asked before here. And yes a Jewish ruled state is a rare phenomenon in hsitory.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What part of "try the search function, it's been asked before" is confusing? You are not a newbie, Spy. Did you think I was lying? The same question was asked in March. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course, only one answer was given for that question, along with several of the RD's usual pointless digressions. In fact we've already surpassed the number of answers here. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey? Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

April 6

The Book of Mormon and Mormonism

Do Mormons from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints actually believe the book to be literal historical fact/account of what happened or a poetic literary way to express their cosmological beliefs about the universe by means of stories and poetry? I met a Mormon before, and the Mormon with whom I shared a conversation made me draw a conclusion that she believed that Native Americans were descendants of the Old World people. I honestly couldn't tell if she meant it literally or metaphorically. Have there been any literary criticism on the Book of Mormon? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

They do (or at least they are supposed to) believe it. And actual scientists and academics (for want of a better word) try to prove it, see Mormonism and archaeology for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

They are "actual scientists" in the same sense that North Korea is a "democratic people's republic". --140.180.248.141 (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticism_of_the_Book_of_Mormon has an overview, and links to other pages that discuss it. Also, there is a project underway Book_of_Mormon#Textual_criticism RudolfRed (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the most intellectual and history-aware somewhat literal interpretations of the book of Mormon were made by FARMS (with indifferent success). AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most of them do believe this. See Book of Mormon: "Most adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement consider the Book of Mormon to generally be a historically accurate account.[38] Within the Latter Day Saint movement there are several apologetic groups that seek to reconcile the discrepancies in diverse ways [...] The LDS Church continues to declare that science can support the Book of Mormon.[107]"

Needless to say, they are all wrong.

EDIT: I just noticed that you (the OP) claimed that she believed Native Americans were descendants of Old World people. Well, they are, both according to Mormon theology and modern science. That's not the problem. The problem is that Mormons believe some of the principal ancestors of Native Americans were Israelites (which is contradicted by genetic, archeological, and historical evidence), that it mentions two literate New World empires that nobody has found any evidence for, that it mentions Old World domestic animals extensively when such animals did not exist in the Americas, that it assumes Native Americans used iron tools when they only used metal for aesthetic purposes, that it talks about chariots when no Native Americans had either the horse or the wheel...--140.180.248.141 (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

They didn't have the wheel for practical transport; some of them had little toys with wheels... AnonMoos (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Psychological Affirmations

Where can I find further/more in-depth reading on the topic of "psychological affirmations" 220.233.20.37 (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

We have a stub article Affirmations (New Age), and another article on Optimism which may help. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Also Affirmative prayer, Affirmations, 5 Steps to Make Affirmations Work for You, Affirmations and many other books. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Chevron company

I WONT TO KNOW ABOUT CHEVRON COMPANY WHO ARE THEIRS PRINCIPALS SUPPLIERS AND CUSTEMORS IN THE WORLD. PLEASE HELP ME!!! NIRA92 6 APRIL 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.225.184.91 (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) Please don't SHOUT; (2) see Chevron Corporation (assuming that's the company you mean). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

double unilineal kinship system with localised patrilineages

Over at Talk:Ezhava we're trying to figure out what a source means. It claims "they had a double unilineal kinship system with localised patrilineages. But in North Kerala, as in parts of Travancore, they had a matrilineal system very similar to that of the Nayars". Now that first part has me utterly confused. What is a double unilneal kinship? How does that differ from an ambilineal kinship? What is meant by "localised" patrilineages? And how do we put this all together? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It probably means that both patriclans and matriclans existed, but patrilocal residence was practiced. Ambilineal kinship means that you can be affiliated to either your mother's group or your father's group depending on particular circumstances or individual choices; it's quite different from having both strict patrilineal groups and strict matrilineal groups in a society... AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it means that some things are inherited matrilineally and other things patrilineally. For example a web search produces the sentence, "The Mbembe have a double unilineal kinship system, land being inherited patrilineally and other goods matrilineally". That should probably get the idea across. A "localized patrilineage" is apparently a group of descendants of one father who all live next to each other. Looie496 (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to see this in context and whose GBooks view matches mine, the quote comes from p. 405 of this source. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Just about the simplest possible system of double-unilineal kinship is when there are crosscutting patrilineal moieties and matrilineal moieties. So in the chart below, a man in the upper-left quadrant ("1A") would have to marry a woman in the lower-right quadrant ("2B"), and their children would be in the upper-right quadrant ("1B") and have to marry people in the lower-left quadrant ("2A"). Under this system, "cross-cousins" (one's father's sister's children and one's mother's brother's children) are allowed marriage partners (as is very often the case in societies with unilineal descent). AnonMoos (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

	Matrilineal moiety A	Matrilineal moiety B
Patrilineal moiety 1	1A	1B
Patrilineal moiety 2	2A	2B

has a company ever ended up owning itself?

Has a company ever ended up owning itself, even de facto or in a way that had to later be rectified? For example, a company might wholly own some overseas subsidiary that it does not do very constant record-keeping on, or whatever, that subsidiary belongs to them 100%. What if that subsidiary then somehow actually ends up in ownership of the parent company? Now nobody owns it. the parent bought itself, through its subsidiary.

what would happen if a company had no outstanding owners except for itself and its wholly owned subsidiaries?? Surely something like this MUST have come up in a de facto sense through the millions of companies and complex ownership arrangements...any examples? What happened? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That situation is known as circular ownership. It's an extreme case of cross ownership (don't bother with our article, it's useless). US law prohibits investment firms from buying shares in a company where cross investment is known to exist, so that wouldn't come about very often here -- but presumably, as you say, it could happen accidentally where multiple levels of holding companies are involved. In other countries, such as Sweden, cross ownership is legal, or at least has been. The effect of circular ownership would be that the management of the company owns it for all practical purposes, because there are no shareholders to oversee them. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's very common, in many jurisdictions, for charities, foundations, and other non-profit groups to be un-owned (or self-owned) - see this for example. They're operated by trustees, but the trustees can't wind the organisation up and pocket the proceeds themselves. This is different from a membership organisation like a trade union or a cooperative association, where ownership is vested widely across all the members. It's perfectly possible for a privately owned for-profit corporation to become a charity (in the UK that's called a charitable company) or for a new charity to be formed into which the owners donate their stock of the for-profit (that's how things like the Wellcome Trust came to be). The laws regarding what is a charity will vary a bit, but the UK's broad definition, that "it is set up to benefit the public" and "its aims are all charitable" (ref); Charities Act 2006 lists some broad categories. Naturally the migration to being a charity can't happen accidentally. With all that said, who owns IKEA? Stichting INGKA Foundation, apparently. So is IKEA self-owned? Kinda sorta. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

When cross ownership is discovered, the natural solution is to exchange shares. That is the companies simply exchange the shares that they own of each other at a fair price. The remaining shareholders of each company actually continue to own their companies. If that is not the intention of the shareholders (they actually want to create a dependency between the companies), then the solution is a merger, or the creation of a Holding company which owns one company fully and the other fully or partially. --Lgriot (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In a simple case of cross ownership, yes. In a case of full circular ownership, there are no other shareholders. I think if that situation did occur, whatever transaction led to it happening would be deemed null and void. --Tango (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, charities do have legal owners (either the trustees themselves in an unincorporated charity or the members or shareholders in a charitable company), although they aren't entitled to a share of the profits (since the charity is non-profit) so they don't really "own" anything of value. They have the same voting rights as the shareholders of for-profit companies, though. --Tango (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

April 7

Why don't I EVER hear of soldiers bringing women home from Iraq and Afghanistan?

In World War II, it was quite common for G.I.s to bring women home after the war, marry, and have productive lives thereafter.

Why don't Afghan or Iraqi women EVER come home with soldiers from these recent wars? --70.179.161.230 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Several factors, probably, including wide cultural differences (much greater than between Americans and British or French, certainly), limited circumstances in which American soldiers could become more than very superficially acquainted with women there, prohibitions in traditional Islamic law against a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man, etc. There was a case about five years ago of a few U.S. soldiers in Iraq converting to Islam to marry Iraqi women; obviously that would be a big hurdle which WW2 GIs did not face... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Plus I imagine it's frowned upon by the US military head honchos, fraternisation and all that... 72.128.82.131 (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Recommended viewing: "Sayonara". -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, US troops in Europe found girlfriends and wives in countries such as France or the UK, which had seen terrible hardship for many years before the Americans arrived in force, and food was scarce, plus their own men were either away at war or dead. The women found them as a way to escape all of that, putting it bluntly (of course, love was involved, I am sure you know what I mean). The American soldiers were allowed time off, and they could go to local places, like pubs, bars, restaurants, cafes, cinemas, whatever, where they could meet local women. Iraq does indeed have these places, but they are certainly not places to meet a woman, especially alone. Afghanistan has fewer of these places, too, and similarly, are not places to go on a date. Also, in both cases, it's not exactly safe in those places for an American soldier to be wandering around town, unarmed, and alone (or with a couple of mates) - most of them stay back at base. Also, remember, the insurgency in Iraq is not even over yet, 18 months after the last US convoy left, and the war in Afghanistan looks to be going on for the foreseeable future, whether the coalition is there or not. Just imagine a slightly more violent reaction than the WW2 British view of the US soldiers stationed in the UK: "Overpaid, oversexed, and over here," just with bombs and local families being targeted. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The difference between World War 2's war brides and today is that the war brides came from the Allies, and not from the Axis nations. Fraternising with the enemy is normally forbidden. I saw a documentary last week on an English squaddie who had a relationship with a German girl, and was so badly beaten by his comrades because of it that he suffered brain damage. So it won't happen in the same way (or if it does, it will be very, very rare). --TammyMoet (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is utter nonsense. According to the war brides article you have linked there were 20000 American soldiers in WW2 who married German women. I understand something different under "very, very rare". 109.153.20.62 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Excerpt of transcript of a HoC meeting in 1951: "Since 1947, permission to marry a German woman has been given to 7,342 [British] soldiers … in 1950 and 1951, 12 men were refused this permission. Three hundred and five cases of soldiers who have married without permission since 1948 are recorded." KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So Iraqis and Afghanis are U.S. enemies? I thought they were the ones the Americans wanted to liberate. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That ambiguity is part of the difficulty with not only "winning" the wars, but finding war brides as well. It is the characteristic of modern war that the line between ally and enemy is a fuzzy one, more so in Iraq and Afghanistan than even in Vietnam. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Liberate? Hehehe. Surtsicna (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Monobrows? μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Iraq and Afghanistan quickly became guerrilla warfare. There's no way to really know if the person you're talking to is friend or foe. So, it's better not to get too close to anyone as a soldier. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Though that happened in Vietnam, too. But again, I think there are broad cultural differences between Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan, and the nature of the wars were very different. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sports affiliation with political parties

Is Bangladesh the only nation whose two main soccer rivals gets support from or affiliation with two main rival political parties in the nation? Mohammedan-BNP and Abahani-Awami League--Donmust90 (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

There have always been rumours that Real Madrid C.F. benefited from Francisco Franco who gave favour to the club, apparently ensuring the signature of Alfredo Di Stéfano. Beyond that a more current one would be Silvio Berlusconi's ownership of A.C. Milan. I don't know if this is what you mean? The only other thing I can think of that's remotely similar is clubs and their religious links - e.g. Rangers F.C. and Celtic F.C. with one (Rangers) being Protestant and the other (Celtic) being Catholic. ny156uk (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is as simple as there being a deliberate, overt political connection with most sports teams. Sports teams tend to be associated first with a geographical region; that region contains a people who have certain commonalities, culturally speaking (they may have the same religion, belong to the same socioeconomic class, same ethnic background, etc.) That may lead to people who have the same, or similar, political loyalties rooting for the club. That connection may then spill over as the fan base grows to a more national appeal. In the U.S. for example, the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders play in the same metropolitan area; Oakland is a poorer city, lower socioeconomically, more working class, whereas San Francisco is a more upper-middle class, richer, urban "elite" sort of city; and the fan bases of those teams tend to reflect that. Crowds at 49ers games tend to be more subdued, "classier", etc. Oakland is known for rowdier, more crazy fans (see Raider Nation and the "Black Hole" at the Colliseum). That difference in fan base may extend beyond the metro area, as you find Raiders or 49ers fans outside of the Bay Area that identify with one team or the other based on the perceptions of the team culture. And that sort of difference may also extend to people's political lives as well. --Jayron32 17:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ny156uk. I am talking about political parties linking with football/soccer clubs. I also learned that Likud of Israel has links with Beitar Jerusalem. Also, Jayron is also right when it comes to teams having fans with different backgrounds such as Oakland and San Fran rivalry. Any other clubs or teams that are linked to political parties or different backgrounds? Another thing is that Bnei Yehuda is supported by Mizrahi Jews who are Likudniks and nationalists.--Donmust90 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

PATRICK BRONTE

Are there any existing Biographies of Patrick Bronte, father of the Bronte sisters? 86.4.69.158 (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A quick search on Amazon gives us biographies by Dudley Green and John Lock (which are referenced in our article on Patrick Brontë), and one by Coreen Turner which isn't. Tevildo (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

In his own words you can also find The Letters of the Reverend Patrick Brontë and Patrick Bronte: His Collected Works and Life. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, for this, I will need to obtain copies of these Biographies. I am mystified has to how a self taught person, at this period of time, and from such a background, could rise so rapidly through the social stratas so quickly. Also,coming from Ireland during this period, his religion was Anglican and not Roman Catholic?86.4.69.158 (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

He was presumably a smart boy who diligently applied himself to his studies and took advantage of any opportunities which arose. Presumably he would have needed some type of scholarship or sponsorship to attend university in England. Not sure about a rapid rise, since he ended up as a clergyman in a somewhat poor and out of the way place, and couldn't really "establish" his children. AnonMoos (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

How to formally request a loan

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~

Tevildo (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Gold Prices

A lot of trading occurs on Gold Prices in I - Banks (Markets Division). I am also aware of the London Gold Fixing. I would like to know what determines the hourly changing of Gold Prices on the traders screen ? Who determines it and how is it transmitted over to the traders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.110.130 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't have been surprised, but we actually have an article on gold prices. The hourly changes are basically "stocks". I'm not familiar with stock exchanges, nor the rules on valuing gold, so I'll let someone else take it from there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Gold prices are decided just like the price of any equity (G.E., Microsoft, Vodafone) or of a ton of tomato or a barrel of oil, or a government bond: traders (by traders I mean people who need it, and people who sell it) trade it in large quantity at the price they "think" is fair given the current circumstances: their needs for it (urgent, not urgent, just for speculation, for melting into jewelry), their need to sell it (I mean their need to get some cash), the global economy, the planned future production etc. etc. , and the price they traded at is then broadccast for everyone to know. --Lgriot (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

To complement that, a fixing is a special period during the day, where all the buyers and sellers are offered the possibility to state their need (qantity to buy, maximum price, quantity to sell, minimum price). Then an algorithm is run on all the buy and sell orders from all the traders, and a happy medium is found. At that point, everyone who was ready to trade at that medium price (or a worse price) get their requested quantity of gold traded, and there is an actual transfer of ownership between the buyers and the sellers. At that point the price as well as the quantity exchanged is made public. --Lgriot (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Pyongyang handicap ban

I have heard, that formerly, handicapped as well as pregnant people where not allowed to be in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang. This ban was to have been in effect until some years ago. Is this true, and is so, which year was the ban lifted? Thank you --Aciram (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

April 8

What was the Book ?

Greetings. About twenty to twenty five years ago I read a book about a man murdered in New York and dumped in a bare section and set on fire. I believe his surname was something like Tupper. His body was found by a Fireman who, according to the book, had previously written his own book on his experiences with a series of fires that terrorised New York in the 1960's. I believe the body was found in 1977. The alleged killer was said to be a Jewish horse trainer with a German sounding surname, whose first name may have been Howard. The killing was over a love triangle between the victim, the horse trainer and a then famous billboard model, but I forget her name. There was another model mentioned in the story whose name was Mel Harris, but I am not sure if this is the same Thirty Something actress, or not. If anyone can tell me the book's name, that of the killer, his victim and the model, and of the fireman who found the body and put out the fire, Thank You. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 05:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Howard "Buddy" Jacobson was charged with the murder of John Tupper (on 6 August 1978), who lived with Jacobson's former girlfriend, Melanie Cain at 153-155 East 84th St. in NYC. I'm not sure what book you have in mind, but it may have been Anthony Haden-Guest's Bad Dreams. Looking through the NY Times, they mention that firemen found the body and promptly notified the police, but I don't see any mention of the firemens' names. -- Nunh-huh 05:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Historiae Atlantis non Platonis

Are there any stories of Atlantis that are earlier or otherwise independent of Plato? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As our article on Atlantis states, the first mention of Atlantis was in Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias, written about 360 BC. - Nunh-huh 06:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Noticed

I noticed the lede of buttocks mentions it involves sexual attraction, but the lede of foot does not. However foot fetish plays out quite prominently in erotica. So why does one mention a sexual role but the other not? Pass a Method talk 11:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Attraction to buttocks is much more common than to feet. That's why a foot fetish is called a fetish - fetishes are unusual attractions. --Tango (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)