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 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)

And yet, intelligent, rational Mormons continue to believe in the book. If you'd like to know how, or why, let's talk. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 16:05, 1 August 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)

Under any normal set of circumstances, a transaction that completely disenfranchised shareholders would not be sustained, and the corporation's directors would be at risk of personal liability for attempting that kind of self-dealing to sustain themselves in office. (However, I'm not familiar with any US law that prohibits investment firms from buying shares in a company where cross investment is known to exist, contrary to Looie496's suggestion above.) You may, however, be interested in the Pac-Man defense, in which a company attempts to buy a company that is attempting to buy the first company. John M Baker (talk) 15:17, 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)

You didn't read the article then. The "20000 American soldiers" doesn't refer to the number who married German women at all: it seems to refer to the numbers of US soldiers who brought home foreign brides by 1949, so 4 years after the war had finished, and with no mention of nationality. I stand by what I wrote which seems to have been in no way invalidated by the article. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The OP specified 'after the war', Tammy. Forgive me if I misunderstood your clarification of '4 years after the war'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:14, 9 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

Some of the sports clubs in present-day Israel were founded in the early to mid-20th century by Zionist ideological movements in Europe that sponsored youth movements and political parties, many of which morphed over time. You can tell by their names and read about their history. The connection between sports and politics needs to be studied on a per-case basis; avoid drawing conclusions based on superficial similarities and outdated information. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In the news recently, Sunderland A.F.C. have longstanding links with the labour movement, and until a few days ago had prominent Labour MP David Miliband as its vice-chairman. It's not nearly so strong a connection as that in Bangladesh. In Europe, links between sporting clubs and the labour and communist movements were common before World War II: see Socialist Workers' Sport International and Red Sport International for more information. Warofdreams talk 11:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if Red Star Belgrade fit the bill here? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC) And the two teams of Bucharest, Steaua Bucharest and Dinamo Bucharest, both had State links: Steaua with the Army and Dinamo with the Communist Party. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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. He likely 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)

Patrick's father was a Protestant, and his mother a Catholic; he was brought up as a Protestant (see Brontë family). While I'm struggling to find a good source, it appears that the Protestantism was not a recent conversion, and the family was not part of the nobility nor of the Plantation, so it does seem a bit unusual. Warofdreams talk 11:50, 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)

I found Disabled Not Allowed to Live in Pyongyang (2005), but how impartial or even true it is, I don't know. Marxist-Lenonism doesn't have a good record in this field. The Soviet Union refused to host the Paralympic Games in 1980, on the grounds that there were “no disabled citizens in the USSR”.[1] They had managed to track some down by 1988. Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 8 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)

Thank You so much, -- Nunh-huh, this is exactly the event I was thinking about. Now I remember the model in question did have the name Melanie. I do not know if Bad Dreams was the name of the book, as I do not remember that as a title, although it called have been called something else when on sale in New Zealand, as some books and movies are. Thanks again.Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 07:00, 9 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)

By the way, the genitive case form of Atlantis in Latin would be "Atlantidis"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, actually. It was just a goofy guess: I thought it would be like civis. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sexual attraction: buttocks vs. feet

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)

Probably why underpants are more essential than socks. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Feet don't leak. - Nunh-huh 19:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither do buttocks. (Sorry, but "Noticed" completely fails as any kind of meaningful header by which one might search for this question, so I've changed it.) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Because the articles were written by different people and don't have to live up to any standards of inclusion as to what is in the lede? Dismas|^(talk) 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Something gives me the feeling this isn't the most serious question around, but the serious and boring answer is that there are degrees of attractiveness for buttocks that don't exist for feet. Any foot will do (except maybe your own). IBE (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

IBE, are you a fetishist speaking from an informed position, or was that just a wild-footed guess? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

antisemitism

I am trying to get an historical perspective on anti-Semitism, particularly since the Industrial Revolution. Can you suggest any comprehensive resource(s)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak47dan (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This looks fairly comprehensive to me: Antisemitism#References --Dweller (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Jews in Bangladesh

Is it true that there was once used to be a Jewish population in Bangladesh before 1971 or after 1971?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

A Google search for "Jews in Bangladesh" would have instantly told you the answer, in the very top result. Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Donmust90, I'm going to ask you again: why don't you ever do your own research, even when people patiently show you how? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone really know what time it is? μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody really care? --Jayron32 03:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Medeis? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably something to do with soccer. μηδείς (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In Almost Englishmen: Baghdadi Jews in British Burma by Ruth Fredman Cernea, p. , sxvhe states "Like points in a silken cobweb, the Baghdadi Jewish diaspora once spread throughout Southeast Asia, from Bombay to Shanghai. Woven into the web were distant, but never isolated, communities in Singapore, Calcutta, Rangoon, Karachi, Dacca, Penang, Hong Kong, Yokahama, and Surabaya, and in many small towns throughout the countryside." I cannot find, in a brief search any info when this community emigrated, but considering this: "The partition of India in 1946[?] and the bloody riots coupled with the fear of a socialist government pushed the Calcutta Jews who were very close to the partition line with East Pakistan, and who felt especially threatened, to leave India.", it seems probable that Jews from Dacca would have emigrated around the same time as the Calcutta Jews. --Soman (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the difference between these church officials?

• Bishop
• Deacon
• Vicar
• Priest
• Pastor (Roman Catholic priest or Roman Catholic pastor?)
• Minister
• Lay Teacher
• Chaplain
• Friar (as in Frere Jacques or Friar Laurence)
• Brother (as in Brother John, the English version of Frere Jacques)

Sneazy (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's wholly dependent on which particular church tradition you're asking about. Most flavors of Christianity (and probably a bunch of non-Christian religions) use many to all of those titles for different offices. — Lomn 21:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

For example, take "lay teacher". The laity is, broadly defined, anybody who's not clergy. So, taken literally, a "lay teacher" is anybody teaching who isn't clergy (presumably in a church-type role, but we could extend the metaphor to other fields). As an example of the diversity of answers, though, the United Methodists have two specifically defined varieties of lay speakers (who are laity and often fill a teaching role), each with requirements that must be met to the satisfaction of larger church heirarchy to be claimed as a title. And that's just the one denomination I'm familiar enough with to reference offhand; I have no doubt that similar-enough terms are used in other contexts by other groups. — Lomn 21:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Narrow down to Roman Catholic and Anglican perspectives. Sneazy (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to add to the discussion a bit, there are a few of those terms which are common enough in several strains of Christianity that a common definition can be hazarded. They would be:

• Pastor: Usually the term for the leader of a specific congregation. Usually, the Pastor is charged as both the main leader of the worship service (usually presiding over major ceremonies at the service, and delivering the sermon/homily). While the term is usually applied more broadly to Protestant than Catholic or Orthodox churches, it is not wrong to call the "Parish Priest" a "Pastor", indeed the terms are used fairly interchangably. Of course, there are Priests in the Roman Catholic church who don't lead congregations in worship; priests with other jobs would not be pastors. The term comes from the word for "shepherd" (c.f. pastoralism)) and is closely tied to the agrigultural symbolism of the Chrtistian faith (Lamb of God, congregation as a "flock", etc.)
• Minister: A member of the clergy. Some protestant faiths hold to the concept of the ministry of all believers, but that merely means that all members of a church congregation are supposed to take an active role in the internal and external operation of the church; it encourages full participation rather than just consumption of services (i.e. becoming active in church beyond merely sitting in the pew on Sundays). However, even in those churches the clergy are still called "Ministers".
• Priest: A member of the ordained clergy in specific Christian denominations, most commonly Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. There are probably a few other smaller sects and strains that use the word Priest to describe their ordained clergy, but those are the three main ones. Other than Anglicanism, many other Protestant faiths don't use the word "Priest" and instead use the word "Minister" because there is no indication that the New Testament Church ordained any priests, the term is not used to describe any leaders of the early church, and as such is seen as a later, non-biblical innovation.
• Chaplain is usually used to indicate a clergy member without a regular church/congregation. Chaplains often work in transient situations, places like hospitals, the military, prisons, etc. may employ full-time chaplains. They otherwise do the normal work of a clergy member or pastor: holding religious services, delivering sacraments, presiding over weddings, serving as a religious counselor, etc., but they do so outside of the bounds of a formal congregation/church setting.
• Laity is any member of a church congregation which is not part of the clergy. Nearly all Christian denominations have roles within the church for lay members, such as teaching bible studies, serving as ushers, presenting communion, reading the scripture for the week, praying at certain times during the service, playing music or singing, performing jobs "behind the scenes" (media, sound, lighting technicians; treasurers and secretaries and receptionists), lots of other things. In most denominations, there are certain functions which are reserved for ordained clergy; any other job except for those reserved jobs could be done by the laity, but you will find a wide variance between denominations as to what those jobs are. Usually, however, most denominations require that clergy perform certain ceremonies (like weddings), or deliver the sermon/homily. In Catholicism, for example, the Priest or Deacon generally always reads the Gospel reading (other readings can be done by lay members), and the priest is required for Confession and to preside over the Eucharist. In some protestant congregations, there's very little, strictly speaking, that the lay members don't participate in. There are times, for example, when we at the Baptist church I am a member of, have sermons delivered by guest speakers who are not ordained; the Pastor usually performs Baptisms, but this is not required (any member may baptize any other member, and sometimes a parent will baptize their child for example.)
• Friar or Brother are basically the same term, and in Catholicism usually refers to a member of a mendicant order, that is a specific set of monastic orders dedicated to poverty and charity. I think that some orders prefer Friar and other Brother, while some use the two interchangably.
• The other terms are widely different depending on the denomination, broadly speaking a Bishop is an administrator over several parishes or congregations, his bailiwick is usually called a diocese. In most denominations that have Bishops, they are promoted in some way from the lower clergy into the role of Bishop. Likewise, a Vicar is an assistant of some sort (roughly equivalent to the military term "Lieutenant"), though there is some variation in this usage, and it is far from universal. Catholics, for example, have "apostolic vicars" who assist bishops by governing parts of a diocese, and "parochial vicars" that assist the pastor in leading a specific parish. Deacon is probably the most varied of all of the titles you listed, many denominations have Deacons, but there is such a huge variation in what the term means to each denomination it is impossible to give any universal definition. You'd do best to just read the article. --Jayron32 22:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

But in England, "Vicar" usually means Vicar (anglicanism), for practical purposes the same as "Parish Priest". --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Can children serve the church too? One position I know is the altar server. In the Coptic Orthodox denomination, only boys may become altar servers. I wonder what kind of position would be allowed for women and girls. Maybe volunteer positions? Lay teachers? Lay ministers? Lay chaplains? Nuns and religious sisters? Sneazy (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Which denomination? Seriously, the answers you get are so varied it is impossible to say with any certainty with regard to any specific denomination. IIRC, girls have been able to serve as alter servers in Roman Catholic churches for some number of decades now. In some number of Protestant denominations, there are no restrictions at all on women holding any post in the clergy or laity; though some denominations have "split" over such issues (consider that the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship split off from the Southern Baptist Convention over many issues, but one of the core ones was over women as pastors) so there's going to be a wide variation depending on the denomination, and even within some denominations from congregation to congregation (Baptists in particular are a "bottom up" organization, so individual Baptist churches are considered fully independent and not bound by rules from any greater organization than the church itself, which is governed by direct democracy. The same is true of many nondenominational christian churches) --Jayron32 03:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Jayron32: Is it ok to say that asking questions about Christianity is even harder than asking questions about Islam simply because Christianity is way too diverse to be coherent? When I ask questions about Islam online, answerers seem to perceive Islam as one monolithic or homogeneous religion, as if they seem to know that that would be what Muslims believe in or would behave. When I ask questions about Christianity online, confusion usually follows among the askers, requesting specification of whatever denomination. Therefore, I draw a conclusion that asking questions about Christianity is nearly useless. Instead of asking questions about Christianity, one should ask questions regarding a specific denomination, or a specific congregation, of Christianity and even that may not be enough to fully understand how the system operates due to Christianity's immense diversity of followers. Sneazy (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the questions you are asking aren't about the universals of Christianity. You're asking questions which are about the minutiae of church governance, which is very varied. Also, there are questions about Islam where you're likely to get a lot of varied answers as well. Islam is as varied in its sects as is Christianity, but it looks like (from below) that your aren't asking the same sorts of questions. For example, many of the major issues of Christology and the like are pretty well settled among most major Christian denominations (i.e. you're going to find broad agreement among a vast majority of modern Christians on many of these issues.) For example, nearly all major Christian denominations agree with the Holy Trinity and with the concept of the Hypostatic union which hold that a) God is three persons or aspects, those being God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Spirit (the Holy Spirit), and that the three aspects are both triune (literally three parts in one) and inseparable (Hypostasis is the theological term for this) and b) that Jesus is equally divine and human, he is simultaneously all divine and all human. In the early years of the church these were far from settled questions, but many of the early "schisms" that occurred over these issues happened so early that the groups that held different beliefs on such Christological issues never developed into major Christian groups; groups like the Gnostics and the Nestorians and other like groups are mainly historical footnotes, and modern mainstream Christianity considers this a settled issue. Your question below about Islam is about Ramadan, which is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, which are those things which all Muslims will agree with (much as I noted above with the broad agreement over Christological issues with nearly all modern Christians would agree with). However, if you started asking questions about the role of Muslim clergy, specific names thereof, specific practices within Islam you're going to get a lot of different answers. Even beyond the broad Sunni/Shia division (roughly analogous to the Orthodox/Catholic division that occured during the Great Schism in Christianity) you're going to run into things like various strains of, say, Sunnism that have different traditions and practices (see Madhhab which is a roughly Islamic equivalent to the Christian concept of "denomination"). You've got groups like the Twelvers, the Ismaili, the Alawi, etc., and taken in total, all of the various subdivisions of Islam are going to have as wide differences as one would find among various Christian groups. --Jayron32 04:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Can a non-Muslim observe Ramadan?

Can a non-Muslim observe Ramadan? Does reading the Quran have to be in Arabic? Is it ok if a non-Muslim enters a mosque? Should a non-Muslim woman wear some head covering (hijab) over herself for modesty inside the mosque? Does the hijab have to be made out of a special type of fabric, or will any type of fabric suffice for the headwear? How should non-Muslims behave in a mosque? Is there a specific term for non-Muslims, and what does Allah expects from non-Muslims? Sneazy (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The Islamic term for a non-believer is Kafir. Allah simply requires of non-Muslims that they become Muslims. The regulations inside a mosque vary in different traditions. In some mosques, women pray in an area that is separated from the men, in others they pray in the same room, however the wearing of some kind of head covering is normally expected (as in all public areas). Non-Muslims can often enter the mosque, provided they are not interrupting a prayer. According to conservative Islamic scholars, the Quran can only be properly read in Arabic, but many Muslims are unable to, so they do use translations sometimes. A non-Muslim can certainly observe Ramadan, the observance is a private thing. - Lindert (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Allah the same god as the Christian god or the Jewish god? Are they worshiping the same god? If they are worshiping the same god but different approaches to reach this god, then would being a Christian or Jew be enough to please Allah? Or does that person have to have explicit faith in Allah? Sneazy (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Allah means something like "the only God", which squares with Judeo-Christian tradition. The exact nature of God/Allah's message to humans is where the controversy is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Arabic-speaking Christians use "Allah" to refer to the Christian God in Arabic-language Bible translations. There has been some controversy over Christians using the word "Allah" in Malaysia, but not in any Arabic-speaking country as far as I know. As for Ramadan, if non-Muslims conspicuously publicly eat food during the day where Muslims can see them, this can cause tensions and frictions in a Muslim-majority country, and occasionally turn ugly. Christians know to keep any daylight food eating strictly behind closed doors in many contexts when Ramadan comes around... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In a Muslim-majority country during Ramadan, why would you think that there would be tensions and frictions between Muslims and non-Muslims if non-Muslims conspicuously publicly eat food during the day where Muslims can see them? What if the non-Muslims are really tourists, wearing tourist badges? If such a thing does occur in real life, then what would be some suggestions for traveling to a Muslim-majority country without causing frictions and tensions with the native community?

I know that Jews would not require non-Jews or Gentiles to obey the 613 mitzvot. However, a good Gentile from an Orthodox Jewish perspective, as I read on Judaism 101, would follow the seven commandments. I wonder how would a Christian react when the Christian sees a non-Christian person doing something blasphemous or whether or not that would cause tension and friction in Christian-majority societies. Sneazy (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Can trolls ask any question they want? What happens if someone answers them? Does anyone really know what time it is? Does anyone really care? μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I am assuming that you are critiquing the OP question as "trollish". Sneazy (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sneazy -- your answer of "01:45, 9 April 2013" unfortunately appears to mainly be concerned with counterfactual speculations which are rather separated from reality. AnonMoos (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sneazy should check out the Front Pembela Islam's actions during Ramadhan, if a restaurant refuses to close. Not representative of what moderates think, but it can certainly be an issue. During Ramadhan in Indonesia I never eat in front of people who are fasting; if I do eat in public and not at a restaurant, I usually place myself with my back to the street. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The answer should be the same to "Can a non-Christian celebrate Christmas?" I know of plenty of people who don't know that Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ, and for that matter, who Chist is, but celebrate it in any case. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Christmas was declared a "folk holiday" some years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. I think that had to do with justifying taking it as a federal holiday. It's basically "Winter Holiday". Can Ramadan also be considered a folk holiday? Or is it only religious? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a holiday. But the end of it is: Eid al-Fitr. The Christian equivalent is Lent. Paul B (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Holiday" in its original sense of "holy day". Or month, in this case. But I gather that the answer is that it's primarily religious. Oddly enough, Lent refers to springtime, and Ramadan apparently referred originally to summertime. Just as Christmas was originally chosen to coincide with the winter solstice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh really Bugs, now you are just being disingenuous. You can't have a "folk holiday" or "Winter holiday" in the etymological sense, so if that's what you meant your whole post was nonsensical. And in any case, you've just conceded that it's not a "day", so the original sense is irrelevant to the point you were making anyway. Paul B (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And thus to answer the original question: I have known secular folk who observe at least some form of abstinence in Lent, or in Ramadan, as a matter of personal discipline. They would not mark Lent in the way a Christian would, or Ramadan in the way a Muslim would, but they do make some observance by fasting. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

1)What are the reasons for a non-Muslim person to observe Ramadan?

2)Anyone can read the Quran's translations in any language to understand better its meaning. But Muslims should pray and recite the Quran aloud only in Arabic. In some countries praying in non-Arabic can be even persecuted by law.

3)Allah expects non-Muslims to become Muslims.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) To honor someone else's faith; (2) Some nations don't believe in freedom of religion; (3) That's the Muslim view, not universally held. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

April 9

Films / games of what would happen in a new Korean War?

Given that tensions have been heightening between the Koreas and the South's defenders in recent days, I am quite interested to find films about what would happen if a new Korean War were to erupt in contemporary times or the near-future.

Besides speculative-fiction films and TV episodes, are there documentaries detailing how such a "what-if" scenario would play out?

Moreover, what video games involve fighting a new war on the Korean peninsula in the contemporary period / near-future? Thanks. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk about it when and if this "Korean War" breaks out. Is what I say. But since you asked I might as well answer. I haven't seen any documentaries about "what-if" scenarios and I couldn't find any. Though there are a few videos on YouTube, though they all just hogwash. If a war does break out (which I hope it will not) some companies may create games based on it but I doubt it because it would be rude and, could damage countries relationships, and well you don't see games about 9/11 do you now (Pardon me if there is)?  RunningUranium  08:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There is very little cultural penalty for the US being rude to North Korea; indeed, mocking its current and past "dear leaders" has become something of a national pastime. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As for games, you might peruse Category:Video_games_set_in_Korea, which includes some in a modern idiom. Whether they are whatsoever accurate is highly unlikely. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding the administration of Ajmer Subah during the reign of Akbar?

Who was the Mughal Governor of Ajmer Subah during Akbar's reign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauravmitra (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit roundabout, but according to Medieval India: From Sultanate To The Mughals: Part I: Delhi Sultanate by Satish Chandra, page 142, Akbar conquered Ajmer in 1556, but did not create the 12 subahs until 1580, when he appointed a sipahsalar (later called a subahdar) to head each. In 1586, he gave joint command of Ajmer Subah to two Rajput rajas. Using these search terms and these dates (sipahsalar/subahdar and 1580 and 1586), I'm finding this:

• Ajmer and the Mughal Emperors by Neha Vikas Prakashan: "However, we came to know that Abdur Rahim Khan Khana was appointed governor of Ajmer in the year 1580 A.D. Abul Fazl mentions that in year 1586 A.D., Jagannath was appointed Subahdar of Ajmer and with him Rai Durga Mujahid..."

We have an article on Abdul Rahim Khan-I-Khana, but it does not mention being sabahdar of Ajmer. The names of the rajas are so common; I'm not finding Wikipedia articles on them. To confirm, you could look through the Abul Fazl work mentioned by Prakashan, Akbarnama. There are translations here and here. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Left wing Alternative parties Spain Portugal Italy Belgium Netherlands

Is there an alternative party in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Netherlands and Belgium like Respect party in United Kingdom, Quebec solidaire in Quebec, Meretz in Israel and MRC (Citizen and Republican Movement) in France?--Donmust90 (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Respect Party is but one of the Socialist alternative parties in the UK. There is also Socialist Workers Party and TUSC to name but two. Can you clarify whether you just mean "socialist alternative" party, which is where Respect places itself, or maybe "alternative" parties such as Monster Raving Loony Party or British National Party? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, only left wing parties, regardless left-wing liberal, social democrat or other left wing ideologies-based. --65.92.153.108 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

I don't know your criteria. Countries tend to have lots of small parties, including several left-wing, which may be described as alternatives to the larger parties. You can start here:

• List of political parties in Spain
• List of political parties in Portugal
• List of political parties in Italy
• List of political parties in Belgium
• List of political parties in the Netherlands

PrimeHunter (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, Respect+QS+Meretz+MRC are quite diverse. --Soman (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Respect is a member of European Anti-Capitalist Left, so the other member parties have something in common with it (but Respect is quite unusual in many ways). As Soman says, the other parties you name are quite different again. Warofdreams talk 11:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

hitler vs stalin

while hitler is widely equated with evil, stalin holds a more positive cultural image. if asked "who is the most evil person on the last century". most people will say hitler, not stalin. why? --Yoglti (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably because the Soviet Union was on the side of the Allies. Rojomoke (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would not say that Stalin "holds a more positive cultural image". They are both equally viewed in the culturally negative. However, because the Soviet Union was an ally of the US and Britain during WWII, the West was more willing to ignore (or at least not make a fuss about) Stalin's negatives... at least while the war lasted. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In summer 1941, Churchill said something like "If Hitler invaded hell, I would find something nice to say about the devil". In United States public opinion, a slightly naive "Uncle Joe" / "Mission to Moscow" / Walter Duranty and/or Popular Front influenced period gave way to bitter disillusionment due to events beginning basically in 1947, with Stalin's failure to hold promised democratic elections in Poland, the Czech Coup of 1948, the Greek civil war, the Berlin blockade, the Soviet A-bomb, the Communist victory in the Chinese civil war, etc. The outbreak of the Korean war in 1950 set the final seal on bitter U.S.-Soviet hostility, and the drastic swing in U.S. public opinion resulted in the rise of McCarthyism... AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is my guess, but there's something so coldly calculated about the Holocaust that it shocks people more than numbers. No doubt the purges were calculated, and Stalin, and to a different degree communism, is responsible for as many if not more deaths, but the holocaust is of a different character. Also, there's been a concerted effort to educate about the holocaust. There's less awareness of the details of Stalin's crimes. Shadowjams (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I would not overstate Stalin's popularity. He's considered better than Hitler, but pretty much everyone is considered better than Hitler. Hitler started one of the most awful wars in history and at the same time came up with uniquely sadistic ways to try and exterminate entire groups of people in the name of ideology. That's a hard act to follow.

Stalin's crimes are by now very well known and accepted. 50 years ago it was a somewhat different situation and many people still gave him a lot of credit for fighting the Germans and for industrializing Russia. But today I think you'd find that most people know him by his gulag and his purges. Which people don't rate very highly.

Is there a difference, we might ask, between the kind of system Hitler ran and the kind of system Stalin ran? We seem, implicitly, to regard genocide as a particularly ugly crime, much worse than Stalin's terrors which were fairly arbitrary in who they targeted. (Ostensibly they were targeting people with bad politics, but you didn't have to actually do anything to get thrown in the gulag.) I wonder if much of this is because of the type of propaganda (and I don't use this in a necessarily pejorative sense) that emerged at the time and in the wake of Hitler, which argued fairly explicitly that there was no baser thing than genocide and institutionalized racism. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's natural to believe (at least at first glance) that an incidental or heat-of-passion crime is less dire than a premeditated and cold-blooded one. That coupled with the necessity of the USSR to the Allied war plan means a brutal dictatorship which committed incidental mass murders of those who resisted (or whom it imagined resisted) its ideology and the programs accompanying it; is less reviled than a brutal dictatorship which committed mass murders on a premeditated basis of a predefined set of people who had the wrong blood. Also, I think most people, if they had to choose, would rather be shot than gassed. So while you can't at all justify or ignore Stalin's crimes, he's not the elephant in the room of human enormity (he's more hippopotamus-sized). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I also wonder if there's something to be said for charisma here. Stalin could not be accused of being a Great Communicator. Part of the chronic mass corruption of the Soviet system was due to the Russian (& Ukrainian, Belorussian, etc.) people not being communists. There are stories of Ukrainian peasants in the early days of the war enthusiastically surrendering to Wehrmacht troops on the theory that no government could possibly treat them worse than the USSR had (they were quickly disillusioned, of course). By great contrast, the Nazi Party was democratically elected to the Weimar parliament, and Hitler, a powerful public speaker, well and truly convinced ordinary people to believe in him and his agenda. Informing to the NKVD was an opportunity for payment and advancement; informing to the Gestapo was a patriotic duty and a matter of pride. I think it's that earnest elevation of such an inherently murderous belief system to the civic pantheon of "God and country" that is uniquely horrifying. Anyone can terrorize people by using guns; it takes something different (or at least we sure as hell hope it does) to terrorize that many people by using words. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hitler's plan, spelled out in Mein Kampf, required exterminating the Jews and exterminating the Slavic population of eastern Europe so that their lebensraum could be filled by Germans. Stalin was utterly ruthless but his goals did not include the extermination of large masses of people. Looie496 (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Many users said above that Stalin didn't exterminate large masses of people based on ethnicity, but that's absolutely false. See Decossackization and Population transfer in the Soviet Union, especially the section on "Ethnic operations". Entire ethnic minorities within Russia were deported to Siberia, with death rates due to starvation and disease of 43%. --140.180.242.70 (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Sometimes I like to joke that Stalin was an equal opportunity homicidal maniac, but that's not entirely true.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

IMHO both Stalin and Hitler were plenty evil, but here are a few more reasons for Stalin being less unpopular: Germany is closer to Britain and France than Russia. Stalin won the war. Nazi propaganda died down considerably after WWII, but Communist propaganda continued in force for another half century. (BTW, Stalin's mass murders were not "incidental", were premeditated, and had reached into the millions before war had broken out.)--Wikimedes (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

North Korea's justification

I'm familiar with North Korea's modus operandi when it comes to these things, but I wondered if I'd missed it... has North Korea given a supposed reason for their recent provocations? I understand the real reason is transition of power, both with the new Kim Jong and the new South Korean president, but has the NK media given any excuses other than the usual stuff? Shadowjams (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"counter{ing} U.S. 'aggression'" - pretty much the usual stuff. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You may find The Pyongyang Times - the official website of the national newspaper (in English) - fascinating reading (don't click on the randomly hyperlinked words within each story, because they just produce a pop-up telling you that you can win an iPad2 if you 'answer the following question'.) I think all of the information you are looking for will be in there. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

April 10

Countries without a government

Recently I've heard in the news about Italy not having a government or that the government has changed. What does this mean? I'm American, if it helps explain it in terms relative to a system that I am familiar with. Dismas|^(talk) 01:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There is really no way to explain Italy in a way that an American is familiar with.

More seriously, in a parliamentary system, the executive part of the government is chosen by the Parliament. If the government steps down, for whatever reason, it typically takes a while before the various parties can work out a deal to form a new government. If no single party has an absolute majority, the process of choosing a government can involve a lot of intense negotiation and deal-making. Looie496 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

When it's said that a country does not have a government, that's just at the lawmaking end for the most part, isn't it? It's not like all the various government agencies suddenly cease functioning, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There's usually a caretaker government... AnonMoos (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The election gave a majority in the lower house of parliament (Chamber of Deputies) to the centre-left led by Pier Luigi Bersani (hereafter refer to as A). The centre-left (A) lacks a majority in the Senate, which it would need to pass any legislation. The centre-left’s leader, Pier Luigi Bersani, has discounted a coalition with the conservative partnership of Silvio Berlusconi’s People of Freedom (PdL) movement and the Northern League (hereafter refer to as B). But the biggest obstacle is C, the Five Star Movement (M5S) led by Beppe Grillo.

So to sum it up: Three groups, A, B and C each lack the necessary parliamentary majority; A will not form a coalition with B; C will not support either. No coalition possible.

No majority = can't pass legislation = no functional government. [2][3][4] Royor (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Italy also has a president, so there is still a head of state, just no legislative branch at the moment. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe there is a legislative branch - the election happened without any problems, so there are members of parliament. What they are lacking is the executive branch (which is usually a subset of the legislative branch in parliamentary democracies). As mentioned above, there will be a caretaker executive doing the day-to-day stuff. (The President is a largely ceremonial role in Italy, I believe, their role in the day-to-day running of the country is very small.) --Tango (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify further, what is meant by government in this context is the political end of government. We sometimes hear of a US city government that goes bankrupt, and we get the impression that all government services cease because no-one will get paid. This is nothing like that. As far as I know, all government functions continue, the police, judges, tax inspectors etc continue to do their jobs but no political decisions are made. Belgium famously had no functioning federal government for over a year, though in that country most functions are delivered by sub-national entities. Sussexonian (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there may be a linguistic confusion between Europe and the US: in Europe, the government is about 30 people who are the part of executive branch, not the whole 100,000 people organisation that the US people call "the Government". So Saying Italy has no government is like saying that there are no misnisters appointed. --08:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Common law vs. civil law

Is common law or civil law more just? --128.42.156.120 (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask. According to Martin Luther King, Jr. in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God". Ryan Vesey 03:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

what did Daladier have to do with Poincaré in 1928?

I can't understand the last sentence of this paragraph:

"A government minister in various posts during the coalition governments between 1924 and 1928, he was instrumental in the Radical Party's break with the socialist SFIO in 1926, the first Cartel des gauches – "Left-wing Coalition"), and with the conservative Raymond Poincaré in November 1928."

what did Daladier have to do with Poincaré in November 1928? was he in his coalition? because as far as I know, he wasn't in his government.

please answer in Édouard Daladier's talk page. thanks. Virant (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia article has more about him. See http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89douard_Daladier . Daladier held the following posts: Minister of Colonies (1924), Minister of War (1925) and Minister of Public Instruction (1926), all during the Premiership of fellow Radical Édouard Herriot or his successor, leftist PRS member Paul Painlevé. He basically served in the Leftist Governments that came during 1924-1926, which came between the Poincaré terms before and after that period. It doesn't appear that Daladier served specifically in the Poincaré government at any time, but many of his political allies (Radical, PRS, or SFIO, all left or centre-left parties) did, including noted Center-Left politicians such as Aristide Briand, as well as Painlevé and Herriot; this seems fairly common in French governments of the French Third Republic where a Premiership from one side of the political spectrum would have ministers from the so-called "opposition" coalition. In this case, Poincaré was a noted Centre-Right politician and founder of the DRA, a group that filled the Right-side power vacuum in French politics left by the demise of the Monarchists in the early 20th century. --Jayron32 05:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Words formed by arrangement of objects

A "living flag", 1898

CommonsCat on Twitter today noted the existence of Commons:Category:Words formed by arrangement of objects, which reminded me of a question I've been meaning to ask... Is there a specific term for this concept, or the more general case of objects arranged to represent a larger symbol (eg a picture composed of coloured objects)? "Mosaic" doesn't quite seem to cover it; it implies the objects are themselves quite trivial (basically coloured dots). Photographic mosaic only covers the special case where the subsidiary parts are photographic images.

I am thinking in particular of things like the image to the right - a flag made up of people wearing coloured clothing - or ones such as this, where people are spelling out a word.

Any ideas? Andrew Gray (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Card stunt (a term spoonerists should regard with deep suspicion) would cover public displays such as those that are now common at Olympic opening ceremonies. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)