Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

May 18

Catholic bishops and cathedrals

This is going to be a convoluted question, largely because I don't know enough to ask an intelligent question.

First off, I've heard of cathedral parishes. Are the parishioners just average Catholics who hear Mass at the cathedral instead of at a non-cathedral church? Or is there something special about the parish, e.g. you somehow have to "qualify" to be a member there in a way that you don't have to "qualify" to be a member of a normal parish? Perhaps the membership is composed of the priests from across the diocese?
What responsibilities does a bishop have for a cathedral and its parish? Are they basically the same as a typical priest's responsibilities for his parish? Bishop (Catholicism) doesn't mention the issue, only mentioning the bishop's responsibilities for the entire diocese. I'm also unclear how a cathedral's Rector (ecclesiastical) fits in.
Do bishops typically work out of an office at the cathedral, or do they spend most of their time visiting the various parishes to keep up to date on what's going on? Or do they decide on their own schedules, making this question impossible to answer?
When a diocese has two cathedrals, does the bishop have equal responsibilities for both, or will one be more important than the other, or is this question unanswerable because the situation varies from diocese to diocese? Co-cathedral doesn't specify whether a building designated "Co-Cathedral" is equal or subsidiary to a building designated "Cathedral".

Perhaps a little context will help; all this grows out of seeing a "Reserved for the Bishop" sign in a parking spot at St. Joseph's, the cathedral for the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston. It left me wondering what he was supposed to do there versus what he had to do at the Charleston co-cathedral and at the other parishes. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral comes from the Greek word kathedra which literal means "seat", and through Latin and French is the source of the English word "chair". A cathedral is essentially a church with a little more grandeur suiting a bishop, who is the head of a diocese. Bishoprics can move and new cathedrals be built; it doesn't require the old one to be destroyed. As for parish, a Catholic is supposed to attend and support his geographically closest parish church. That may end up being a cathedral. My youngest sister ended up being baptized in a Roman Catholic church due to geography, along with some other complications, even though we were Byzantine Catholic. Only later did the bishop comment he would have happily had her baptized in a Byzantine church had he known. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're answering my #1; thank you. I don't see answers to #2-#4; do I misunderstand you, or did you not intend to answer them? Not trying to complain; I'm still a bit confused by the situation. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Bishop (Catholicism)#Duties help any? Diocesan bishops (those appointed to head a Diocese) are expected to say Mass every week, in addition to that, they are also the chief administrator of the Diocese, and have similar duties to other administrators in any endeavor: staffing all of the parishes with pastoral priests, maintaining the finances for the diocese, etc. Bishops also preside over certain sacraments, such as Holy Orders and Confirmation. --Jayron32 05:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem — I read it before asking this question. I was left wondering if they normally said Mass at the cathedral (and in the case of double dioceses like Wheeling-Charleston, both or just one?) or if they would rotate around parishes, or if both were valid options; and also I was left uncertain of how they were required (or if any requirements existed) to perform the other duties. Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. As for #2 and #3, The cathedral is just the church itself, the bishop will have a rectory (or its equivalent, that's what they call it for parish priests) which serves as an office and usually has a very close by or attached residence. Jayron pretty much answered #3. The bishop sets his own schedule and can communicate, often by letter, both with the priests and the parishoners in his diocese directly. When I attended church I remember there being a letter about yearly and on special occasions or about special issues from the bishop. When The Life of Brian came out, a letter from Archbishop Krol of Philadelphia was read (in the role of bishop) forbidding Catholics from viewing it. As for his duties, he could be thought of as the district manager of a corporate business (he literally is this) watching over the branch offices as he saw fit. μηδείς (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no need to apologise! Didn't realise that rectories were often offices; I know that lots of Protestant ministers (including many in my denomination) have offices at the church (and many of the exceptions are pastors of tiny congregations who need to save money everywhere possible, including by working at home), so I simply figured that the church would have rooms where priests would do their paperwork and their studying and meet with parishioners. I understand much better now; "the bishop sets his own schedule" makes the situation substantially simpler. I guess that I wasn't aware of the extent of bishops' autonomy; instead of being district managers, I imagined them as being comparable to mid-level bureaucrats who always have certain procedures to follow and lack the right to make important decisions independently. Does that answer my #4 too, i.e. the bishop can decide which of the two cathedrals is more important, or he can make them equal? Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment on #4 since I have no familiarity with the issue. But what is important to keep in mind is that the bureaucracy is not ceremonial or sacramental. There are certain things you have to do during mass to do it right. But the administration of dioceses is organic and inherently different and follow what in the corporate world are called "local practices" (see alansplodge's comment below for difference between UK and US). As an example, in my family's local parish, there was originally a single small building called the rectory with an office, a kitchen, and rooms for the monsignor and the second parish priest. Over time the parish expanded, separate residences were built for the serving and retired priests, and the "rectory" became just an office. None of this has any religious significance, however, so it's just a matter of administrative decisions based on supply and demand. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the cathedral itself is usually managed by a team of clergy called the Cathedral chapter which is led by a Provost and supported by an administrator called the Dean. However, that last link says that in the US, there are no chapters, and cathedrals are directly managed by a Rector. The Bishop isn't involved with the day-to-day running of his cathedral, and may only lead the worship there on special occasions and major feast days. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Medal in silver 1915

Who got the Guy Medal in silver in 1915

Sydney Chapman (economist) or Sydney Chapman (mathematician)?

Did anyone of the below got the Guy Medal. None of their wikipedia page have any mention of Guy Medal. Neither is there any clue on the internet.

David Forbes Hendry - 1986 bronze
Joseph Shield Nicholson - 1918 silver
Ralph George Hawtrey - 1936 silver

Any help appreciated. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything explicit on Google, but this biography of Chapman the Maths says that after a spell collecting data at the Royal Observatory, he returned to lecture at Cambridge in 1914, which doesn't sound like anything you'd win a stats prize for. He was also a conscientious objector, which in 1915, would have made him the target of public vilification. Chapman the Economy was meanwhile busy putting the nation's industries onto a war footing and seems far more likely to be gathering laurels, given the patriotic fervour in the Britain of 1915. Alansplodge (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also (circumstantial, I know), the economist definitely had a J to match the "SJ Chapman" on the Royal Society's list whereas I can't see the mathematician ever used a middle initial. What about asking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange whether someone with a Times subscription can search their archive for 1915 for an announcement? 184.147.137.171 (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couldnt find anything in the Times about the medal in 1915 but a paper by Professor S. J. Chapman, MA and Mr David Kemp was read to the society in January 1915 on "The War and the Textile Industries", this would point to Sydney Chapman (economist) being the receipent. MilborneOne (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professor J Shield Nicholson and Mr R G Hawtrey are in the RSS's list of previous silver winners, and Professor D F Hendry in the bronze list. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Who Was Who, Sydney John Chapman (b. 1871) was a Guy Silver Medallist (no year given). He was also Vice-President of the Royal Statistical Society in 1916. The other one definitely had no middle name. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hipsters

Which countries have the highest and lowest proportions of hipsters as a percentage of the overall population? The definition is as per the linked article i.e. "associated with independent music, a varied non-mainstream fashion sensibility, liberal or independent political views, alternative spirituality or atheism/agnosticism, and alternative lifestyles." --Viennese Waltz 10:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is so nebulous that it's probably impossible to say. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idle (though infallible) speculation: The Vatican would be fairly low on the list. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Count the number of goatees? -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given my experience part of the hipster m.o. is that they do not admit that the existence of other "hipsters" and certainly don't catalog their numbers, as Walter Sobchak might say if seeing that behavior "Hippsstteerr . . . very un-hipster". And if even hipsters won't count their population how are us squares supposed to? ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 15:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we have this question not very long ago? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before it was cool, perhaps? --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, about a month ago, from memory. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 13:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would hazard to guess that the country with the highest proportion of hipsters would probably be Luxembourg. It is a fairly liberal country politically... well plugged into the trends in broader European culture. However, because its total population is small, even a small number of hipsters will be a large percentage of total population. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By (nebulous) definition, this is an urban, indeed principally metropolitan, subculture. Luxembourg doesn't have a city big enough to come even close to being a metropolis. (Luxembourg City has a population of between 100,000 and 160,000 depending on how you define the city limits). Valiantis (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article in question refers almost exclusively to the US and indeed primarily to the New York area (there's also a reference to Vancouver) then I'd suggest the only realistic answer is the US. "Hipster" is an English term. The interwiki links all direct to "hipster" as an English loan word and the text in those that I can read refers mainly to the US - and New York specifically - as the stomping ground of such folk. (The Italian interwiki also identifies Hoxton and Shoreditch in London, Prenzlauer Berg in Berlin, Belleville, Paris, and Bologna in Italy). I'm mainly familiar with the term from US TV etc. where it seems to be well-understood enough to be used in mainstream comedy shows (off the top of my head both 2 Broke Girls and Happy Endings regularly poke fun at hipsters and use the term when doing so). There does seem to be some currency for the term in the UK in print and web media, but I can't think of comparable UK TV programmes which use the term as a readily understandable type. Valiantis (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the confusion, most of the images are of Chicago. Sindonwe (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even any evidence that hipsters/hipsterism exists outside the US as a defined subculture/concept? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World War I is missing: which one should it go in, and why?

World War I is missing from both of the above articles. Which one does it belong in, and why? The Transhumanist 19:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good question. Early modern warfare says that "the late 18th to early 19th centuries... mark the end of this era", while Modern warfare on the other hand states that "Modern warfare, although present in every historical period of military history, is generally used to refer to the concepts, methods and technologies that have come into use during and after the Second World War and the Korean War.[citation needed]". I think that we can assume that whatever else is wrong, the suggestion that "modern warfare" was "present in every historical period of military history" is either entirely nuts, or meaningless. On the other hand, there isn't actually a requirement that Wikipedia articles be logically consistent with each other. I suspect that this may be a question for military historians to answer: is there an agreed definition of when 'early modern warfare' began, and what period followed it? Perhaps there is a 'mid-modern warfare' period? Or maybe historians don't have any agreed common definition (which wouldn't be that surprising). Whatever the answer is, we should beware of redefining the scope of one article or the other without proper sourcing. It needs proper research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a source, but American history commentary usually describes the Civil War 1861-1865 as the turning point, which began with soldiers marching in formation and ended with ironclad armored hulls, machine guns and submarines (and concentration camps and the "total war" of Sherman's March). WWI had a similar trajectory, with soldiers in formation and bright uniforms giving way to gas, guns, trenches and tanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman's March to the Sea is an example of the "scorched earth" military strategy. "Total war" means commitment of an entire economy to a war. The Transhumanist 19:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, transhumanist. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our "history of war" template (inserted above on the right) classifies WWI as part of the Industrial warfare era, which lies between the Early Modern (aka "gunpowder") and Modern eras. Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This solves my problem. I've treated it (in Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of World War I#Nature of World War I) as follows:

Industrial warfare
- Includes aspects of both Early modern warfare and modern warfare

There is no doubt that World War I is not "early modern warfare." But as Looie points out there are finer grades that you can classify it as opposed to just calling it "modern." (In general, "early modern" usually means 16th-early 19th centuries, though in some contexts it can go earlier or later.) --Mr.98 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guys at WP:MILHIST might be able to help out here. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left them a note to invite them over. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion is a result of the differences between how historians use the word "modern" and how its used in the vernacular. Generally speaking, the terms line up with the early modern and modern periods in European history. A common delineator between the two is the Revolutionary/Napoleonic period (so the 1797-1815). The periodization is especially coincidental, owing to the major changes in warfare (for instance, the levee en masse - mass conscription, the advent of total war, etc.) the marked a significant break from the Frederickian style limited war of the early modern period, and led directly to the industrialized warfare of the 20th century.

So to answer the original question, World War I is firmly in the "modern" era. I hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - World War I is often referred to as the first truly modern war in that all particpants were industrialized, and the fighting took place on land, sea and air and involved complex strategies, logistical arrangements and communications. Wars such as the American Civil War are seen as being precursors to WW1. That all said, there wasn't a clear delineation. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article on how stupid the word modern is as an adjective for a historical period, one that will obviously eventually not be all that modern. What's the next period in warfare? Post-modern? And then...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)

I could just imagine a teenager in 1,000 years buying Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and sitting down in front of his virtual console and thinking, "Hang on....this is ancient warfare......" KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the "modern period" is the 20th century to the present. Yes, over time that becomes increasingly long, but people of the future will just rename stuff. Nobody called themselves "early modern", or even "medieval," either. This are terms always applied retrospectively. That they shift over time does not preclude their usefulness. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you're referring to is the contemporary period (and it again highlights the difference between how "modern" is used by historians and by the general public). The modern period (as historians define it) goes back to the 16th century (including the early modern period). Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pocky

Do the majority of Japanese people actually eat Pocky on a regular basis? I personally suspect that it's not as often as Japanophiles in the west think that they do and that it's mostly a stereotype/misunderstanding, but does anyone know for sure? --87.112.113.5 (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Japan for ten years, and I can say they are very common at parties, or as snacks when going on a journey somewhere. However, they are not commonly eaten at home or in the office (at least not in my house or in my workplaces), but they may be given as a snack for visitors to a house. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

Ronaldsway culture

would like information / article on Ronaldsway culture that existed on the isle of mann thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.76.87 (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article Ronaldsway there's an airport and an historical battleground there. It also seems to be close to Ballasalla and Castletown, both of which seem to be a bit more "happening" than Ronaldsway. --Jayron32 03:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended your header to something meaningful, since virtually all questions we get here stem from a lack of information. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronaldsway culture refers to a neolithic archeaological stratum, not the local fine dining establishments. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

meta-discussion of how to answer this question; see talk page

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

Watch it, Jayron. If I had given that answer to the OP's question I'd have been accused of undermining the sanctity of childhood, universal healthcare, honey bees, and the fabric of time and space with my part-time trollery. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what? --Jayron32 04:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link I provided, then reread the thread carefully, including spelling, then let me know if you are still confused. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by why you accused me of trolling. I'm not confused by your link. --Jayron32 05:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of actually trolling. I said that if I had accidentally made the apparently inadvertent joke you did out of ignorance, I would have been accused of intentionally mocking the OP. μηδείς (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see how this works now. Jayron32 tries to give informative answers which wikilink to our articles (as is the point of this reference desk) while other editors patronisingly link to Google search results or to Youtube videos which have no relevance. No wonder this website is ridiculed from some quarters, some long-term editors should know better. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronaldsway culture refers to the neolithic flint tool artifacts found at the Ronaldsway airport on the Isle of Man. They date from the 3rd millennium BC. BBC has an overview (with video) here. However, it seems the most thorough info is in a book, The Neolithic Culture of the Isle of Man: A Study of the Sites and Pottery, by Stephen Burrow, Archaeopress 1997, ISBN: 0860548724 ([1]). It looks as if retailers such as Amazon carry it, so a good library probably will as well. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a brief Archaeology section to the Ronaldsway page - feel free to add to it. Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What time of day and date of the year would most people on earth be in darkness?

Moved to the Science desk. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna - unidentified detail

I photographed this in St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna. It is located in the shop entrance.

. Any information concerning the function and surrounding text will be appreciated. Etan J. Tal^(talk) 08:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile question answered in German WP - pls disregard Etan J. Tal^(talk) 15:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer on German Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a communist society

This has long ceased to be anything other than a shared soapbox

Suppose you were a revolutionary socialist who had just managed to overthrow the government in a highly developed, first-world country (pick any one you like). Starting from here, how would you build "true communism"? I'm not saying "communism" is necessarily good or evil, but I would like to know if it's actually possible. From a quick read through Soviet history, it seems like they never got anywhere close. 78.105.228.3 (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do hypotheticals, debates, speculation, what-ifs, crystal ball gazing and the like here. We deal in matters that can be referenced. Sorry. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an unreasonable question at all, and I'd be very interested to see what answers people come up with. It's simply asking for the theoretical steps by which a communist society would be achieved. That doesn't sound like speculation or crystal ball gazing to me. --Viennese Waltz 12:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The usual way of dealing with hypotheticals like that is to point to an article or book which tackled a subject like that. Mark and Engels The Communist Manifesto would be a start on that. You'll see where all the turgid mind numbing prose of communism came from. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I just looked up longest speeches expecting the communists to have a overwhelming pole position but in [2] some Indian politician speaking to the UN security council took over eight hours, easily beating Castro's four hours and 29 minutes to the UN general assembly. Dmcq (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

V. K. Krishna Menon was the first defence minister of India not "some Indian politician". Solomon7968 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Viennese Waltz, he wants more than the theoretical steps. He says the Soviets never got anywhere close, so the theory didn't work there. There have never been any actual, real-life examples of truly communist societies, so to get from the theory that failed in the USSR and has manifestly failed in other so-called communist countries, to one that might actually work, he wants ... well, more theory. Trouble is, he hasn't asked for what reliable sources have said about this new theory, he's asked how to actually implement and achieve it. Nobody in the world knows that, because 100% of attempts have failed. It's unanswerable. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 13:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The followers of Marx and Engels many flaws were the perfect case study in how to fail, using gulags. Societies artificially constructed by a tiny group of individuals can never compete with those that develop naturally. 71.127.137.190 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Marx nor Engels ever advocated 'societies artificially constructed by a tiny group of individuals'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Margaret Thatcher said "The problem with socialism [or for that matter communism] is that you eventually run out of other peoples money". The example that is most telling to me is that of Cuba, an immensely wealthy island that is capable of feeding the world and one of the last colonies Spain was willing to fight for up until almost 1900. Today nobody does anything because Castro "owns" everything and the nation can't feed itself, in its quest for communal equality of outcomes it punishes innovation and creativity and is basically a race to the bottom, but hey you have the greatest equality there, everybody was suffering, until capitalists came by with more tourist dollars in the last 15 years.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that you've got John Galt's theory about why communism can't work (certainly it contributes to Cuba's backwardness in major areas, but look at its closest neighbors in Latin America and the Caribbean which have never come nearly as close to implementing communism, and see if you think they're doing better in most sectors) to get some idea of why it hasn't worked, you might take a look at the kibbutz experiments in Israel, which were never on a national scale but the cards weren't stacked against success by the abandonment or resistance of so many unwilling participants. There, it looks as though whatever economic challenges the founding generation encountered (and they were significant), the death knell seems to have been sounded by the next generation's rejection of the discipline and attraction to the opportunities they felt were only accessible outside the system. They left and didn't come back to raise their children. FactStraight (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fatal mistakes in communism were it's dismissal of religion and democracy. Religions should have been appropriated and put to use, not banned. True Christianity, for example, has a long tradition of charity and egalitarianism. It could be argued that a true socialist nation, where everyone "works according to their ability and takes only according to their need", is the best form of government for a Christian nation. Similarly, if you convinced the population of that, so they were willing to work hard, not for rewards in this life, but in the afterlife, then democracy would ensure that leaders who actually believed in the cause would remain in power, too, as opposed to those who just give lip service to communism as they steal from the nation. StuRat (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have exactly what I told the OP we don't do here, a round-table discussion or debate about the flaws of communism. That was not what he asked. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I still maintain we could have answered the question without descending into such a discussion. I don't know a whole lot about communism, but one thing I do know is that it calls for redistribution of wealth. Therefore, one possible answer to the OP's question would have been that a hypothetical revolutionary socialist leader would build communism by redistribution of wealth. What is unacceptable about that? --Viennese Waltz 20:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, he's gone beyond the hypothetical. He's not interested in the theory (he cited the USSR as a notable example of how that theory failed) and is asking what would ACTUALLY work. Trouble is, we cannot point to an example of how communism has actually worked, because it never has actually worked. All we could ever do is give cites about what people say, think, assert WOULD work, but they're untested, and hence still in the realm of theory, and hence inadequate as an answer for what the OP is asking for. There is no answer we can give that satisfies the question. I'd say the same thing about a question asking what could Politician X do to guarantee he becomes the next President of the USA. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he starts by asking "how would you build "true communism"?" That sounds pretty hypothetical to me. The statement "I would like to know if it's actually possible" doesn't really fit with what has gone before. I would be tempted to ignore it and focus on trying to answer the first part. --Viennese Waltz 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you regard communism as inherently hypothetical and unrealisable, which the OP seems not be doing. If he'd asked "How would you build a house" or "How would you travel to Patagonia", we'd answer that as a real and un-hypothetical question. This question is being asked on the same real basis (albeit within the context of a hypothetical overthrow of the government in a highly developed, first-world country). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, even if I agreed with you that it's a hypothetical question, we still can't answer it because of our policy of not answering hypothetical questions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer OP's "how would you", perhaps the banishment of Wikipedia? The almost total control of information was a common thread among many communist regimes, in which case JackofOz's point is supported in another way. And hey in reference to several posts above the John Galt response wouldn't entirely work since my userpage clearly demonstrates an aversion to Objectivism ;-).^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Stalin said something along the lines of "Ideas are more powerful than guns, and we don't let enemies of the state have guns, so why would we let them have ideas?" --Jayron32 02:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent find there Jayron32!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with Jack of Oz that a lot of this discussion has shown the problems with these sort of questions on the RD. Since the OP themselves believe the Soviets didn't get close to achieving true communism, and we can assume that they don't believe anyone else did either (otherwise they would already have a model), I don't get the relevance of all the other failures to demonstrating how to achieve true communism, unless you're saying you should not do that which doesn't appear to be what is being suggested here. Even then, it's illogical to assume that everything they did was the wrong idea, so ultimately you'd need a more careful analysis (and really a whole lot of hypothetical and highly debately arguments) to tell whether anything was a good or bad idea in achieving true communism and that's not really something we should be doing. You could also use this as an argument for why it's not possible to achieve true communism but again you'd need a more sophisticated and detailed consideration (and this doesn't seem to have been the suggestion above, at least by Marketdiamond).

However I don't entirely agree with JackofOz on this question being unsuitable for the RD, although nor do I agree with VW. We shouldn't be coming up with our own OR and ideas on how to achieve true communism, that's not the purpose of the RD and while we tolerate it to some extent in some cases, this is the sort of case where it just doesn't work. But even though the OP's question was perhaps poorly phrased, there's no reason it can't be taken as a decent RD question, i.e. a request for references. And there must surely be many references with various ideas of how it can be done including those concentrating on first world countries and where all the others went wrong, and a lot more saying it's not possible with reasons given both of which would likely be of interest to the OP. Perhaps the only issue is the OPs scenario starts with the unclear 'overthrow of government' which is problematic particularly since the vast majority of highly developed first world countries have decent democracies with fairly free and fair elections. So overthrow of government would seem to imply some sort of coup by a small group of people which lacks popular support. I suspect a number of commentators who do still believe achieving true communism is possible would suggest trying to achieve it in such a scenario is difficult or impossible.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe The State and Revolution is the classic work on the subject.-gadfium 01:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-intuitively, communists haven't spent much time analysing a potential transition to communism, focusing on the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. The most relevant Wikipedia articles are stateless communism, the (very weak) world communism, and Engels' withering away of the state. Warofdreams talk 10:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Zappa once said that communism doesn't work "because people like to own stuff." The OP would have to get past that barrier somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To further evolve on Zappa, see Liberal paradox or an interpretation of the "architect" here since despite communism theory there will always have to be organization which is centralized and total in nature, again to add to JackofOz's overall point, wikipedia like google and Youtube in China would be censored to the point of being useless and banned, so its a bit ironic asking it here.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the Anamithim

I've heard many references in Faerie folklore and such to creatures known as the Anamithim, but they were always vague and obscure. What are they? What is their origin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.51.225 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I search google books for the term, the earliest reference is the Charles de Lint novel Blue Girl[3], from 2004. [4] Unless there is another spelling, it doesn't appear to be a term from actual folklore but an invention of de Lint. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A plural word ending in "-im" sounds more Hebrew than Celtic anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't assume that 'Faerie folklore' would have any reliably Celtic content. But yes, it sounds quasi-Hebrew, but I'd be willing to bet that it either doesn't have a valid root, or the root has an irrelevant and inapt meaning unknown to the person who invented the word. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to interpret it as a Hebrew word, "-ith" is one transcription of a feminine singular ending, while "-im" is a masculine plural ending (the two do not occur side-by-side in real Hebrew words), while "Anam" doesn't seem to occur except in an obscure proper name in Genesis 10:13. Apparently in some Greek manuscripts of Genesis 13, this name has an extra "t" in it (Αινεμετιειμ), so if there's any connection with Hebrew, it's probably that... AnonMoos (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

Alex Linder's middle name

I have been trying to find a reliable source to cite to add Alex Linder's middle name to the biography. Many sources say his full name is Alex Ruedy Linder, but I don't know if any of them are reliable. Vanguard News Network is obviously not reliable, even though he mentions his full name there. How should I know if Ruedy actually is his middle name? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I've been able to come to confirming his middle name is this, and I don't think that's a reliable source. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Efficacy of detachable faceplates for deterrence of car stereo theft

I'm looking into the efficacy of detachable faceplates for car stereo theft deterrence. Is there any research that demonstrates this? Quotes from police departments? I can't find any research that's been done in this area. Sancho 01:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need help identifying piano work

Can anyone help me identify the first work played in this video? The beginning is cut off, as is, most likely, the identifying card that is shown for the other works played in this concert. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's the 3rd and final movement (Presto agitato) of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. The slow first movement is the famous one, but there are 2 others. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone asked recently about one tune inspiring another. Hard telling in this case, but you may know that Victor Borge used to seamlessly segue from "Moonlight ~~Sinatra~~ Sonata" to tunes like "Night and Day" and "Happy Birthday to You". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess more was cut off than I thought--it must have been about 10 minutes. Chick Bowen 23:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of consciousness is coming up independently with the the 'hard problem' - who has already said this?

I remember reading somewhere the idea that good evidence of consciousness (in the sense of the hard problem) is independently coming up with the concept of the hard problem of consciousness.

My question: who was it who said/wrote this? Is it part of some of existing theory / body of thought?

It seems a very simple and strong idea, but I have not been able to find it (in general web searches and in Wikipedia).

For example if some computers, or aliens, are overheard discussing the hard problem of consciousness, without having been introduced to it by human beings, then this seems very good evidence that they have consciousness.

The fact that other people discuss the hard problem is also good evidence to me that I am not the only person who is conscious.

This is such a simple argument I find it difficult to understand why it is not used more often - or maybe there is a flaw in it that I have not noticed. Could anyone point out such a flaw?

In the article Philosophical zombie, what seems to me a weaker version of the argument is used: "If someone were to say they love the smell of some food... If zombies were without awareness of their perceptions the idea of uttering words could not occur to them." It seems to me quite easy to conceive of something without hard-problem type consciousness coming up with that statement - it seems on the level of a simple robot going towards or away from a light source; two fairly simple computers fitted with appropriate sensors and a simple vocabulary could come up with that statement... There is a lot could be debated here - but my reason for mentioning it is: why didn't they use instead the (what seems to me) stronger argument about discussing the hard problem as being evidence of consciousness?

FrankSier (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, Hard problem of consciousness. Rojomoke (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who wrote that, but the argument seems unsound. The basic idea underlying the "hard problem of consciousness", as David Chalmers formulated it, is that an entity could in principle behave exactly like a conscious entity without being conscious. That's what it means to be a philosophical zombie. But talking is a form of behavior, including talking about the hard problem of consciousness. Therefore talking, regardless of the topic, cannot provide evidence for having genuine experiences. Rejecting this reasoning is equivalent to rejecting the validity of the "hard problem of consciousness". (Let me note that this whole topic strikes many people, including me, as absurd. Daniel Dennett explained the absurdity in a compelling way in a well-known essay titled The Unimagined Preposterousness of Zombies.) Looie496 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I find absurd is Dennett's position, so much so that I have trouble believing he's actually sincere.

But we're probably not going to get anywhere talking about that. Let's just take the consequences of the arguments as presented. The p-zombie argument says that it's possible in principle that an entity yada yada yada as you say. It doesn't say anything about how likely it is, and indeed that's entirely irrelevant to the argument. So behavior can indeed be evidence of consciousness. Just not proof.

Of course, all bets are off if someone is intentionally trying to deceive you. --Trovatore (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frank. Todd Moody has a paper, "Conversations with Zombies" in Journal of Consciousness Studies, volume 1, issue 2 (1994), pp. 196-200. The argument is not exactly like you report, and in the corollary, but he is saying essentially the same thing: While zombies that live among us may be able to ape the talk of primary consciousness, zombies from an alien planet would not develop such discourse. Also, I want to second what Trovatore just said, more or less. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atethnekos, thanks for that. I have found an online copy [5]. The paper matches just the sort of thing I was thinking. FrankSier (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Q in Mission Impossible 3

Can anyone explain me the context of the vatican city scene in Mission Impossible 3 of Maggie Q.

Is wearing backless dress allowed in vatican city?
What was she trying to prove in the backless dress?

Thank you. 117.99.1.139 (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the film but perhaps you could answer this question for us. Why wouldn't a backless dress be allowed in Vatican City? Granted, it's a religious country but backless items are common in this day and age. So why do you feel that a point would need to be made by wearing something so common? Dismas|^(talk) 12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you believe Angels & Demons wearing short shorts is banned too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed to meet the pope by wearing backless dress. Again I have no idea of Vatican City? Can I just go there and meet the pope? Thank you. 223.231.7.121 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling turns up lots of discussion of the strict dress code to enter St. Peter's Basilica, which is not just a tourist attraction but a place of worship. The rule seems to be no shorts, no miniskirts, no bare shoulders for either sex. Here's what looks like an official warning: [6]. Doesn't mention backless dresses, but since the Swiss Guards are pretty strict, you'd be well advised to take along a sweater or other modest top to wear over your dress. Textorus (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was the answer I was looking for Textorus. I wonder why some people like Dismas not knowing answer of a question instead tend to harass the person asking the question. 223.231.7.121 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can consult image File:Vatican-tourists-queuing-at-St-Peter-6598.jpg. Doubt there are too many restrictions in Saint Peter's Square (most of which is technically not part of the Vatican), but when entering more controlled areas things would be different... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "most of which is technically not part of the Vatican". I have *zero* knowledge of vatican city. Explanation needed. If any simple guy wants to visit the pope (not necessary in backless dress) where to contact? 106.198.135.241 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains information and links for people wishing to get tickets for a papal audience. You can apply for tickets directly yourself, and they are free. There is no guarantee you will meet the Pope personally at such an event, although you will see him, but the Holy See's website is here if you want to investigate further. As for the dress code inside the Basilica or in St Peter's Square, this news article shows that the dress code has been extended to the Square itself at times, and this Tripadvisor thread makes it clear that enforcement is not consistent and can depend on the guards on duty. Since a backless dress would probably expose at least some of your shoulders, which is not permitted under the dress code, I suggest you wear something else - not shorts either - if you get your ticket and will enter either the Square or the Basilica itself. - Ka renjc 19:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

106.198.135.241 -- I probably expressed it wrong, but the Italian police often has jurisdiction over the piazza for crowd-control duties, which is not true for the rest of the Vatican... AnonMoos (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP, I didn't mean to harass but when a person can find their way to this desk to ask a question, knows how to use the bold function (though I don't know why you needed it in this case) and has the same access to the Vatican City article as the rest of us, I don't see why you wouldn't at least skim that article first. If you had, you would have seen the culture section. Following that link provides you with a section on the dress code within the Basilica. You've said twice now that you don't know anything about Vatican City and yet you have quite a bit of information at your finger tips. Dismas|^(talk) 00:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They won't let you in some places with bare shoulders, definitely. There are lots of scarf-sellers and so forth immediately outside who take advantage of this to sell you overpriced coverings. You can get away with being bare-shouldered inside buildings, if no one is watching... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See papal audience. My boyfriend saw John Paul in and was in jeans and a muscle T (my boyfriend, not John Paul). μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had been meaning to see this movie and have had it in my Netflix queue for some time. MI2 was such a horrible movie that it soured me on the series (I actually re-watched it before watching MI3 just now and stand by my earlier assessment. MI2 is horrible!) but thought I'd give MI3 a shot anyway. So, I watched the movie and I'd like to redeem myself for my previous comments and provide you with some answers to your question. We've gone over the first already, "Is a backless dress allowed to be worn in Vatican City". But the second, what was she trying to prove? I wouldn't say that she was trying to prove anything. It was a decision to further the con that the MI team were playing on the bad guy, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. For those who care, here are a few screen caps from the movie. First, Maggie Q isn't the only actress wearing a backless dress. Not by a long shot. See here, here, and here. I would agree that it is by far more revealing than other backless dresses in the scene. For instance, see here and here. In that last one, the pale portion next to her hand at the bottom of the frame is her leg. While she didn't have anything to prove, I would say that there are two points to why she wore the dress in that scene. The first is for the benefit of the men in the audience with shots like this where she has to pull something from her garter. The second point in her wearing that dress, which was actually relevant to the plot of the film, was to seduce Hoffman's character here. As for why it was in Vatican City, it didn't need to be. They just needed an exotic locale and Vatican City fit the bill. There is absolutely no reason why this scene couldn't have happened in New York, London, Venice, or Bangkok. The particulars of the scene would have had to change to fit the city but in the end it was just a location with some glitz. With all that said, besides reading up on Vatican City, the OP might also want to read the MacGuffin article. So, I apologize for my earlier comments and hope this makes up for them. Dismas|^(talk) 10:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

egalitarian opposition to lotteries

With all this talk about reversing the US income disparity we have just recently had a lottery jackpot of $590 million.[7] A half-way billionaire. Do egalitarians also oppose this practise? I haven't found such on wiki. Pass a Method talk 19:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lotteries provide upward mobility for a very few (randomly-chosen) winners, but are often considered to be a useless economic drain (or "stupidity tax") on predominantly lower/working class lottery ticket buyers... AnonMoos (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The state will bark about "reversing the US income disparity" up until the point it takes money from the state, and lotteries make tons of money for the state . . . how am I so sure? The state(s) have rapidly expanded lottery products in the last 40 years, government only grows something if it benefits government.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article lottery has mentions of opposition throughout and sections headed "problems" and "social corruption". "Egalitarian" is undefined here and I don't see how we can comment on a vague class of people's opinions. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to lotteries typically has to do with the fact that it's a state-sponsored "vice", which could lead a gambling addict to ruin. That's the moralistic argument. The practical argument is that it is often supposed to be for funding education, but that somehow other projects manage to get their mitts on it... and that it doesn't really raise enough money anyway. Not sure where the "egalitarian" part comes in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't help that I could be the worst craps player in the world (and by i worst i mean the worst odds) and still get better odds than most lottery players. Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Mathematically speaking, the odds of winning big in the lottery are almost the same whether you actually play or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by "almost the same" you mean infinitely greater. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They both round to 0, even when taken out several decimal places. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio between any real positive fraction and zero is so infinitely large it is undefined. This is basic pre-calculus. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why not link to an article for a change, per the purpose of this reference desk? Division by zero might be appropriate here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is division the issue here? An extremely slim chance (e.g. 0.000001) is "almost the same" as zero chance in the practical world of betting odds. If you went to a restaurant and ordered a nice steak with all the trimmings, and you were served a plate that was devoid of food except for a single pea, and you remonstrated with the waiter saying "But you've brought me nothing", and he responded "Oh, no, sir/madam, it's infinitely greater than nothing if you calculate the ratio of the weight of the pea to nothing", and you picked up your fork and stabbed him in the heart, would anyone blame you? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of Dogbert selling "half-priced day-old lottery tickets". He justified this in that the new lottery tickets cost $1 with a 10 cent return, on average, while his day-old lottery tickets cost 50 cents with a 0 cent return. Thus, people lose 90 cents when buying a regular lottery ticket, and only 50 cents when buying his, so he was doing them a favor. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

A lot of the opposition for lotteries comes from the fact that people are presented lotteries as a way to make up funding shortfalls for governments; that is that the state doesn't make enough money on taxes, so lotteries provide a way to generate a "voluntary" tax, so the state can make more money for necessary programs (education is a commonly cited "public good" which is funded by lotteries, i.e. the North Carolina Education Lottery). This pamphlet from Illinois explains some of the opposition, but the biggest opposition is that lottery money is fungible with all other government funds. What this means in practical purposes is that, while the lottery is sold to the public as a way to make more money for schools, there's no requirement that the state doesn't then just take tax money previously designated for the schools, equal to the amount of lottery-generated income, and spend it on other projects. That is, while the lottery gets sold to the public as "this pays for schools", it's equally likely that some creative bookkeeping turns essentially all of it into kickbacks (excuse me "tax incentives") for businesses that fund campaigns for candidates for political office. --Jayron32 01:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another list of common objections to lotteries, from Salon.com. --Jayron32 01:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primogeniture

Let's consider a family of British landed gentry in the 1100's or 1200's. The father owns estates that provide for himself and his family. Let's assume he has more than one son. Because of the system of primogeniture, upon the father's death, the entirety of the estate would go to his firstborn son. How would the younger sons provide for themselves then? Were they expected to earn their own estates somehow (eg. warfare)? I know the primogeniture system was often amended with appanages, but was it common among the lower gentry or mainly restricted to the higher nobles? 88.112.32.233 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To a large extent, fathers could and did provide for younger sins in their wills; see Legal history of wills for the differences across various times and places (that article focuses on England, which was your question). They could also be provided for through marriage (see Dowry#History). In addition there were several paid occupations that were socially acceptable for members of the gentry; in the era you are discussing, these could include priests, military work of various kinds, as well as being a civil officer for a yet higher-ranking aristocrat (see bailiff); even a manservant was acceptable employment if the master's rank was sufficiently high: dukes, earls, and kings frequently drew their servants from younger sons among the lower gentry. Despite all that, it was often a problem, and friction between oldest and younger sons in an aristocratic family was very common (as portrayed in literary works such as Shakespeare's As You Like It). Chick Bowen 23:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for when primogeniture applied: it chiefly applied to land. Differences of rank among the landed had little legal standing for something like that. Chick Bowen 00:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might learn a lot on this subject by reading about the Paston Letters, a hundred years' worth of one wealthy but non-noble family's letters and legal documents, which unusually and almost miraculously were preserved intact from the 14th-15th centuries and were eventually published in the Victorian era. They can be read online, but a layman might get more understanding of the legal and social milieu from reading the two recent books written about the Pastons, which are named in the wikiarticle. It's a fascinating story that covers a large family down through five or six generations. Textorus (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They lived a bit later than the OP's 1100s-1200s though. The differences would not be too major, but 12th century England is rather different from the 15th (and even from the 13th). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, younger sons didn't inherit, or at least were not always expected to inherit enough to support themselves; lots of them were "encouraged" to enter the religious life. I'm not exactly sure if he had older siblings, or how many he had, but the life of someone like Thomas Becket would be quite informative for the life of a son of middle-class Englishman of the 12th century. --Jayron32 02:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

88.112.32.233 -- England and Scotland were completely different countries at that time, as were parts of Wales up to 1282, so "British" had little practical meaning then. In parts of England, ultimogeniture or "Borough-English" was practiced among ordinary people (probably not among the nobility). One significant difference between England and France (though it did not fully manifest itself until long after 1200) was that in France all male-line descendants of nobility had theoretical noble status, whereas in England younger sons often became military officers or church clergymen, and their descendants often gradually merged into the middle classes... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the story of how King John of England got his nickname and how he acceeded to the throne enlightening. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

Kansas Real Estate Commission - Statutory Authority History

Please provide history - detailed (with legislative intent if available) for history of the Kansas Real Estate Commission.

74-4201 currently shows:

74-4201: Kansas real estate commission; membership. (a) The Kansas real estate commission shall consist of five members appointed by the governor. Subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 75-4315c, one member shall be appointed from each congressional district and the remainder from the state at large. Each member shall have been, for a period of five years immediately preceding the member's appointment, a citizen and a resident of Kansas. Not less than three members shall have been real estate brokers for five years and not less than one member shall have never engaged in business as real estate brokers and shall not be so engaged while serving on the commission. (b) At the expiration of the term of any member of the commission, the governor shall appoint a successor for a term of four years and until a successor is appointed and qualifies. In the event of a vacancy in the membership of the commission, the governor shall appoint a member to serve for the unexpired portion of the vacated term and until a successor is appointed and qualifies. Each member of the commission shall, before entering upon the member's duties, take and file with the commission an oath to faithfully perform the duties of the office.

History: L. 1947, ch. 411, § 6; L. 1959, ch. 260, § 5; L. 1961, ch. 391, § 1; L. 1978, ch. 308, § 66; L. 1980, ch. 164, § 41; L. 1981, ch. 304, § 9; L. 1992, ch. 262, § 12; July 1.

I am looking for records as far back as possible. I want to see the changes - or find someone who has access to scan me copies of the changes of the laws of the KREC over the full history of the state agency.

I am specifically interested in the powers granted to the agency - but more especially with this specific statute 74-4201 which outlines the construct of the KREC members.

What is a member: From what I read - there are 5. Since there are now 4 congressional districts - the 5th member must never have been a licensed broker and not work as a broker while serving on the commission.

My desire is to answer the following:

1) Can the 5th "public" "member" be a licensed sales person. What is the specific intent of having a member of the "public"? There are Sales Agents and Brokers - 2 types of licenses in Kansas.

2) For the other 4 district appointees - I read that there must be at least 3 that "have been" brokers for 5 years - but does this mean that the original intent is to only appoint currently licensed which have held their KS Broker license for at least 5 years - or can it include a now unlicensed person, perhaps a retired professional, who held a broker license for at least 5 years in Kansas and is also a resident for the required time?

3) Also - can one of the 4 district appointees be a sales-person or a unlicensed person who was formerly licensed?

The intent is to find and document the legislative history and intent behind the formation and selection of commissioners of the Kansas Real Estate Commission so that I can provide some more detail to the governor's office of appointments to aide in their selection of members. The KREC has many - many problems and needs to be cleaned up from the inside. Making sure the governor's office has useful information in this selection process might allow a wider range of applicants to consider. Their current statement to me is that the intent of the law was for 4 active licensed brokers to be appointed 1 from each district - then one member of the public who was never in the real estate industry - as a "lay person"... I do not believe the intent was so strict but I can not prove it yet. GoZippy (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)GoZippy[reply]

Sorry to inform you but this is a global reference desk and even if you had someone very skilled in Kansas legislative history this may also violate the ban on "legal advice" even in a non-suit manner. Since you seem to be in contact with the governors office and are displaying some very deep knowledge of Kansas law, have you attempted to research this at the Capital or state libraries? Given my experience in these matters not only do local governments assist you in finding these resources but several have specific employees whose only job it is to facilitate such citizen and organizational inquiries. If these statutes are as problematic as you say searching news references for their legislative history may help, for example many Florida media outlets have done stories on that state's "all-party" recording law's history.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of information the OP seeks requires someone with detailed knowledge of Kansas law and legislative history. The best thing to do might be to contact a reference librarian at either the State Library of Kansas or perhaps the Kansas Supreme Court Law Library, and ask them to assist in digging up the answers. Textorus (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The folk explanations of the cause of Kennedy tragedies?

In the Chinese article I saw some news reference[8] gives some possible folk explanation of Kennedy tragedies, but I didn't see any of these in the English article. So are there actually equivalents of these ideas in the English world, or is the news article just talking nonsense?

Explanation 1: This one is popular in South United States in the 1970s, says that Joseph P. Kennedy II(Or Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr? Otherwise it will not explain the earlier events happened) sold his soul to the devil in exchange of power and wealth.

Explanation 2: American writer and media worker Klein(not sure if it is the right name) once wrote that Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. had been the ambassador to Great Britain. in 1937, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. had a Jewish priest who has just escaped from the nazis on the same ship with him. Kennedy complained to the shipmaster to ban the priest from doing his prayer, so the Jewish priest cursed the Kennedy family.

Explanation 3: When Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. was the ambassador in Britain, he refused to give visas to 500 Jews for not getting United States involved in Europe. Rabbi Gutnick (?) of Australian Hebrew Association says: "This the curse of the Jews. This is a retribution."

--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to read John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Lots of this stuff is mostly batshit crazy, and for that reason doesn't bear mentioning in the main articles on the assassinations themselves. Some of it, though batshit crazy, is widely reported and thus has its own Wikipedia article, separate from the main article where it doesn't really belong. --Jayron32 03:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does it have to do with the assasinations? I just wondered whether those explanation actually exist in English media, or if they are just hearsay and creations of the Chinese media.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americans generally don't believe in the power of curses. Very few really believe that it is possible to literally sell your soul to the devil either, although there are many stories of such things. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. Faust. Though I think that story is German... --Jayron32 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of The Devil and Daniel Webster, plus all the stories of Blues musicians selling their souls to the devil. Looie496 (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There really is a book about Kennedy Curse with the author named Klein...[9]--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from what non-Jews may imagine, believe, and promulgate about a so-called "Jew's curse" - there is actually a limited stock of curses within the religion Judaism and primarily applied to other Jews: see Pulsa diNura; the Herem is a form of excommunication or shunning. The strongest curse against a non-Jew would be Yimakh shemo, "May his name and memory be obliterated." Within Jewish folklore, notably in the Yiddish language, the verbal act of cursing is expressive rather than magically or spiritually effectual. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "expressive rather than magically effectual", do you mean it's the rough equivalent of "God damn it!" or "go fuck yourself", in contexts where the speaker doesn't literally mean either? --Bowlhover (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be said as an imprecation expressing ill-wishes towards the person who incurred disfavor. No supernatural powers are invoked. It did not commonly include profanity. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP: nothing in mainstream Christianity allows one to curse another person and have the curse be effective. No major Christian denomination, as far as I know, holds such a belief. In fact, the Bible makes it quite clear that only a select people (Jesus, apostles, prophets, some priests) have supernatural powers, and even those powers are granted to them by God. In most Western countries the second largest religious affiliation is "non-religious", and the non-religious are unlikely to believe in the magical power of cursing. I think most Americans and Canadians would associate cursing with voodoo dolls and voodoo practices, but very few actually believe in their efficacy.

So, it's highly unlikely that those "folk explanations" were common amongst the American public at any time. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the topic. Are there any publications related to these ideas on Kennedy tragedies (or some other theories, though I would better ask in another question) at least? The first one is obviously a common fantasy so I was quite doubtful; I've just find a title of book related to the second one. The third one---I guess there should be documents about whether Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr did anything related to Jews(e.g. the visa event)? And also did any Jew commented on that?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking, Joe Kennedy's relationship with Jewish people was complex. See Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.#Evidence of anti-Semitism. Broadly speaking, it seems that while he had friends and political allies who were Jewish, but on the other side there were accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies, especially during his time as Ambassador to the U.K. I don't see any specific evidence that he obstructed immigration of any Jewish people directly, however. And any talk of a "curse" cast on his family is, of course, bullshit. But it does not appear, from what is written in the article, that he had the healthiest attitude towards Judaism. --Jayron32 12:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever outsiders to the religion think about allegations of "Jewish" curses, conspiracies, plots and the like, what they forget is that even two similarly religious Jews from the same place and with similar levels of education will disagree on even the most trivial of matters. Never mind the evil undertones, any idea of global coordination and uniform agreement on anything at all is frankly laughable.

There are plenty of jokes along these lines, but here's an apparently true story about Alexander Altmann:

"Rabbi Altmann and his secretary were sitting in a coffeehouse in Berlin in 1935. “Herr Altmann,” said his secretary, “I notice you’re reading Der Stürmer! I can’t understand why. A Nazi libel sheet! Are you some kind of masochist, or, God forbid, a self-hating Jew?” “On the contrary, Frau Epstein. When I used to read the Jewish papers, all I learned about were pogroms, riots in Palestine, and assimilation in America. But now that I read Der Stürmer, I see so much more: that the Jews control all the banks, that we dominate in the arts, and that we’re on the verge of taking over the entire world. You know – it makes me feel a whole lot better!”"[(http://www.mywesternwall.net/2013/04/07/the-jew-reading-der-sturmer.html)] --Dweller (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found the Weekly World News magazine source related to the 500 Jews theory and Rabbi Gutnick[10]. Significant or not? Whatever.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't wipe my ass with Weekly World News for fear of losing IQ points; reading it would be far to hazardous to one's health. The first line in the Wikipedia article "The Weekly World News was a largely fictional news tabloid published in the United States from 1979 to 2007, renowned for its outlandish cover stories often based on supernatural or paranormal themes and an approach to news that verged on the satirical." (bold mine). It was basically The Onion meets Poe's Law, as in it was clearly all made up, but it was impossible to tell if they were being serious. I wouldn't use it as a source for anything at all. Pay anything it says no mind at all. --Jayron32 02:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also those who quoted from these news? Seem a nice way to conclude on the hearsay in Chinese articles. Thanks.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend

In Chinese article it is said that the claim "Booth ran from a theatre to a warehouse; Oswald ran from a warehouse to a theatre." is not true, but English article has not mentioned whether it was true or not. So is this supported by any records?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a footnote in the Chinese article citing the source of this information? It's appropriate to post your query on the Talk page of that article. You can also look at the edit history of the article and post the query on the Talk page of the editor who added that information - and possibly a private email (if the editor is accessible that way) to alert the editor to your query. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my memory of a History Channel special on JWB he actually "ran" several places for 50~100 miles and crossed a very wide part of the Potomac southeast of D.C. close to the Chesapeake into Virginia and kept "running" (including to poor Dr. Mudd's place). I found this interesting website here that demystifies some of this, it seems that the original scribe was not JWB and LHO "ran" but were "caught" in a theater/warehouse, given that every school child in the U.S. knows JWB was caught in a Virginia barn and as the story goes was burned down with it it seems that the urban legend has twisted the 19th century semantics some. Basically referring to the School Book Depository and Tobacco Shed as "places that store things" equaling what one might refer to as a "warehouse" in some sense.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes has a page mentioning it here. It calls the coincidence "inaccurate and superficial". Hut 8.5 07:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases it is just kind of vague definition.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these "coincidences" (which have been talked about ever since 11/11/63) require some vagueness to work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes.com critiques the entire list of these coincidences, showing some to be true, some not. Textorus (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, maybe J Edgar and his cronies were discussing the matter from 11 November, but the rest of the world only became aware of the assassination of JFK when it happened on 22 November. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. That would be 11/22/63. Or, in some circles, 22/11/63. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Snopes.com is normally a great source. This particle article, however, is the most glaring exception that I've encountered. It labels the list "false" (not "mixed", "partially true" or "mostly true") then goes on to confirm that the first 7 items on the list are correct before finding the 8th item only partially correct. It then goes on to confirm that the next 7 items are correct, before finding the next item to be partially correct. The final item on the list (not counting the joke about Marilyn Monroe) is confirmed to be correct. Granted my math and counting skills are probably off, but roughly 15/17 items are confirmed to be correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key to Snopes' viewpoint is in the heading, of these being "amazing" coincidences. Snopes argues that they are trivial and random, not "amazing" - a product of cherry-picking a few facts while leaving out other stuff. More amusing than amazing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were two assassinations between Lincoln's and Kennedy's, and another factoid that started to gain popularity was the "year 0" coincidence of presidents dying in office, a streak snapped by Reagan when he survived an assassination attempt. I wonder if Lincoln was kind of on people's minds because JFK's murder came 3 day after the 100th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, which was being discussed to some degree, as part of the Civil War centennial period. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

obscure term

When I was a kid, KPIX-TV sometimes included the word "nightcast" after "eyewitness news". This was during the late local news. Has "nightcast" become an obscure term for several late local news programs?142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it used to refer to the late news broadcast as opposed to the early evening broadcast. Many stations broadcast the news at around 6pm and then again at 10 or 11pm. The former is often called the "evening news" and the latter is then the nightly news or "nightcast". Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The English language is very flexible in creating words like this, called portmanteaus, and it is very easy to understand, from context and from the definitions of the separate bits put together, exactly what they mean. Native English speakers, hearing the word "nightcast" for the first time in their lives, but hearing it while watching the late night news, would recognize instantly the portmanteau between "night" and "broadcast". This sort of construction happens all the time, and with little confusion for native English speakers. It annoys the pedants who believe that the language should not have changed since Anglo-Saxon times, but most people understand that language is fluid and evolves. --Jayron32 14:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just the suffix "-cast" has a lot of these: broadcast, telecast, webcast, podcast, etc. I wonder if those pedants you refer to are essentially "language creationists". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like ever since the Watergate scandal, many scandals have been tagged as something-gate, despite making no etymological sense, nor any sense to anyone who never heard of the Watergate scandal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word broadcast itself has an odd story; it basically means "To throw seed around" and comes from the practice of farmers seeding a field by carrying seed in a big bag and throwing it in all directions (i.e. casting broadly), as opposed to planting in well-planned furrows. It seems a rather poetic way to describe the use of radio waves to transmit information... --Jayron32 17:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or, ironically enough, "disseminate" information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Significantly, there are a lot of wankers in the media. Like Onan O'Brien, for example. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hit-man services on the dark web - real?

When I visit The Hidden Wiki, I see links to supposed "hit-man" services. In many western countries, the conviction rate for murder is (I believe) pretty high. (The police in my jurisdiction, Australia, claim a 94% conviction rate). Given that, have any cases actually surfaced of murderers killing someone after advertising on the net, and having an anonymous "client" pay them to kill a total stranger? I assume if such "services" were real, surely some of the killers would (given the law of averages and high conviction rates) have been caught, and the motive ("online hiring") publicly revealed? (I've never read of such a case coming to light). I'm asking specifically about anonymous online hiring - I know guns-for-hire ("rent-a-kill" contracts) have long been available in the criminal underworld for the murder of criminal rivals. Also, my question is specifically in regards to jurisdictions where murder conviction rates are high - not those such as Mexico, El Salvador, or South Africa, where unsolved murder by strangers is an everyday occurrence.

(To state the bleeding obvious, I have absolutely no plans to hire a contract killer, online or otherwise. And even if I was, I wouldn't be stupid enough to believe in honour-amongst-espoused-murderers, and would insist on an escrow service. I'm simply curious if such services, are, in fact, real). 203.45.95.236 (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that most of these "hit men" services are bogus... and some of them may actually be law enforcement sting operations, looking to stop murder conspiracies before they start. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I would mostly agree with Blueboar, I would note you've provided no sources for you claims. [11] suggests about 12% of homicides remain unsolved in Australia and suggests the clearance rate is going down in the US. This [12] more recent article suggest 46 out of 510 or about 9% of homicides in 2008-2010 were unsolved at the time of publication, this year. The first source uses the definition were the alleged offender has been charged or when it is believed to be a murder suicide, the second also includes all other cases where it's cleared such as the alleged offender having died although I wonder if the first also included these it was just not clear enough. Of course a homicide is not necessarily a murder although it will often be difficult to be sure it is manslaughter or otherwise not a murder if it is unsolved (of course sometimes it is highly likely it is a murder). The police are sometimes accused of massaging statistics but even so, presuming your memory is correct the more likely explanation is the police do accurately claim a 94% conviction rate but by this they mean 94% of cases where an offender is charged (which is what the claim would mean to me anyway) which highlights an important point namely that the figures would be lower then the 9-12% since it is unlikely all people charged are convicted. In other words while the success rate in Australia may be high, it's most probably not that high. Of course if someone is charged in a case of a contract killer and the case actually goes to court, it's likely there will be some evidence surrounding the contract otherwise the case is probably going to be fairly weak. But anyway, the other point is the second source supports the widely held view that most homicides are committed by people who know the offender, and the first source seems to confirm what seems rather likely, that homicides committed by strangers are more difficult to solved. In the case of a contract killing, the person who took out the contract must know the offender and will likely also be guilty of the homicide in most jurisdictions. While I didn't read the either source that carefully but I think the first, and probably the second confirm that most killers are fairly incompetent and have little or planning which helps ensure they are caught. And one of the reasons why a decent contract killer is going to be reluctant to use such services is they themselves run the risk of either being set up or having a foolish client who may get them caught (beyond the other problems like how they actually establish a reputation for what's likely to be a very low volume business). The hirer also often has the problem of how they hide the payment without it being obvious that they at least have a bunch of money unaccounted for if the police get their financial records. Anyway back to the main point namely that all this highlights an important point namely that the solution rate whatever it is only tells us a little about the likelihood a contract killing is going to be solved. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(OP here - different computer). Sorry for not providing sources. Victoria Police (my jurisdiction) reported that in 2010 they achieved a 95% "solution rate". (See page 10). Admittedly, this may not be identical to the conviction rate. The 9-12% non-solution rate you mention sounds entirely plausible to me. Police often only solve "professional" killings where they can get someone to "sing".

On your other point, though - Why do you assume that the person who took out the contract must know the offender? The scenario I'm describing is where the "contract" takes place over the internet (via an anonymizing / I.P. address-hiding service such as Tor), with neither side knowing the other's true identity. Thus, there is no risk of the hirer divulging the identity of the killer, as they don't know it. (The risk of the killer being "set up" by police in a sting operation does remain. However, running a contract-killing sting operation of this sort would seem VERY risky, as the killer may just succeed). As to payment, I assume, like most such dark-web transactions, one would pay in bitcoin. (Admittedly, IF the police had a suspect hirer, they may possibly spot a large sum of money leaving his bank account into the ether). My question as such remains: Are such "services", to the best of our knowledge, likely to be real? Has such a case (an "internet hit-contract") ever been uncovered? 58.111.185.207 (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant the person who took out the contract/hirer must know the intended victim, as otherwise it is unlikely they will hire someone to kill them. (This means there's a fair chance the hirer will be a suspect.) My mistake here may have contributed to the confusionb but you seem to be missing the point that at some stage the killer does have to kill the victim. If at any stage before the killing, the hirer divulges (perhaps unintentionally) what they have done, there is a high risk to the killer. I do agree on the bitcoin, it was what I was thinking but I don't get the relevance. It doesn't negate the fact that unless you happen to have large reserves of bitcoin lying around which no one knows about, which is unlikely for most people, you will need to somehow get those bitcoin and anyone investigating who suspects the hirer and is able to get access to their financial records will likely uncover that the person who hirer has a large sum of money unaccounted for. This will cause strong suspicion to fall on the hirer who may then reveal what they did. While tracking down the killer via the contacts they left online may be difficult or impossible, there is a fair risk the killer even if highly competent may have screwed up somehow and knowing about the contract (like when it was made, what the killer told the hirer etc), makes any screw ups (like being caught on CCTV) easier do detect. (It gets even worse if the killer develops an identity which they likely will if they do this multiple times.) For all these reasons and more, it is unlikely someone competent involved in a high risk job as a contract killer is going to want to accept random job from people they don't know if they can trust. They are only likely to accept a job from someone who they know is not that likely to be caught themselves since the hirer being caught significantly increases the risk to them, even more so if the hirer cannot be trust to squeal the moment they're bought in for questioning. Unless perhaps they are a fairly incompetent one themselves. (Presuming that the hirer is even real.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I'll point out that the sting operation by police described above is not to catch possible assassins, but to catch the purchaser of said services. In this scenario, the police would pretend to be the assassin, not the client. Sort of like a honeypot. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entailment law England in first half of 19th century

If a landholder died leaving a pregnant widow, would the estate pass to the next in the entail, or would there have been a waiting period to see if the expected child was male? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.183.185 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the succession of noble titles (not exactly the same, but related), a posthumous child who is eligible to inherit definitely does inherit the title... AnonMoos (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See posthumous birth. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The legal term for this (I think) was en ventre sa mere, and yes, there would have been a waiting period. If the child was female, the property would be deemed to have belonged to the entailed heir all along. This was an instance of a 'wait and see' approach being taken at a time when in other contexts (eg the Rule against perpetuities it was not. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dam Busters, The Great Escape and suchlike

Full disclosure: I'm German, so do by all means mention the war. That said, I haven't seen many if any of these peculiarly British WW2-Movies like "The Great Escape", but even so I picked up the notion somewhere that the genre conventions demand that there be exactly one "Jock", one "Taffy" and one "Paddy" amongst the valiant Tommies in every squad, POW camp, warship etc.; so that any such unit comes to allegorically represent the United Kingdom. I intended to include this into my (German) articles on Jock, Paddy and Taffy, but when I started googling I could not locate any actual movie where this is in fact the case, only this parody by Geoff Dyer. Suggestions welcome... --Janneman (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether the German Wikipedia has the same rules, but adding this to English-language Wikipedia articles would be considered original research unless you can cite a source that has made the same observation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that it is a movie convention, but there is definitely a school of joke that starts "There was an Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman...". Are you including that? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this anything like the placeholder names Tom, Dick and Harry, but with more nationalistic overtones? In movies, it is common in an "ensemble cast" film to include people of different backgrounds, or which fit certain character "tropes". This is not just restricted to WWII films, but rather applies to any film with a large, ensemble cast. --Jayron32 15:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Token. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

um, I don't mean just any stock characters or placeholder names, I mean specifically Jock, Paddy, Taffy & Tommy as the Scottish, Irish, Welsh & English soldier, whether in the flesh or as a type, a very British thing, and not just a movie cliche, but a very real thing in the British Army since WWI (says the BBC: The origins of Jock go back hundreds of years...but it was the 20th Century and World War I which cemented it into the British psyche, along with Tommy and Taff. or this memoir by a WW2 veteran: I cannot remember the names of the other two lads; only Paddy the Irishman sticks out, not that Paddy was his real name, but all Irishmen were called Paddy. Just as anyone Welsh was Taffy, Scotsmen were Jock... I'm just looking for some prominent/iconic cultural representations of the thing, WW2 movies seemed a good place to start searching, I just wouldn't want to sit through all of them... --Janneman (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Janneman -- in old Hollywood movies about U.S. units fighting in WW2, it seemed quasi-obligatory to include one man from Brooklyn, one from the southern U.S., etc. Don't know about British movies, but in Shakespeare's play "Henry V" there's a comic Welshman, Scotsman, and Irishman... AnonMoos (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there seems to be some standardized Hollywood formula for composing a "representative" U.S. Army unit, but I'm not sure if the "Guy from Brooklyn" is a type in quite the same way; but then for non-Americans it's not that evident how he'd differ from a "Guy from Boston", say, though Bubba from "Forrest Gump" comes to mind, that stereotype is recognizable enough. --Janneman (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Escape is an american movie based on a book by an australian author; I'm not sure it can be reasonably described as 'peculiarly British'. It does have an international cast including some fairly stereotypical representations of Scots and English characters (not to mention an equally stereotypical American) character, but there doesn't seem to be anybody obviously Welsh or Irish.78.245.228.100 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly and curiously, Janneman happened to choose 2 movies that were both based on novels by that Australian author. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, "Tommy" became a placeholder name for an Englishman, more especially an English soldier, after the Government issued instructions for completing the forms for enlisting in the British Army with the name "Thomas Atkins" as the example. I'll see if I can find anything more. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Aha! While perusing the "Tommy Atkins" article, I see that we have Alternative names for English, Alternative names for Scottish, Alternative names for Welsh under the Alternative names for the British article. Why aren't these links going to the articles? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the final link for you, Tammmy. That article covers all the names, if you scroll down. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an exact match, but the British comic Jet in the early 1970s included a strip called "Sergeants Four", a WWII strip in which the four sergeants in question were Alf Higgs (English), Taffy Jones (Welsh), Jock McGill (Scottish) and Paddy O'Boyle (Irish). This page includes a scanned issue. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only explicit example I know is in the 1944 film of Henry V (Henry V (1944 film)). The scene (Act Three, Scene Three) is of course already in the play. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the strop is probably a lift from Kipling's "Soldiers Three". Those three (Learoyd, Mulvaney and Ortheris) were themselves a deliberately stereotyped Yorkshireman, Irishman and Cockney. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least Kipling put a bit more effort into the names. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was common practice in 1950s and 60s war films to include a "Canadian" who was usually a minor US star, so as to give the film some appeal on the other side of Atlantic. I'll have to look for a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civil unions and equal marriage

What is the full list of countries and jurisdictions that:

Have both equal mariage for same-sex couples and civil partnerships/unions?
Used to have civil partnerships/unions but replaced them outright with equal marriage? (Give or take provisions for couples already in a civil union.)

Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By one are you including jurisdictions which lack civil unions for opposite sex couples or only ones that have it? Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage equality#Current status, Status of same-sex marriage, and Same-sex union legislation, LGBT rights by country or territory are good places to start. There's a map in all of these, and a chart in the last one, but the map and chart don't get more granular than the national level, but remember that many, if not most, nations in the world are unitary states where laws like this only exist on the national level. Federations like Canada, Russia, the U.S. and Australia, where subnational units make these sort of laws instead of the national government, are less common. However, Wikipedia's articles are fairly detailed, many of the federal states that leave these laws to lower geographic units have separate articles which cover those, such as LGBT rights in the United States and you should be able to construct whatever you're looking for out of those three articles. --Jayron32 14:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking news! Since 1961, marriage has been controlled by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. It was a state matter prior to that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go. I was using Australia as an example of a Federation with split sovereignty, in the sense that the subnational units do pass their own distinct laws. Most countries in the world don't work that way. I frankly didn't know one way or the other if marriage specifically was a Federal or a State matter in Australia, but as most countries are NOT federations, most countries wouldn't make a distinction at all. Thanks, though, for providing the specific Australian perspective. Much obliged! --Jayron32 22:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My very great pleasure. Stay tuned for an amendment to the act that will allow same-sex marriages in Australia and recognise same-sex marriages contracted overseas. Momentum for the change is inexorably building; it's just a question of time now. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage in Canada has also been under the exclusive authority of the federal Parliament since Confederation in 1867, according to our article on that subject. Textorus (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, thanks for the links but I don't find them easy to navigate. Part of the problem is that there's been very little attention to the status of pre-existing civil union laws once equal marriage has been introduced and the articles tend not to cover this detail, and so it's hard to tell if the table means that some form of relationship recognition has existed since a particular date or a particular form of non-marriage has stayed in existence since then. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US-USSR Parliamentarian Conference, 1978

Has anyone heard of this event, and if so, where it was located? I'm running into several different versions of the name in a printed document, such as "Parliamentarian", "Parliamentary", "Interparliamentary", etc., plus the variances in "USA", "Soviet Union", "United States", "USSR", etc. I've tried several combinations on Google, but I didn't find anything. It looks like it was a bilateral summit, not some kind of Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting with lots of other countries. 2001:18E8:2:1020:D0F5:2B06:C8A5:CCDB (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Conference on the World Economy, 1989

Same question as above: do you know where the Aspen Conference on the World Economy was held? Aspen, Colorado perhaps? I probably have the wrong name, since Google finds exactly one hit, and it's someone's resume mentioning a conference ten years later. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B9F4:C1DD:38B4:E9B3 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but I presume this institute [13] found with a simple search for 'aspen conference world economy' does know. BTW, our article on the place mentions the institute. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2nd, 3rd and 4th largest democracies

India is world's largest democracy and Pakistan is world's fifth largest democracy. Who is 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest democracies in order?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

I'm guessing from this list List_of_countries_by_population it is the U.S., Indonesia and Brazil.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elections take place in Pakistan, but it's oversimplifying things quite a bit to call it a "democracy" plain and simple. That would be like the late 19th-century international politics textbook which dealt with Austria-Hungary and Sweden-Norway together because they were both "dual monarchies"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can Pakistan be possibly a democracy? The first democratically elected government of Pakistan to complete its five year term is only the PPP government which completed it a few days ago!!! Added it is a Islamic Government with no freedom of Religion. Surely such a country is not democracy!!! Solomon7968 (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why Freedom of Religion is a requirement for a democracy. If the people decide that specific practices or belief systems are illegal and their elected representatives enact that law then that's democracy in action to me. If the population is mostly islamic, one might expect a democratically elected government to be Islamic, still a democracy. The fact that it hasn't successfully had real transitions of power in the past is a legitimate reason to take it to be not a democracy, but how long must a country have democratic elections for it to stick? The US didn't really have a democratic election just before the Civil War (Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in many states), does that mean it stopped being a democracy then, or once you are a democracy you can't go back? Chris M. (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why you have chosen to defend that Pakistan is a democracy and chosen to compare USA with Pakistan. And why it is only a particular feature of Islamic countries to have Islamic democracy. There is nothing like Buddhist democracy or Hindu democracy. So the overall conclusion is Pakistan is not a democracy. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mason -- Don't really understand why you single out the 1860 election, when most historians consider the Jacksonian democracy of the 1830s to be the turning point, when a very close approximation to "universal white manhood suffrage" was achieved (except in Rhode Island, which had to wait for the aftermath of the Dorr Rebellion). The U.S. had some problems by modern standards, but was still the most democratic non-geographically-tiny nation in the world for the great majority of the 19th century (possibly until 1893, when New Zealand gave women the right to vote). AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are guys arguing about Pakistan? Please, answer the question. Thank you. --Donmust90 (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Why are you claiming that Pakistan is a democracy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because our (inadequately sourced) article Government of Pakistan claims it is a "parliamentary democratic republic". --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs -- Donmust90 (and in his anonymous IP incarnations before he got an account) seems to be exceedingly fond of arranging things in abstract tables with neatly-labelled rows and columns, regardless of whether such a symmetrical structure of intersecting rows and columns corresponds to much of anything in the real world... AnonMoos (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India, United States, Indonesia, Brazil and Japan as of 2012. References can be found at Democracy#Countries. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to point here that Indonesia is a muslim majority country but it is a democracy (not Islamic Democracy). So Chris M. is wrong to claim that "If the population is mostly islamic, one might expect a democratically elected government to be Islamic, still a democracy". And a country where the son of Ex-Prime Minister is kidnapped is bound not to be a democracy. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly the only thing wrong with Pakistan. Before 2013, Pakistan had not seen a single democratic transition of power following parliamentary elections. Not even one. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Democracy" is one of those words, common in the political sphere, which has more than one definition; and the different definitions will give different answers. Arguing about which countries are democracies and which are not is a complete waste of effort unless you first define what you mean by a democracy for the purpose of the argument. And I cannot see any logical connection between any of the meanings and what was done to the son of an ex-Prime Minister. As well say that the US and Sweden can't be democracies because they have had premiers assassinated. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elections take place in Pakistan (interspersed with military coups), but elections don't seem to have any effect on many of the prominent long-entrenched structural problems or persistent festering sores, such as the "feudal" oligarchy, the inability of the state to provide many basic services (such as education) to its citizens, out-of-control ISI, Baluchi autonomy, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam magnam. Many people who would have no difficulty with describing Pakistan as a democracy with an accompanying qualifying word ("limited democracy" or "flawed democracy" or whatever) would have problems in accepting a description of Pakistan as a "democracy" plain and simple (without any adjective). AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest definition of a democracy I can come up with is "a country which maximizes the ability of its citizens to participate in the machinery of the state". Of course, democracy is not a binary condition, but one of a continuum. No nation on earth is an ideal democracy; as in every nation there are real barriers to many people fully participating in the machinery of the state. The question one must ask is how countries do on the balance, and do countries hold democracy as an ideal, and do they actively work to promote that ideal. Holding elections is of secondary importance to matters such as access to education, a free and independent press, active enforcement of universal human rights, equal treatment before the law, access to voting and to holding public office, etc. Democracies should be adjudged not on the fact that they hold elections, but rather on whether or not the society as a whole enforces democratic values or not. In a perfect democracy, all citizens have equal ability to participate in the machinery of the state, in a perfect totalitarian state, the machinery of the state is tightly controlled by a ruling class whose membership is closed to all outsiders and which takes no input from any group outside of itself. Where a country fits on that scale should be how it is judged; again it isn't a binary "either or" proposition, but rather a continuum of conditions. So, is Pakistan a democracy under that definition? --Jayron32 05:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarianism is not the opposite of democracy; it's the opposite of libertarianism. A totalitarian democracy is quite possible in principle. It's unlikely in practice, because the majority of people have some regard for their individual liberty, even if most of them don't have anywhere near enough. --Trovatore (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahatma Gandhi's Bangladesh visit as part of Satyagraha district

Is Noakhali the only district that has been visited by Mahatma Gandhi when he did his Satyagraha?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Gandhi did many Satyagrahas. If you're referring to his peace mission in response to the Noakhali genocide, I don't think that is usually called a Satyagraha. Looie496 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by Bangladesh visit. It was Bengal of then Undivided India. Bangladesh is a creation of 40 years only since 1971. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry. now please someone please answer the question. Thank you. Besides Noakhali, which other districts of East Bengal did Mahatma Gandhi went?--Donmust90 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

You're getting a bit too pushy for your own good. No one gets paid here. No one reports to the OP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no East Bengal in 1946. The second partition of Bengal (glomming on to the eastern side the Sylhet district of Assam) did not occur until 1947.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Noakhali genocide "Gandhi started for Noakhali on 6 November and reached Chaumuhani the next day. After spending two nights at the residence of Jogendra Majumdar, he embarked on his tour of Noakhali, barefoot on 9 November. For the next seven weeks he covered 116 miles and visited 47 villages. He set up his base in a half burnt house in the village of Srirampur where he stayed put till 1 January." He left from Kolkata. I don't know if that helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Jesus

Where in the English KJV of the New Testament Gospels does it speak specifically of "baby Jesus"?LordGorval (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean explicitly using the phrase "Baby Jesus?" Nowhere, but narratives involving Jesus as a young child can be found in Matthew 2 and Luke 2. You may also be interested in reading Infancy Gospels. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A keyword search of the KJV here returns 942 instances of "Jesus", 6 of "babe" and zero of both "baby" and "baby Jesus", so the answer would appear to be "nowhere". Did you have any particular reason to believe that the phrase would appear? - Ka renjc 19:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to speak for the OP, but it would seem to be one of those "people refer to it like it's in the Bible but it actually isn't" kind of things. Sort of like "three wise men" or "money is the root of all evil." Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can speak for me, as I do believe you hit the point that people refer to it like it's in the Bible but it actually isn't. I couldn't find it anyway! If people speak so much of the "baby Jesus", shouldn't it be in one of the 4 Gospels of the KJV. Where specifically (which verses)???--LordGorval (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like Karenjc said, it definitely isn't in the KJV. A quick search here doesn't show results in any other major version either. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a slight difference, though: Jesus did start His life on earth as a baby. That's made totally clear from the Bible. So while the exact phrase "Baby Jesus" might not be in the Bible, it is totally correct to refer to Him as "Baby Jesus". But there's nothing in the Bible indicating there were exactly three wise men, or that what Adam ate was an apple, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)To be fair, however, we're mincing words here. The bibles clearly speak directly of the birth of Jesus as well as his infancy. See Nativity of Jesus. The fact that the word "baby" doesn't appear next to the word "Jesus" doesn't mean there is no mention of the concept of Jesus as a baby. It seems like a rather odd thing to focus on, as though it means anything that in one particular English translation that specific phrase doesn't exist. --Jayron32 20:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not. One of the points raised by the folks who doubt the historicity of Jesus is that the story presented in the Bible is simply the Jewish version of the dying-and-rising god. IIRC, in The Jesus Mysteries, it's asserted that the bits and pieces we've come to know as the story of Jesus were actually created more or less in reverse: first the reborn god adapted from many of the neighbouring cultures, then the miracles and so forth, back to the story of the birth. So, nailing down the terminology used might be of interest to someone exploring those issues. Matt Deres (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of theory is rather beside the point. The Bible says what it says. Whether it's historical fact or not is not the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is to someone doing textual criticism to get a better understanding of where different passages came from. Probably the best known piece for that is the understanding that there are two creation stories in Genesis. Or two sources of one thing, depending on your POV. Matt Deres (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the two contradictory creation stories. Your complaint is on the order of if someone asks you whether Bogart's character in Casablanca really said "Play it again, Sam", you would answer, "No, he never said it, because he's fictional." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What complaint are you referring to? Jayron wanted to know why someone would ask this question. I'm not the OP, but I provided some suggestions based on linked references and a book I read. Matt Deres (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about the wording used in the Bible, not about the historical authenticity of the Bible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that qualifies as me "complaining" but the point was that folks investigating the historicity of Jesus might be interested in the exact wording regarding his infancy because it might point to it being a late addition (or not), which would in turn support some theory or other (or not). Matt Deres (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron said, "The Bibles clearly speak directly of the birth of Jesus as well as his infancy." Then you said, "Maybe not." Jayron is correct, in terms of what we commonly understand to be the Bible(s). The subject you bring up is interesting in itself, but it's not what the OP asked. I concur that maybe "complaint" is overstating it. Substitute "comment". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the KJV is just a translation based on a known vorlage. It wouldn't help you with textual criticism, nor any other aspect of the history of early Christianity. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if you assume the OP knows such, which is hardly assumable. :) Alternately, textual criticism can also be used in the other direction: if the KJV says "x" and my book says "y" then it may be interesting to find out the reason behind it. But first I'd need to know if the KJV says "x" or not. Matt Deres (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)"If people speak so much of the "baby Jesus", shouldn't it be in one of the 4 Gospels of the KJV.": Why? Why should the KJV be the standard? And why should the specific term be used, when the text is clearly referring to a baby called Jesus? The closest I could find is in Luke 2:27, which most translations render "the child Jesus", but the Geneva Bible reads "the babe Jesus". - Lindert (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that the OP is looking for the origin of the phrase "Baby Jesus". Given the influence of the KJV on the English language in general and particularly on our concepts of what the Bible says, it's reasonable to ask if the term appears in the KJV. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but its a natural linguistic construct. "The baby Jesus" just means "Jesus as an infant", and as noted, the Bible clearly discusses that concept. It doesn't take any advanced leaps cognition to go from the concept of an infant Jesus to the phrase "baby Jesus". --Jayron32 02:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, we do have an article on Baby Jesus. It also led me to Baby Jesus theft, which has nothing to do with the question at hand, but momentarily gave me the visual of someone stealing all the references to baby Jesus from the bible... Matt Deres (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. We have an article titled Child Jesus, for which the above is a redirect. It deals with the use of the child Jesus in art and iconography. --Jayron32 03:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that the term (in the UK at any rate) comes from the Nativity play tradition, which just about every Briton that attended a state primary school in the last century has been subjected to. In school plays, the part of the Baby Jesus is usually taken by a doll; however in Sunday school productions, it's common for a member of the congregation to volunteer their real baby for the part. It adds some dramatic tension to the piece, as the audience waits to see if the seven year-old Virgin Mary is going to drop the Baby Jesus.

The phrase has become more popular in the last decade, since a sketch in an episode of Little Britain (Episode 4 of Series 2) in which Lou decides that he wants to go to church dressed as the Baby Jesus. I understand that it has since become the ultimate in bad taste fancy dress. Alansplodge (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Mauer. The 'baby' in 'baby Jesus' shouldn't be capitalized unless there's reason to suggest that the title includes Baby. Describing what happened to the baby Jesus, or the young adult Jesus, or the Jesus and Mary Chain...whatever. If the issue is over capitalization of Baby, I think it should not be capitalized. Describing a baby as a baby shouldn't require special sources. What is the 'specific' issue here? --Onorem (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The specific issue is the origin of the phrase "baby Jesus" (with or without capitals) - the OP thought came from the KJV but couldn't find it there. Please explain the Mauer joke, I've never heard of him. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has one citation of the phrase "Baby Jesus", from before the KJV: "Ane el crammessy satyne to be [the] bawby Jhesus of the Senyis [= Sciennes] ane coit." from the Accounts of the Treasurer of Scotland (1526). I take this to mean "One ell of [some kind of] satin to be the baby Jesus of the Sciennes one [don't know]", which seems to suggest that the baby Jesus was a doll or puppet. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Jews in Israel: Practice and values

Is there an article or a website that shows a typical Traditional Jew family doing their daily lives according to Judaism. I am interested about their practice of Jewish life and daily lives. Note: when I mean Traditional Jew, I mean Likudniks. Thanks. --Donmust90 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

There are several links here that look promising. --Jayron32 20:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish" family, not "Jew family". Oy! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whats up Doc? You seem to be a distressed Wikier/Wikidan/Wikidor/Wikinaut today! Just waiting for someone to call my family "Ortho" :P.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Jew" is a noun, "Jewish" is an adjective. When "Jew" is used as an adjective, it's a putdown. (As if you didn't already know that.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not rationalizing it just observing it, just couldn't let your use of "Oy!" go unappreciated!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about "Likudniks" makes no sense. See Likud - a political party, which includes members who are "Traditional ... doing their daily lives according to Judaism" and members who do not. In my considered opinion, the latter massively outnumber the former. --Dweller (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's intentionally anti-semitic, see the entirety of that "user's" posts here. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have no fear. Donmust90 (talk · contribs) will push too far someday, and then he'll resemble an abandoned car in the inner city. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If only we all had the means to divine the intentions of other users! As someone who reads these pages often, though seldom contributes, I'm aware of Donmust90's posting history. S/he seems to have a particular (some might say a morbid) interest in issues of ethnicity, but I don't recall any obviously antisemitic comments, and skimming back through a random selection of his/her contributions, I find nothing either. I do note that s/he appears to read Hebrew - at least s/he has quoted information from Hebrew-langauge websites - and that his/her use of English would incline me to believe that English is not his/her first language. I'd suggest that his/her failure at the Jew/Jewish shibboleth - one that doesn't exist or doesn't have the same import in other languages - is more likely to be due to second-language English issues than anything else. But then I prefer to assume good faith rather than call a poster a bigot on the flimsiest of evidence. Valiantis (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way could an interest in ethnicity be "morbid"[14]? Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donmust, you are aware that there are millions upon millions of Jews who do not live in Israel, and do not regard Likud (or Shas or any other Israeli political psrty) as emblematic of traditional anything, right? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Start now by reading everything you can about Srugim. Any terms that are unfamiliar, look them up in this Wikipedia and read all the External links for the page. If something on a page is inconsistent with what you've read elsewhere, write your query as a New section on the article's Talk page. You can also do Compare versions for the page's edit history and discover the User name and link for an editor toward whom you'd like to direct a particular question. That way you can study and learn at your own pace, choose what's relevant to your interests and concerns, and get specific answers in context. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am not doing any propaganda or doing anti-antisemitism. I just want to learn about the Mizrahi community and which sects of Judaism do they mostly belong to. According to Secularism in Israel, I read about Traditional Jews being the second largest group after Secular Jews. In that, it says they support Likud. That's why I mentioned Likudniks. I assume that Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews are Traditional Jews and not Conservative Jews like the ones in America and Europe. At least one person give me an answer by referring to a PDF article but I don't have time for that. Now, please someone answer the question. Thank you.--Donmust90 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

We are under no obligation to do your work for you. If someone gave you a source and you don't want to bother taking time to read it, why should anyone else? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

Earliest genocide or massacre in human history with solid archaeological evidences?

Is it Battle of Changping?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are the skulls found in Walbrook, but they're later than what you mentioned... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall of Assur utterly destroyed the city in 614 BC, but I don't know if there were significant massacre of civilians, or if the deaths were primarily military. --Jayron32 02:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC) resulted in large scale deportation of people from the city, though they were not massacred. --Jayron32 03:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Opis seems to be the earliest, thou several of these weren't purely genocides or massacres in a defenseless non-combative victim sense.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized Jayron32 pointed out that the seige was in fact earlier.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery 117 beats the Battle of Changping by 11,000 years. "59 bodies were recovered at Cemetery 117, as well as numerous other fragmented remains. There were twenty-four females and nineteen males over nineteen years of age, as well as thirteen children ranging in age from infancy to fifteen years old [...] Pointed stone projectiles were found in their bodies at places that suggest the bodies had been attacked by spears or arrows." --Bowlhover (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is old! Also, technically pre-historic. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide, a concept developed in a political context late in WWII, has no stable sociological or legal meaning, and historians engaged in genocide have retreated from large scale incidents to the single incident massacre as the unit of inquiry. I'd expect to wait at least three or four decades for their to be anything like scholarly consensus on the terms. Therefore this question is currently unanswerable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then restrict any answer you might give to the 'massacre' part of the question. That's a well-defined term. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, I think you meant historians engaged in genocide studies, who are worthy people, rather than historins engaged in genocide, who aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Historians engaged in genocide ... well, as long as they keep their genocide to "cleansing" those idiots over in the Education Dept. it should be OK :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks, Itsmejudith. Blueboar, while I can't think of one off the top of my head, and the Einsatzgruppen commanders with Doctorates seem to have Jurisprudence and Political Economy, and the doctorally qualified Cambodian leadership I'm finding hold sociology degrees, to paraphrase Billy Idol I'm sure there's nothing pure in this world. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human massacres predate history, and given evidence from chimpanzees engaged in intergroup hostility, the massacre probably came into being with humanity. If you want to remove the word 'history' from this, you'll probably get better results; just like if you choose to remove 'genocide' from it. And then you're left with, "What's the earliest archaeological record of a lot of humans killing a lot of humans." Sure, there might be a debate as to whether "displacement" in human societies has been primarily by massacre of by economic-out-competition resulting in disease and starvation on dislocation, but that's an entirely different question and one under debate like the meaning of genocide. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK Gay Marriage Bill

So the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill survived the Third Reading last night (yay!). I was just hoping you lovely people could help me out with a quick question about it, as I can't seem to find the answer anywhere.

So at what point after this becomes law does same-sex marriage actually become possible in England and Wales? Is it immediately on Royal Assent, some standard period of time after that, or a specific date written down somewhere? Also incidentally, I know it still has to pass the House of Lords, which could derail things, but is it possible yet to come up with a vague ballpark date for when it will actually become law?

I suppose this information is probably out there, but not in a place I can find it. I figure as it might be a precedent or convention thing that law people know but Muggles don't, the easiest thing would just be to ask here. Thanks much! Dan Hartas (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clause 18 of the Bill deals with commencement and states "this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes." [15]. Clause 14 also allows for transitional measures to be put in place. So, the answer is at some currently indefinite point after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Valiantis (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did hear the UK just got their own Supreme Court, so perhaps 10-15 years after it passes then works its way up through the judiciary until the Supremes take the case--that or duck it on a technicality and leave it for some future court to decide . . . yes I am suffering from D.C. orbital pull, sorry.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you already know this, but others might not: Because of parliamentary sovereignty the Supreme Court won't annul an Act of Parliament. Gabbe (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Gabbe! Makes me wish there was a way we can rejoin as a colony lol PM Boehner lol

Decolonisation has been the order of the day for the past century or so. But if you like, you could always apply to join the Commonwealth of Nations. You could even apply to become a Commonwealth realm. This would of course entail a couple of trifling constitutional changes (the Queen would become your head of state, and your president would be replaced by a non-partisan governor-general), but I'm sure you'd all cope. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Decolonization? Ask the Argentines that about "their" Falklands ;-) . . . then again there has been jokes of reversing it and getting a 51st state ;-) . . . but yeah I have always admired some of the Parliamentary system, "forming" a government out of coalitions, and instead of Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton etc. we'd have had O'Neil-Foley-Gingrich-Hastert-Pelosi etc., and now I learn the Supreme Court would be subordinate, then the White House could sell out as a Ritz Carlton! ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gingrich essentially did try to make himself prime minister in about 1995 or so. It didn't work, but there was no real constitutional bar to it. We effectively had parliamentary rule when Andrew Johnson was president. --Trovatore (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its been over a decade since I studied the UK parliamentary system but I remember that the House of Lords was the de facto highest court so I had assumed those powers along with the theory of blocking something the commons passed was simply transferred to the new S.C., a bit off topic from OP's original focus but still important in understanding the nature of the law that is being discussed.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our 'highest court' has only ever been a court of appeal, I think, and the House of Lords, when acting in this role, was just the last place in which you could appeal a judicial decision. It could never overturn a law, as we don't have a constitution for the law to break. Our constitution is literally just "whatever Parliament says, goes". The ECHR changes this a little, but even with that the UK has basically just agreed in a treaty to change its laws whenever we are found to breach the Convention: it isn't automatic and we are not, strictly speaking, compelled to do so. (Btw thanks for the answer, didn't know the commencement thing) Dan Hartas (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The legislation allowing trials in the House of Lords was replaced by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which established the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in its place. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To try to answer the OP's question and make a realistic estimate, it's a relatively short Bill (19 clauses, 7 schedules) but controversial, and the Lords does not have any arrangements to cut short debate. Likely full day debate on second reading, could be up to five days in Committee (a Committee of the Whole House), and then three days on Report, followed by another full day of Third Reading. Possibly followed by a ping-pong session with the Lords and Commons agreeing amendments. I think that length of debate could be fitted in before the summer recess, which is due to start on 18 July in the Commons. If not, then definitely during the September session. Assuming that all happens, then the government will have to arrange for the Act to come into force. By comparison, the Civil Partnerships Act received Royal Assent on 18 November 2004, and was brought into force on 5 December 2005. This was a more complicated Act, so it's more likely that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act will be brought into force some time in summer 2014. Or thereabouts. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

19th century Awards with a significant History

Can anyone give me examples of Awards dating back to 19th century, which have a significant impact given in "Academic fields". I am partly inspired to ask this question by the wikipedia article Adams Prize and Guy Medal though the Guy does not stretch to 19th century. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not looking for answers such as Nobel Prize

I thought the Prix Goncourt dated back to the 19th century, but not quite! How about the Prix de Rome, which actually dates back to the 17th century? Following links from the Adams Prize article, you could search through Category:Awards by year of establishment to find more from the 19th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The awards, lectures and medals of the Royal Society include a few old trinkets, e.g. the Copley Medal (1731), Darwin Medal (1890), Davy Medal (1877), Royal Medal (1826) and Rumford Medal (1800). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Gold Medal for architecture is often given for practical work, but also for academic work. Warofdreams talk 01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War as a cause of death

Hi,

I often see news articles/ wiki artcles (such as Causes of death), which list the most "dangerous" occupations by death rate, with fishermen often topping the list. However soldiers seem strangely abscent from the lists. Is this because the rates of death are offset by a the large number of non frontline soldiers who are rarely killed? Or because the rate of death of soldiers isn't actually that high, comparitively speaking? For clarification; I am asking about people who would list the army/navy etc as an employer, not people who take up arms in a war in their country, or civilians who are killed as a result of war. Sorry about the morbid question. Thanks! 80.254.147.164 (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize for morbidity, this Forbes article on the matter here cites the Bureau of Labor Statistics as their source, this would exclude American citizens outside U.S. borders. Another issue with finding military members in any of these lists is that although they are doing this as their "job" by many economic measures it is excluded on the grounds of national service or duty, i.e. there is no "at will" employment (you can't decide to quit) and no ability to form a union, and with the UCMJ you have no OSHA, EEOC, DOL etc. protections. Also depending on the mission it is at times unclear to public information if the death was combat or exercise or accident related, which although all the same profession would be desirable when producing lists of "jobs" since a dry dock crew in the Navy in San Diego is much different than a SEAL in Afghanistan and a air wing in Alaska.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for derailing the thread, but those words "you can't decide to quit" made me think of another question. What are the rules regarding voluntary departure from the US Army? Is resignation allowed, and if so under what circumstances? United States Army doesn't seem to say anything. --Viennese Waltz 14:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First link I found to help answer. (US specific, but you said US Army). http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/getout.htm --Onorem (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a list of military separation codes. Rmhermen (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a great deal of information on the U.S. military death rates. Overall death rate was 75 per 100,000 person-years. But being a young male combat-specialty Marine in 2004 was far more dangerous than a thirty-year-old female Air Force nurse (all lowest categories). Highest categories were over 200 per 100,000 p/y (combat, Marines in 2004 and Army in 2007) while the lowest was under 40. Rmhermen (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buyers remorse

How long does a person have, under the law, to return a car they just bought without consequences? Johanne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.139.102 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

inb4 "which country?", it's the USA. Do you mean a new or a used car? --Viennese Waltz 14:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot "Which state?" Dismas|^(talk) 14:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the IP address geolocates to Chicago. Looie496 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing we say here constitutes legal advice, and you would do better contacting a legal clinic if your question is more than casual interest in the subject. According to a website, http://blog.laborlawtalk.com/2006/12/05/illinois-buyers-remorse-laws/ , in Illinois there is no "buyer's remorse" period for returning a new car and getting your money back. There is, according to the site, a 3 day buyer's remorse period for certain other consumer purchases. If you buy a new car and drive it off the lot, it becomes a used car, with a retail value far less. The dealer has little interest in giving up his profit, and he can get a new car from the dealer for way less than the price you paid. There is also the possibility that a car which comes back might be in less than original condition for various reasons. It might be a legal or ethical problem for the dealer to try and sell a previously sold and titled car as a new car, and a subsequent purchaser might be able to track down that it had been sold once, from the VIN.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081227200917AA2GyM4 brings up the issue of fraud or misrepresentation by the seller (a car with thousands of miles on the odometer was sold as a new car, the VIN on the paperwork doesn't match that on the car, the car has a smaller engine than the paperwork says, for example), and again you would have to discuss your rights with a lawyer. Edison (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some U.S. states have lemon laws that allow cars to be returned for their full purchase price if the car is faulty in some way, perhaps in ways that do not show up for a short while. Many of these laws are based on the concept of the Implied warranty, which is to say that if someone sells you an item, it is supposed to work as expected. If it does not, it may (under some jurisdictions) invalidate the terms of the sale and you may be able to legally get your money back. IANAL, caveat emptor, WP:LD, and all that jazz. If you have concerns, contact someone who can legally advise you on how to proceed. --Jayron32 17:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very basic question, but what are some complex answers, please?

The simple question is: Why are people interested in unusual things? LevianitA (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the usual things are boring. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by "complex answer[s]"[16]? Complex in what way? Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may read a 14-page discussion of the phenomenon in this article. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It depends." Is that complex enough for ya? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Was just trying to ask a fucking question. Sorry. I'll go away now.114.75.53.69 (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you phrase a question vaguely, don't complain when you get vague answers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm asking a vague question because I don't want to limit the sorts of answers I get to it. I'm looking for various sorts of ideas here. Thanks? :) 114.75.61.81 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is not for random discussion. It's not a forum for opinions. --Onorem (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean opinions, either. I'm very sorry! I'm phrasing this very badly! I just want to know why humans (or all animals, really) pay special attention to the things they are unfamiliar with. Obviously there's survival instinct, but what other factors go into it? Why does it make an impression on our minds beyond that? What happens in our brain at that moment? All these things go into my question. Hope I'm making sense!114.75.61.81 (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to. :) There's a recent TV series, maybe on the History Channel, called "Brain Games", which talks a lot (and somewhat repetitively) about how our brains interpret what our senses pick up. Survival has a lot to do with it, i.e. noticing something that's out of the ordinary, like for example something running toward you. If you can find any of those shows on the internet, they could provide some insight. However, I think Blueboar's initial answer explains a lot of it. We pay attention to various crises, whether they affect us or not, because they are "exciting" in some way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because unusual things can be dangerous. That's the main one. We know the risks attached to usual things. On the flip side, they could be useful in new ways, and are therefore worth our attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Amanirenas

Hello,

are there pictures of Candace Amanirenas?

Thank you for your answers!

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Image search for "Amanirenas" finds some pictures, and also a statue of her. Looie496 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casteism in Bible

I always thought that castism is a purely Hindu, or almost purely Hindu phenomenon. But I heard a Guru referring to an incident in life of Lord Jesus where he wanted to drink water from a well but the lady drawing the pulley refused on the grounds that she is of caste lest Jesus be "polluted". Is there really such chapter in Bible ? 124.253.173.16 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is Samaritan woman at the well, from gospel of John. I do not know about the caste interpretation, but that article may lead you to more info. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is some more context about how Samaritans were seen in Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan#Samaritans_and_Jesus. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not an incidence of caste in the Hindu sense. Read Samaritan. Samaritans follow the same ancient religion as the Hebrews (and even to this day celebrate Passover in their own way), except that they never accepted the post-Babylonian exile notion that the Temple of Jerusalem was the only true temple. The Jews of Jesus's time basically regarded them as not "true believers". μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. :) The problem with both stories is having to explain the context. Nowadays it might make more sense to substitute "Palestinian" in place of "Samaritan". It's not really "caste-ism", just bigotry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination according to social class has occurred in many societies -- the Hindu caste system is merely the most extensively developed example. Looie496 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu caste system is not what is stereotyped in the west. Take the example of wikipedia, some like to create content themselves, some like to google translate from other wikis, some like to wikify, some like to correct grammatical mistakes. Every wikipedian has its own role. That is the real Hindu caste system where every person was assigned his unique role in society. Not subjugation as stereotyped in the west. Solomon7968 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The key difference is performing a role (such as a wikipedia role) voluntarily vs. being "assigned" (i.e. forced) into a role. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians arrive at the site with a clean slate, select their own roles, and can move between work areas without hindrance, at will. If they wish to gain admin or bureaucrat status (seen by some as a promotion) then their record of behaviour and contributions here is what matters, not their identity. I'm afraid I fail to understand the comparison. - Ka renjc 21:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When a Wikipedian who likes to wikify tries to correct grammatical mistakes, he is not regarded as ritually impure, banned from the grammatical-mistake-community, or ostracized. His sons and daughters are not forced to wikify, should they (voluntarily) join Wikipedia. That is quite unlike the condition of the Dalit: "Dalits were commonly segregated, and banned from full participation in Hindu social life. For example, they could not enter a temple nor a school, and were required to stay outside the village. Elaborate precautions were sometimes observed to prevent incidental contact between Dalits and other castes." --Bowlhover (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will you explain who are you quoting. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of caste in India is that it is not voluntary, and that it applies to people of the same Hindu religion. Samaritans, however, consider themselves Hebrews, but not Judeans > hence not Jews. This is an old and complex religious schism, and has nothing to do with caste or class per se. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just Hindu religions, in India, see Caste system in India#Caste systems among non-Hindus. Also, the 1950 Indian Constitution prohibits any discrimination based on caste and made the practice of "untouchability" illegal. Which isn't to say it's all stuff of the past, of course. Pfly (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US constition stated "Equal Rights" in 1776 then why it took another 100 (basically not even today) years to give the due rights of the blacks. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're still working on that. Legal structures are one thing, changing how individual people treat other individual people, especially when some of those individual people are in positions of power, and as such, have the ability to act on their bigotry, is another. --Jayron32 05:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "equal rights" was not written into the Constitution until the 14th Amendment, and we are indeed still working on it. Bigotry dies hard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See James 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for posting my 22:51, 22 May 2013 reply; in retrospect, I see that it is more about discrimination based on economic class than about discrimination based on ethnic background.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for a modern person to understand the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans in the time of Jesus, and our article doesn't do much to help. Josephus, in the Antiquities, relates an occasion that seems to have taken place in Jesus' childhood when the Samaritans apparently desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem. That would have been utterly shocking to Jews of the time. There's also a story he relates in The Jewish War about a murder of a Jewish pilgrim by a Samaritan and an unpleasant over-reaction by the Jews, who are only dissuaded from going to war against the Samaritans by their leaders warning them of the likely crushing of insurrection by the Roman rulers.

Having said that, I don't think this story is about antipathy at all. As this Christian Bible text explains, the Samaritan religion was sufficiently different that a Jew who, in Temple times, had to observe a madly complex section of halacha that dealt with ritual impurity would simply not have been religiously permitted to use their vessels and it's this that the Samaritan woman is referring to.

Finally, it's definitely not a "caste" matter - a Samaritan could become a Jew by converting. --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The antipathy between Jews and Samaritans likely goes all the way back to the divided monarchy. The Israelite nation was divided into two kingdoms from about the 10th century BC - Judah in the south, Israel in the north. Judah was ruled by the descendants of David from Jerusalem, Israel by various dynasties from various capitals, one of which was Samaria, until it was conquered, and its people dispersed, by the Assyrians in the 8th century, leaving Judah as the last Israelite kingdom standing. The word Jew derives from Judah. The Bible was written in Judah with an ideology that said the only acceptable place to sacrifice to God was the temple in Jerusalem, and all the kings of Israel are condemned for having their own holy places, so Samaria as the capital of Israel, its people and their religious practices would have been seen as unacceptable by Jewish believers for a long time before Jesus. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknack009 -- Samaritan/Jewish antagonism presumably drew on traditions of conflict between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, but it wasn't a simple continuation. Rather, after the downfall of the northern kingdom ca. 721 B.C., there were significant deportations of the population there, and resettlement of people from other areas, so that many in the remaining southern kingdom came to regard the inhabitants of the area of the former northern kingdom as a mixing of heterogeneous elements with very little valid claim to consider themselves Israelites. Most of the northerners, on the other hand, considered themselves legitimately Israelite, were often not willing to accept religious leadership from Jerusalem, and were less influenced by the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah, which were considered vital by southern religious rigorists. By the Persian period, the Samaritans had a temple of their own on mount Gerizim, opposed the Jewish return from exile, obstructed Jewish efforts to rebuild Jerusalem and the Jewish temple there, and opposed the further Jewish religious reforms under Ezra (Ezra is a hate figure in Samaritan tradition). When the Jews regained some power under the Maccabeans, they returned the favor, and destroyed the Samaritan temple (which they regarded as a blasphemous parody of the Jerusalem temple built and run by pretenders who had no legitimate right to call themselves Israelites at all). In the middle half of the 1st century A.D., many of the traditional causes of antagonism still operated, and the destruction of the Samaritan temple roughly 150-200 years before was still remembered... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prize vs Copley Medal academic domination politics

Copley Medal being awarded since 1731 was a far established award than Nobel Prize. Then why did Nobel Prize became the standard of Academic distinction outpacing Copley Medal starting only since 1900. Any light on the topic is appreciated. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, the cash value of a Nobel Prize is far higher -- currently about 1.2 million US dollars versus 5000 British pounds for the Copley Medal. Looie496 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you get more buck for his bang. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I wonder if the Nobel choice is more accurate about who is the best in the field. Obviously, any recipient would prefer a Nobel prize, but what about a person not related to a field who just want to know who is the best one? Would any of these national prizes do more justice than the Nobel prize? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr. Berg" from Norway

I'm working with some 1980s photos of Lee H. Hamilton meeting foreign dignitaries. One of the envelopes is labeled "Mr. Berg, Norway". Unfortunately, I can't describe what he looks like in the picture, since Hamilton is shown shaking hands with several men whom I don't recognize. Can anyone suggest a Norwegian named Berg from this period who might be going to the USA for high-level meetings? Nobody named Berg was either the Minister of Foreign Affairs nor the Prime Minister during this period. 2001:18E8:2:1020:A4AB:9743:B2F9:993F (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not the ambassador to the US either. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone in Berg (surname) seem possible? Couple of sports stars...184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly no:Alf Roar Berg or no:Johan Berg? Both were heads of the Norwegian Intelligence Service, and Hamilton chaired the Intelligence Committee. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A pity they don't have images; I've looked around for images of Johan but can't find any; this is Alf, but I can't find him in any pictures. I guess I'll just leave the description as "Mr Berg"; these photos are to be going online, so perhaps I'll come back some day and be able to point to a URL when I ask again for recognition help. 2001:18E8:2:1020:A4AB:9743:B2F9:993F (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Eivinn Berg? Norwegian Ambassador to NATO (84-88) and the EU (88-96), and before that (effectively) the deputy foreign minister (81-84). Andrew Gray (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

Protestant Ranavalona

What denomination of Protestantism were Queen Ranavalona II and Queen Ranavalona III of Madagascar? Was it Congregationalism or Anglicanism or something else?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congregationalism is an offshoot of Anglicanism that arose during the Puritan movement; its basically the "Puritan" denomination. Ranavalona III's article says she was educated by the London Missionary Society which was "largely Congregationalist in outlook". Not really good enough to add any information to her article, but if you just want to know for your personal edification, it seems likely she worshiped in the Congregationalist tradition. --Jayron32 03:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... The Hawaiian missionaries in 1820 were called Calvinists and Congregationalists. Weren't those different denominations? I thought Calvinism was the religion preaching predestination that broke from Catholicism at the same time as Lutheranism and if Congregationalism is an offshoot of Anglicanism (the Puritans purifying the Anglican Church), how can they be the same thing? Unless Congregationalism (from what I read) is an offshoot of Anglicanism which follows some beliefs of Calvinism.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinism is a theological position, not a denomination. Congregationalism is a denomination that I believe at the time tended to have Calvinist theology, though its defining feature had more to do with church organization than theology. --Trovatore (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Calvinism is not itself a distinct denomination, but rather a broad classification of Protestant theology that is distinct and separate from the Lutheran tradition. The Puritans (i.e. Congregationalists) were basically English Calvinists, just as the Presbyterians were Scottish Calvinists, and the Huguenots were French Calvinists. Congregationalism is an offshoot of Anglicanism. A Calvinist one. --Jayron32 04:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but that makes it sound as though the main difference between Congregationalists and Presbyterians is national origin. I don't claim to be an expert on the history of the period, but I would have said the fundamental difference was church governance. That's even how they were named — Congregationalists uphold the freedom of each congregation, whereas Presbyterians are guided by presbyters ("elders", roughly bishops).

And if Congregationalism is an offshoot of Anglicanism, it's in roughly the sense the the United States is an offshoot of England — shares many of the same values, but began in open revolt against the form of leadership, specifically the English monarchy in both cases.

(By the way, I grew up in the Congregational Church, which could either inform my views or bias them, I suppose. It is not (today) noticeably Calvinist.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of common ground between the various Non-Conformist churches in England. As I understand it, a lot of evangelical missionary organisations were staffed by like-minded Christians of various Protestant (and non-Anglican) churches. In England today, the Congregationalists and English Presbyterians have joined together to form the United Reform Church. It is also common to have a "Free Church", which is shared by URC and Baptist congregations, who worship together with a single minister.[17] Alansplodge (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other difference between Congregationalists and Presbyterians is on Church governance (hence the name difference). Congregationalists believe in the autonomy of the individual Congregation, while Presbyterians are governed by regional assemblies of elected "elders" or "presbyters". See Presbyterian polity and Congregationalist polity. However, on matters of theology, rather than church governance, they historically have very similar beliefs, broadly in agreement with other forms of "Reformed Christianity". And the parallels between (traditional, Episcopalian) Anglicanism and Congregationalism and the UK and US is particularly apt; many of the early settlers in the U.S. were Congregationalists, and the movement is closely tied to early American history; see Massachusetts Bay Colony, Plymouth Colony, and Congregational church for background on the connections between early America and the Congregationalist church. Congregational governance is still today likely the most common model of Protestant church governance in the U.S., if you take into account that 25% or so of Christians in the United States are Baptists (who follow that model of Church governance), as well as non-trivial membership in other similarly organized groups like United Church of Christ (modern descendant of the original Puritan Congregationalist churches), Churches of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), various Nondenominational churches, etc. --Jayron32 12:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forced deathbed conversions

Are there any famous cases of forced deathbed conversions? So not forced conversions or Mormon conversion/baptism of the dead.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's forced, was it a conversion? --Jayron32 04:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I meant baptism.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, like drowning? Waterboarding? --Jayron32 04:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it means forced by the circumstances. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. I'm done screwing with you for my own amusement. There were apostates that "converted" under torture, often shortly before execution. See Auto-da-fé. --Jayron32 04:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism has conditional baptisms which may be done for an unconscious dying person in case that person sincerely wished to baptised but was unable due to circumstances (and is also done for other reasons, for other reasons). In fact, sacramental baptism is not necessary if the dying truly wanted it, given the concept of baptism by desire. But it's considered highly improper if there was an expressed wish against it, and invalid if it was not truly the supposed convert's wish. Conversion against the will is invalid in all cases. See Baptism and Conversion at The Catholic Encyclopedi. Of course historically these strictures have not always been followed in practice, as with the mass 'conversion' of pagan tribes during the Christianization of Europe. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very prominent case in the middle east in the last century was Michel Aflaq... AnonMoos (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fried chicken and watermelon

Why is it considered racist to say that black people like fried chicken and watermelon? Isn't it like saying that Italians like pizza or Russian drink vodka? In all cases, it's a stereotype that might be accurate or not, but there is nothing intrinsically bad about it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This similar thread might be of use to you... Cheers! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Watermelon stereotype... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Written by yours truly ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't the statement that "black people like fried chicken and watermelon" be racist? The definition of racist is "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics". Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The belief that different cultural groups would be different is not racist, it is self-evident. If I go to France, or South Korea, or Vietnam, or Nigeria, I find people groups that eat different foods, listen to different music, have different traditions, etc. That is not racist to recognize that. What makes it racist is to use those cultural differences as part of a caricature which is overtly designed to be insulting or degrading. That's the distinction. Noting that different cultures eat different foods is not racist. Using those differences as a point of insult is. --Jayron32 17:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional definition of racism is more along the lines of regarding certain races as immutably biologically inferior. Insofar as race corresponds to ethnicity in some cases, members of of an ethnoracial group will obviously tend to share some cultural characteristics (though such generalizations will be more statistical rather than invariable, generally with little connection to pure biology)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no cultural difference as even whites like fried chicken... Just that it's expressed in such a way that's it's deemed derogatory. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some whites have even been known to like watermelon [18]. Paul B (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer boneless fried chicken and seedless watermelon. Now guess my race....165.212.189.187 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essay on Jeffrey Dahmer - would it be biased?

Sock.

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

Hi, please I'm working on an essay on Jeffrey Dahmer for the Criminology class at the University and I would write this as follow "...while his biological mother Joyce left him behind alone in their Ohio home where Dahmer committed his first murder; Lionel (his father)'s second wife, Shari Jordan, took care of Jeffrey like a true son". Is that biased?. The essay MUST be unbiased. Thank you! Monteithh (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do your sources have to say about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My source is Lionel Dahmer's book "A Father's Story"... but he didn't like Joyce very much after the divorce that's why I'm asking for help. I'm confused if that would be or not unbiased. Thank you. Monteithh (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting an "insider's" viewpoint on something of this nature is risky. Maybe you should start by finding some reviews of that book, and see what they have to say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, thank you Baseball Bugs very much!!! Monteithh (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Side note moved to talk page - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Western religions that are not so individualistic...

Are there some contemporary Western religions or religious movements that are not so individualistic? I am thinking of a religion that emphasizes more on communal worship and collective religious experiences, a religion that develops its beliefs in narratives using various literary devices instead of being so explicit about them, a religion that focuses more on having a collective social/cultural identity instead of just what an individual believes, a religion that encourages adherents to protect the reputation of themselves and other people by working together out of charity and benevolence. I was thinking of Unitarian Universalism, because it had communal worship, but I'm not sure how one can be a "cultural Universal Unitarian". Maybe someone that prays privately but does not attend the UU congregation. That still sounds individualistic. Sneazy (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those characteristics describe most forms of Judaism fairly well, especially the "communal worship and collective religious experiences" bit. Judaism is a collective/national religion that traditionally values communal practice above and beyond individual beliefs. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches seem really non-individualistic from a Protestant perspective. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]