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.
Our article on Apprendi v. New Jersey spends a considerable amount of time on a "prior conviction exception". The court found that any fact used to enhance a criminal sentence beyond what would otherwise be the statutory maximum must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, with the exception of prior convictions.
Then there's this remarkable bit:
Before the death of William Rehnquist and the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, this view commanded a majority of the Court. Many are hopeful that if the Roberts Court is directly faced with the question, it might extend Apprendi's jury-trial requirement to the fact of a prior conviction as well.
So what I'm wondering is, practically speaking, how does this question make a difference? Surely it's a trivial matter to prove this fact to a jury? I suppose it gives the jury another chance to nullify if it feels the enhanced sentence would be too harsh, but it doesn't seem likely that this would happen very often.
Or maybe it's just about previous cases, where the "hopeful" observers represent already-sentenced persons and the fact was not presented to a jury? Thinking about it now, I suppose that makes the most sense. --Trovatore (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the baby understands the words although not on the sophisticated level of the adult. Also the song begins innocently enough. Even to sophisticated ears, the beginning is not particularly political. The song has a singsong quality that I think is similar to that heard in some children's songs. And the song has some plaintive lyrics at the beginning that I think can be understood as commiserating with the crying child. Bus stop (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fittingly, Peter Steele has become like they are. The band (rightfully) agreed it wouldn't be the same without him in 2010. InedibleHulk(talk) 00:50, March 3, 2014 (UTC)
1877: US Supreme Court justices, political party affiliations
With regard to the five Supreme Court justices that were selected to serve on the 1877 Electoral Commission to resolve the disputed 1876 Presidential election, party affiliation (Republican vs Democrat) clearly played the one and only deciding factor, in particular the party affiliations of the five justices themselves. During my lifetime, any sort of political party affiliation of Supreme Court justices (whether before or after appointment) seemed to be de facto irrelevant (with the sole exception to reference of the party affiliation of the Presidents who nominated them in the first place). Obviously, modern Justices (late 20th & 21st century anyway) have been typically selected and categorized on the basis of ideology (eg., liberal or centrist or conservative) as opposed to the political parties (Republican or Democrat) which judicial nominees may or may not have previously been associated with themselves. So, the question is, would this have been also true of the 1877 Supreme Court, of which the five selected justices simply decided to put on their "party armbands" (so to speak) solely for the purposes of the Electoral Commission? Or did specific party affiliations happen to play a much more prominent role in the Supreme Court of the 19th century, and when (and how) did this change from then to now? DWIII (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the 19th century, it was less common to have a mostly judicial career during which one rose through the ranks of judgeships. It was quite common to go back and forth between judge positions and private law practice, and most bright and ambitious lawyers were involved in politics in some way, which meant they left a political paper trail. Salmon Chase, the chief justice from 1864-1873, wasn't a judge until he was appointed to the Supreme Court, and had a number of party affiliations over his career (Democrat, Liberty, Free Soil, Republican, "Liberal Republican")... AnonMoos (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the difference between "officially irrelevant" and "yeah, we all know..." The affiliations for judges and justices are supposed to be irrelevant because the law is blind, judges are supposed to be impartial, yada yada yada. But judges are appointed by people who have definite party affiliations, and appointees tend to get appointed because they know somebody or have done something which aligns itself with the political philosophy of the appointor. Such is the nature of the beast. Interestingly, the "party affiliation" here doesn't exactly match the affiliation of the Presidents who nominated them. Stephen Johnson Field, for example, was a Democrat based on his affiliation, but he was nominated to the Court by Lincoln, a Republican. --Jayron3215:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question about bible code
It is important please. I NEED a answer to this please.
Where is the first taw in genesis and exodus and what does it mean? Can you show me where it is? Or is this false?
Quote from what I need "One cited example is that by taking every 50th letter of the Book of Genesis starting with the first taw, the Hebrew word "torah" is spelled out. The same happens in the Book of Exodus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07scott (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how the wikipeida article has citations, it's easy to learn more if you read the cited material... in this case, the citation comes from this maybe-not-reliable-source which claims that "the first occurrence of the letter Tav" in Genesis is "at the end of the first word bereshit". WegianWarrior (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That last sentence is certainly true; the first word of Genesis (also its Hebrew name) is "bereshit" (ברשׁית) ending in a taw. Exodus starts with the words "we'eleh shemot" (ואלה שׁמות), the second word ending in taw. If you know the Hebrew Alphabet, you can see this yourself at this website.
I've counted the 50th letter beginning from the first taw in Genesis and Exodus using the text of the Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia, (based on the Leningrad Codex) and they do indeed spell out the word תורה ("torah") if you consider only the consonants. Not saying there's any significance to this by the way, it's merely that according to my counting, the claim checks out. (DISCLAIMER: I am not a reliable source; according to Wikipedia's standards this is original research) - Lindert (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Asker; 07scott, Can you please tell me where bereshit means in english. Can you show me the fifty letters skipped in picture/ text, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07scott (talk • contribs) 16:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a difficult mathematical question. The problem is, getting a four letter sequence, given your choice of what letter to start with, is very roughly 20*20*20 (I'm afraid I don't know enough Hebrew even to know how many letters to count as equivalent). But you have a choice of more than 50 spacings, more than 50 words, and also apparently some variations of the text. But getting the same word in the same way twice? Now the authors can be criticized for using a very large database of words and getting this one example, but surely "torah" would be on someone's shortlist. How short? Well, it's hard to ask them now - either they include it or they don't. There's some real statistical philosophy here.
But I'd keep an open mind. It doesn't seem hard to believe that ancient scribes, wary of transcription errors and deliberate alterations, might have coded a few tests directly into the text to make it easy to tell if it is right - especially when at the very beginning it was not well known. Such tests would need to be at the bare edge of statistical significance so that they wouldn't have to distort the text's meaning in any impermissible way to have them. Anyone who's ever looked at a set of BLAST results knows that there can be a fine line between finding genuine and deeply significant historical meaning and finding meaningless gabble, so we shouldn't have to take an all or nothing view of this. In any case, if you want a decisive answer you'll have to go to the Math desk and give them a lot of background, unless there are some professionals slumming here. Wnt (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As for bereshit, it means "in (the) beginning". The first letter ב (bet) means "in" and רשׁית (reshit) means beginning. In Hebrew, prepositions like 'in', 'from' 'to' etc. are often prefixed to a noun instead of being seperate words. As for the spacing of the letters, here is Genesis 1:1-5, where I've put in bold every 50th letter starting with the first taw (ת). I've left out all vowel pointings and verse numbers. Obviously it should be read from right to left.
בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשׁך על פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פּני המים ויאמר אלהים יהי אור ויהי אור וירא אלהים את האור כי טוב ויבדל אלהים בין האור ובין החשׁך ויקרא אלהים לאור יום ולחשׁך קרא לילה ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד
By the way, ת, ו, ר, ה are four of the most frequent letters in Biblical Hebrew. If the pattern involved צ, ז, ק that would be a little more impressive... AnonMoos (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know a single orthodox Jew who regards the so-called Bible Codes as anything more than potentially interesting. Most are fairly uninterested in them. With the forthcoming festival of Purim in mind, anyone interested in a fairly well-known and digestible "Bible Code" with a nice story attached that predates Drosnin's book, can see (for example) this account. Again, no-one would regard this as anything more than a curiosity. --Dweller (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finding sources for potential Wikipedia articles on ethnic groups in Paris (north African/Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa)
I've attempted "Paris" "Algerian" and "Paris" "Algerian" "banlieue" as well as "Paris" "African" "banlieue" but I'm having trouble finding information for a potential article on African and/or Middle Eastern ethnic groups in Paris.
I would like to start those on the following: Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Sub-Saharan African, Russian, Turkish, Haitian, Guianan, Reunion, and/or Caribbean populations in Paris. I also have some information on Vietnamese, Lao, and Cambodians at Demographics of Paris
I am new to this Wikipedia, this is my first time asking a question.
My question is: How can I attach or insert a picture or photo image to my question for the Reference desk?
Thank youPolkateer (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An exemplary mantis.(Note, this question would be more at place on the help desk [1], because you are asking for help about how to use Wikipedia, not asking a reference question about the humanities. But since it's an easy answer I'll do so here.) One easy way is to use a disposable image hosting site, like imgur (benefits include no need for user accounts or logins to post or view images, anonymity/privaty, etc.). Then just link like you would anything else, by enclosing the URL to the imgur link in single square brackets, like this [2]. If you want it to display here, then it has to be part of Wikimedia Commons. Then you can post it here with this kind of syntax [3] . But, if the only purpose is to relate to a question here, I think Imgur is preferable, because commons is for media that are generally useful for Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedia. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
March 3
Seemed to be another widespread hoax in Chinese magazines, newspapers, blogs and even textbooks...
I just recalled this story, which seems to be hoax after I tried to google the English source and failed. The story/hoax looks like:
/////////
In 1968, a 3 year old girl in Nevada, Edith told her mom she could read the letter "O" of word "OPEN". Her mom, after praising her daughter's effort, sued the Laura III Kindergarten(Which I can't find in google) for "destroying Edith's creativity", and asked for 10 million dollar of indemnity. She believed Edith used to be able to think O as things like apple, sun, ball, egg and so on, but the kindergarten's education had made her unable to think so.
Surprisingly, the mother won the case because the jury was moved her story:
"Once I had been to an Eastern country, I saw two swan in a park, one had its wing pruned and the other did not. The one with pruned wing was put in a large pond and the one with wing intact in a smaller pond. I asked the manager of the park and they say this is to prevent the swan from escaping. The ones with their wings pruned cannot balance so they can't fly away, and the ones with wings intact can't fly away because there is too short distance for them to glide.
This, the Eastern people's wisdom was appalling to me, while I felt mournful for the two swans. Today I come here for my daughter because I believe Laura III Kindergarten is making my daughter a swan- a swan without the wing of creativity, a swan in the small pond of only ABC's."
It is also said many changes to educational laws are influenced by this case.
Though this is very likely a hoax, I would like to ask:
Had there been anything similar to this where education institutions are sued for damaging student's creativity?
Is it ever possible for a jury to be moved by an "arousing story", or is this kind of metaphoric story not necessary in the court and will likely to be halted, as it does not relate to the topic of the case?--chaoxiandelunzi (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's more plausible than you may think. India abolished juries entirely after one acquitted a serious criminal with the most overwhelming evidence, an Italian jury was dismissed for playing Sudoku for three weeks (yes, in the jury box, for three weeks) and there is the infamous case of the four English jurors who went back to a hotel room, contacted the murder victim with a ouija board (can't ask for a better witness in a murder trial than the victim himself), and used that to convict the defendant. Nobody knows what happens in a jury room, so had they done it there the judge probably wouldn't have heard about it at all. But he did and ordered a retrial. And then Indiana tried to change pi with a law (fortunately there was a mathematics professor in town who talked enough Senators round to sense overnight).
There are all sorts of problems with juries. There was the American case where the prosecutor deselected all African-American jurors from a mixed jury without reasons (which were not required). On appeal, the US Supreme Court ruled that they should have provided reasons (although a black defendant is not automatically entitled to a mixed/black jury). The British realised the problem resulting from a jury's acquittal being unappealable: if the acquittal is due to a point of law on which the prosecutor thinks the judge is completely wrong, there would be no opportunity to set that right. For that reason there is the Attorney General's Reference appeals - a appeals and asks the appeal judges to set right the point of law on which the defendant was found not guilty. The defendant however walks, even if the prosecutor wins the appeal. In some countries prosecutors can appeal, win, change an acquittal to conviction and send the defendant back to prison.
I quote one lecturer, an experienced defender and prosecutor: 'juries will believe anything that adds up. They are the biggest load of idiots there ever was. The judge might not, but he doesn't decide. You cannot predict a jury, there have been clients I have had, I have not seen a more ridiculous story, but I've had no choice but to put it to the court anyway. And the jury took it.'--92.25.228.93 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the group of councillors, it's the organisation they preside over which will provide various services to the inhabitants of the borough e.g. refuse collection - I'm not sure exactly which services are provided by local authorities in NI these days, but certainly in the past it would have included social housing. -- Arwel Parry(talk)07:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Councils in Northern Ireland haven't provided social housing since 1971, when the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was set up after protests against discrimination in allocation. There are currently proposals for the NIHE to be broken up, but into private housing associations - the function is not being returned to councils. See Local government in Northern Ireland. Anyway, I agree it's odd to have separate articles for councils and boroughs, since boroughs only exist as the areas administered by borough councils. The existing boundaries - 26 boroughs, districts and cities - were set in 1973 and will be superseded later this year by eleven "super-districts" - see Reform of local government in Northern Ireland - so both the boroughs and the borough councils will become historical. I would merge the borough articles into the borough council articles, as the area administered by the borough council between 1973 and 2014. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arwel is right. The council is the municipal government; the borough is the area governed by that council. The names vary - Lisburn, Derry and Belfast are cities with city councils. Armagh and Newry are cities with councils which govern a slightly larger area. Many people live in one town/village/city but are subject to municipal governance from a council which is named after a larger nearby town/city. Municipal taxes are called 'rates' and are paid to the council. They collected by the provincial Rates Collection Agency, which is part of the provincial Finance Department. Councils in England run schools and social housing (as Nicknack explains) which in Northern Ireland are run by the provincial government. Councils here do museums, leisure centres, refuse collection and playgrounds. They make some by-laws on dog fouling and whether you can drink alcohol in the street and so on.
They choose street names, but not town names; they have been the source of controversy with which flag should be flown on council property, and one even gritted footpaths but not streets on the excuse that the street was the provincial Roads Service's responsibility. For that reason, the nationalist Derry was able to change the council's name from the Londonderry Corporation to Derry City Council. It cannot change the city from Londonderry to Derry (only the UK government can do that). It can, however, change street names to Irish or indeed make them bilingual; for example 'Belfast Road, Derry' would I think become (imprecisely) 'Bothar na Béal Feirste, Doire'. --92.25.228.93 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He was a follower of Rousseau. It doesn't appear you have even read the Robespierre article--at least not well--since this is explicitly addressed. He was a leftist absolutist, not a classical liberal. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of projecting post 1848 conceptions of "classical liberal" and "leftist" onto an early 19th century politician is a bit silly. Robespierre liquidiated the Enrages and Hebertists as our article on the Sans-culottes discusses. I think a better idea than forcing Robespierre to fit into your modern understanding of ideology is to follow Ranke's advice and let the past speak for itself here. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to impress racist people if you are the ethnicity they don't like?
Yes. It happens with kids all the time. As a teacher in Australia I often hear "I hate Asians". I say "What about xxxxx over there?" (It's obvious that xxxxx's parents are Chinese, but xxxxx was born in this country.) The response? "She's OK, she's not Asian." HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Not all racists wear white bedsheets and dream about lynching people. Huge numbers of racists (most?) are just quietly prejudicial, even to the point of being unaware of it. These people are definitely prone to the phenomenon you cite, but even those at the far more evil end of the racist spectrum can be swayed. A friend's grandfather escaped a Nazi roundup of Jews in Budapest because his next door neighbour liked him. His next door neighbour happened to be the SS commander in the city and generally an unabashed antisemite. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a science article about school programs intended to counter racism [4]. It concludes with
“
For example, optimally effective interventions might include exposure to counterstereotypic models (e.g., books about African American scientists), training in attending to the multiple features of these symbolic models (e.g., individuals’ race and occupation), and practice in detecting within-group differences (e.g., differences between African American scientists and artists) and between-group similarities (e.g., similarities between African American and European American scientists).
”
-- So, I think this author supports the notion that exposing a racist A to individuals B,C... who don't fit the stereotypes might have an effect of decreasing racist attitudes in A. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should think it would depend on the individual, i.e. on the fundamental basis for their prejudice. It could be genuine hatred pounded into them by relentless propaganda. Or it could simply be wariness from not having enough information and thus not feeling comfortable. It's reasonable to suppose that the latter group would be more likely to benefit from that educational effort. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a racist. Some of my best friends are <name your favourite ethnicity>. But I don't want them coming here in their thousands and stealing our jobs from us (spoken by your favourite racist). -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]19:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, one reason that racism is so persistent is that people often compartmentalize their experiences with people who contradict their stereotypes. So "all x's are lazy/drunks/criminals, except for the y's that I know who aren't." OldTimeNESter (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A qeustion about laws relating to digital evidence
I knew that under key disclosure laws one would sometimes be forced to decrypt encrypted files. But besides, what laws will apply if one set some self-destructive mechanisms to a storage device, for example, a hard disk that erases all its data once it has been moved away for some distance?--Spwnt (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. I wonder who was the U.S. ambassador to Belgium between August 4 and September 11, 1914. If there were none, who was the ambassador for these dates in France (Myron Timothy Herrick or William Graves Sharp)?
It would seem, from a manuscript of the time, that an ambassador of the United States had threatened the Germans a special war if the city of Brussels was complaining about German military. Could you confirm? Do you have any sources? Thank you already, Égoïté (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC) French speaking - sorry for my bad English...[reply]
This is an example of what I'm talking about. But really, it's used for old stately secular buildings too.
I'm talking about the type that you see in really old but very stately university buildings built in the 19th century. They may have a gabled roof for the main building and an attached castle-like tower with a crenelated top. 140.254.227.87 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking particularly at English architecture, you might also find it worthwhile to look at English Gothic architecture. You'll see that English Gothic falls into three distinct phases: Early English, Decorated and Perpendicular. These terms are widely used in English guidebooks. The Victorian interpretation of this style is widely found in university buildings dating from the 19th century. See, for example, Victoria Building, University of Liverpool, the Great Hall of the University of Leeds, the Old Quad of Melbourne University, the Main Quadrangle of the University of Sydney, the Old Court of Selwyn College, Cambridge, and (par excellence) Keble College, Oxford. Notice how the Victorians often deliberately exploited brick instead of stone. Further, in some cases what appears to be stone in a Victorian Gothic building is actually brick with cladding: the Victorians were a thrifty bunch! One final point: it would be unusual in England to describe buildings from the 19th century as "really old". RomanSpa (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I'd thought of looking up the IP address! The pictures in the article on these halls suggest a fairly eclectic choice of architectural styles. Orton Hall does have obviously Romanesque features - the semi-circular arches are a common Romanesque/Norman form - but University Hall is much more of a mish-mash, with both Romanesque and Gothic features, as well as features from other eras. RomanSpa (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How did Yahweh evolve from a war god in a Semitic tribe to a god of love?
Yahweh was believed to be a war god. How did this conception of Yahweh evolve into the modern conception of Yahweh, in which Yahweh becomes a single, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, highly competitive (to the extent of denying the existence of other gods), eternal deity? 140.254.227.87 (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've told you before BB, the idea is that we give them the references to articles here so that they don't have to do it themselves. As Ian.thomson has just done, in fact. --Viennese Waltz19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've told you before VW, your snippy comments toward me are typically garbage, and this one is no exception. I was going to suggest that the OP start with God and see where it takes him, because this is a complex subject. But it occurred to me the OP might have done so already. So I'd like to know what he has already found, to narrow the search a bit. That, of course, would involve helping and interacting with the OP, which is apparently an alien concept to you. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question starts out with the unsubstantiated and false premise that YHWH was originally merely considered a god of war. The earliest mention of the divine name in archaeology is in the Mesha stele (c. 840 BC), but it gives no context other than that it is the name of the Israelite deity. The oldest literature mentioning YHWH is the Hebrew Bible, specifically the five books attributed to Moses. There is currently no widely accepted theory about how and when these books were written or compiled, but if you take the Documentary Hypothesis mentioned above, the earliest portion is considered to come from the Jahwist, writing c. 900 BC. The material attributed to this (supposedly) earliest source includes the Genesis creation story, and the promise to Israel that "in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed". So even going with the DH, the oldest sources describe YHWH as the creator of heaven and earth and the source of all living things on the planet, and as a god who would one day bless all the nations on earth. It's too simplistic to assume that a god of war cannot also be a god of love and in fact be omnipotent, omniscient etc. In fact God is still considered to be a God of war in Judaism and Christianity. - Lindert (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 140.254.227.87. The question "How did Yahweh evolve" has a very long and interesting story with many versions. I am going to give you the shortest version I can think of, just to let you off the hook of a lot of fun reading. The old testament God is described as telling his people how to wage wars, and this is one of several reasons some think of him as a "war god". In the new testament, Jesus is usually attributed to being the bringer of a new commandment "Love thy neighbor", which earned him the title "God of love". Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common misconception that "love your neighbor as yourself" is a new commandment from Jesus. In fact, it's a direct quote from the law of Moses (Leviticus 19:18,34). - Lindert (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lindert. I did not know that. In my defence, the last time I read the bible was over half a century ago, and Leviticus was the one I recall as being one I skimmed most heavily. I am glad I put this text up, so I could learn this from you. Since you so correctly put it, it is commonly misconceived as being so, it seems to me to be one version in folklore at least. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding whether this god ever was a war god, any god associated with victory in war will naturally gain popularity as his worshippers gain territory and fearsome/inspiring reputations. And, mythically, a god of war has an edge in any pantheon infighting. So if he'd want to become omni-everything, he probably could and would. InedibleHulk(talk) 23:38, March 3, 2014 (UTC)
That is of course a very valid point. And this is indeed perhaps what OP meant. I was not able to deduce that from what the OP wrote. I thought he might just be after an easy answer. You were right to ask how much he had read. I wish the OP had answered you, since he has left us guessing :) Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. "Love thy neighbour", by my understanding, is an easier stance to take when your neighbour deposed your old neighbour for lack of love (or tribute). I am no expert, though. InedibleHulk(talk) 00:22, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
I don't think traditional Judaism sees God as either "of war" or "of love". He's a complex amalgam of values, including those (offhand, I can't think of him described anywhere in Jewish Scripture or liturgy as the "God of love" - perhaps in Hosea, which deals with love? The war aspect is usually translated as "of hosts", tzva'ot), but also "the king of kings", "of justice", "our father", "of mercy", "of healing", "the provider", "the rock" (whatever that means) and countless other things. Even his multiplicity of names in Judaism refers to this, with different names reflecting different attributes. See our (not very good) article: names of God in Judaism. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure (I haven't actually read it) but I think you're somewhere in the vicinity of Moses and Monotheism. I don't know how well any of that book's ideas have stood up over time, but they at least seem more plausible than Freud's psychological writings. :) Wnt (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Freud's attempts to aggressively extend his psychological insights into other fields (Moses and Monotheism, Totem and Taboo. etc.) have really not stood up well in those fields. AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this has a lot to do with the evolution of society. Suppose we start with a society ruled by a Taliban like radical religious authority, then over time the authority will evolve into something less radical. This is due to feedback processes that operate even in the absence of democratic rule. Then what happens in a theocratic society is that the religion will be modified, it will be adjusted to justify the current laws (e.g. when Moses needed the Ten Commandments, he claimed that these were God's commandments, otherwise the people would not accept them). Count Iblis (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that presupposing that society itself is separate and distinct from religion, and there is a distinction between a secular culture and religion? 140.254.227.136 (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could also learn about many more than four attributes of Yahweh by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and attending Mass in your local Catholic church. You could learn very similar attributes of Yahweh to the Jehovah's Witness view by asking an imam at your local mosque, and studying the centuries of Islamic thought on the Koran with others at the mosque. You could learn many attributes of Yahweh, and why Jews typically do not use that name to describe Him, by reading some Midrash and visiting your local synagogue to ask a rabbi. Or you could learn about how we are all thetans trapped in material bodies, and how it is very important to dedicate all your time and money to freeing thetans, by visiting your local Scientology centre. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a Jewish or Muslim equivalent to a guide of [insert-holy-text-here]?
This book seems to carry a Christian bias. Like the part where they include The Fall of Adam and Eve or the interpretation of the serpent as Satan or Jesus as the Second Adam or Mary, mother of Jesus, as the Second Eve without really stating whichever denomination believes [insert-uncited-info-here]. Where can I find a Muslim equivalent to the Qur'an? 140.254.227.181 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And if you're looking for something that can serve as either light reading or something deep to meditate on, Midrashim can be pretty great regardless of religion. Hadiths would be somewhat comparable for Islam, as they are not sacred texts, but stories that elaborate on themes from the religion's sacred text. Christianity has comparable stories, but they're too often (at least in my experience in the pews) confused with "what the Bible really says" instead of a later elaboration on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Talmud is pretty impenetrable, especially for a beginner, even in English. Modern compilations of midrashim are much better for your needs. There's a particularly well-known one, published in English as The Midrash Says, in five volumes, one for each book of the Pentateuch. The volume I've linked to is the one for Genesis. But you won't find anything in there about Jesus or Mary. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about that. (By the way, could someone explain the "pun of Pathera" in that article. It was added in a single edit that otherwise, to my ignorant eyes, seems sincere [5] so I don't know if it has some other meaning. wikt:pun doesn't list one either, so if it does, please consider an entry there also.) Wnt (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus may be mentioned in the Talmud (pretty common name), but Jesus would be completely out of place in Midrashim commenting on the Jewish Bible (particularly the first five books), except in some of the most fringe eschatological parts (like Sefer Zerubbabel, which fits in the Jewish Bible about as well as the predictions of Nostradamus fit into the Christian Bible).
Pantera/Pandera is in the Talmud, though Jesus is usually referred to as "ben Stada": "Jesus son of Stada is Jesus son of Pandira?" Rav Hisda said, "The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandera." "But was not the husband Pappos son of Yehuda and the mother Stada?" No, his mother was Miriam, who let her hair grow long and was called Stada. Pumbedita says about her: "She was unfaithful to her husband." (b. Shabbat 104b) Paul B (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paul B: This particular translation is somewhat odd.
Miriam, who let her hair grow long
More correctly: "Miriam the hairdresser" or, more speculatively, "Miriam the Magdalene".
...and was called Stada. Pumbedita says about her: "She was unfaithful to her husband."
More correctly: ...and was called Stada; as they say in Pumbedita, "she strayed ("Setath Da")" from her husband.
I confess I took the easy way out and copy-pasted from the version in the article Jesus in the Talmud, rather than type out the translation used in my source, van Voorst's Jesus outside the New Testament (p.109). The translation given by van Voorst is "It is taught that Rabbi Eliezer said to the Wise, “Did not Ben Stada bring spells from Egypt in a cut in his flesh?” They said to him, “He was a fool, and they do not bring evidence from a fool.” Ben Stada is Ben Pantera. Rabbi Hisda “d. 309” said, “The husband was Stada, the lover was Pantera.” The husband was “actually” Pappos ben Judah, the mother was Stada. The mother was Miriam “Mary” the dresser of women's hair. As we say in Pumbeditha, “She has been false to “satath da” her husband.” (b. Shabbat 104b)" I've no idea where the version used in the wikipedia article comes from. Paul B (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "ELIF": how does the mention of "ben Stada" indicate this Jesus is the Jesus, or have anything to do with Messiah? The article doesn't explain that. Could Joseph also be a "ben Stada", sort of like how modern Arabs hand down honorifics like bin Laden? Or does it mean something else? Wnt (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paul B: As you can see, my translation is identical to, if less formal than van Voorst's. (Note that that van Voorst's translation of the parts not directly relevant to Jesus is too literal. "Rabbi Eliezer said to the Wise" actually means in Mishnaic jargon "Rabbi Eliezer said to [his colleagues] the [other] Sages [with whom he disagreed on the issue discussed there]". Also Shota, translated as "fool", actually means "the insane one", though perhaps van Voorst was using the older and more formal sense of "fool".
Wnt: Though the "ben Stada" passage does not actually name its subject—as with "bin Laden", "ben Stada" is only a patronymic (or matronymic)—medieval tradition certainly identified ben Stada with Jesus: 12th century Rabbi Tam, who disagreed (for problematic chronological reasons), saying "whoever believes that ben Stada is the Nazarene is mistaken", was obviously refuting a popular belief; the 16th century Christian censors (some of them former Jews) also thought so, as they felt it necessary to erase both occurrences of this passage from the Talmud. (There are other Talmud passages, also erased by said censors, that may refer to Jesus, but where he is not called ben Stada.)
Well, if I search genealogy of Jesus for "Stada", I get nothing, nor did I see anything like it in either version. Of course, that doesn't prove anything much, except that this is not an easy thing to figure out. Wnt (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to clarify the Pantera/Parthena passage in Jesus in the Talmud. Peter Schäfer explains "ben Stada" as follows: "His mother's true name was Miriam, and “Stada” is an epithet which derives from the Hebrew/Aramaic root sat.ah/sete' (“to deviate from the right path, to go astray, to be unfaithful”). In other words, his mother Miriam was also called “Stada” because she was a sotah, a woman suspected, or rather convicted, of adultery.". Paul B (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, for 100% certain, as I said, you won't find a mention of Jesus or Mary in any of the five volumes of The Midrash Says. --Dweller (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Were Muammar Gadhafi and Gamal Abdel Nasser the only leaders of former colonies to kick out Europeans out of their countries? Were they the only leaders in Africa to kick out these people out of their countries and only Muslims to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.199 (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's from a time when some of those words had different connotations, but Saladin did pretty well. The question depends on which countries you consider naturally "theirs" or "ours". The way I see it, if you live there, it's yours. InedibleHulk(talk) 00:17, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
As our indigestible green friend notes above, it depends a lot on how you define things. However, many countries have had revolts which overthrew colonial powers; an important distinction may be that they did not have a singular charismatic leader that became the dictator of the newly created country, but to claim that Egypt and Libya were the only nations (even only African nations) to overthrow colonial leaders is inaccurate. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Algeria fought for, and won, its independence from France in the Algerian War; the war had wide-reaching effects even in Metropolitan France; in the midst of the war the French state fell and was forced to reconstitute itself as an entirely new state, one could argue that the Algerians brought about not only their own independence, but the fall of a European colonial power as well. The Algerian Independence movement, however, lacked the single Charismatic Leader which characterized other such movements, such as in Egypt and Libya. But in Algeria, the leadership was entirely Muslim in nature, so that meets your other criteria as well. Arguable, the various wars in Southeast Asia also were wars of independence against colonial powers fought by native forces; the French (again) were sent packing following the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, and three independent nations arose from that conflict; the U.S. took up the cause in the ensuing Vietnam War, but were eventually thrown out as well. If you want a charismatic leader from that conflict, Ho Chi Minh is a good fit. Sukarno led the struggle to drive the Dutch out of Indonesia, and became the country's first President. Not African and not Muslim, however, but still examples of native populations overthrowing colonial powers by force. Back to Africa, there are MANY African Wars of Independence which were ultimately successful (many African nations earned their independence peacefully, but others had to fight hard). The Angolan War of Independence was not Muslim led, but was African in nature, and has an identifiable leader in Agostinho Neto. Mohammed V of Morocco could be argued to have led his country to Independence from France and Spain, he's both Muslim and African. Habib Bourguiba led the war for Tunisian independence, and he's both Muslim and African. I could probably find more examples, but then again, so can you. --Jayron3201:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may have misunderstood what you were saying but Sukarno while obviously not African, was AFAIK (and per our article categorisation) Muslim. It's true his brand of Javanese Islam would probably seem odd or wrong to a number of Muslims. And for that matter I suspect it would seem a bit odd even in modern day Indonesia. Also I don't think religion was much of a factor in his politics, he did push towards a secular state and wasn't that engaged with any sort of pan-Islam movement [6]. Although these sources [7], [8], [9] suggest you shouldn't completely ignore the relationship between his religious beliefs and his politics. And he definitely had problems with Islamists at times, particularly in his later years. (Although he did also cooperate with them at times and I don't think problems with Islamists is unique to Sukarno compared to the other examples.) But of course none of this means he wasn't Muslim. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
70.31.16.199 -- Qadhdhafi closed down U.S. military bases, but he certainly did not free Libya from foreign colonialism... AnonMoos (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can say any of these countries really kicked out the colonizers, rather than that the colonizers, being weakened from WWI-WWII and the cost to the US and the USSR of fighting the Cold War allowed actually colonies to oust their colonizers without much protest (Ireland, India) and places like Saudi Arabia to nationalize an infrastructure they'd never have built on their own. The colonial powers were for the most part economically and demographically indisposed and ideologically undisposed. For example, Nixon had achieved a peace treaty with the North Vietnamese that would not have required an American troop presence, but the Democratic Congress after Vietnam simply abrogated the US promise of military aid, which allowed the north to march in practically unopposed.
This is even the same model with US independence. Britain had a week king, liberal support for American independence at home, united support from a France not under revolution. Then, by the time the war was refought in 1812, Napoleon was a factor. Britain was weakened, distracted, and ideologically undisposed to fight. BY the time of the civil war the Liberals in Britain could prevent the natural Tory desire to support the slave-holding south on a moral versus a Realpolitik basis. The US didn't kick out the British. The British decided not to fight. μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't forget the most successful of all, Makonnen Wolde Mikael who resisted Italian colonization, with a decisive victory at the Battle of Adwa in 1896. So impressive was this long-overdue African victory, and so high the hopes for his son as the last emperor of Africa, that the religion of Rastafarianism emerged from it. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Similar numerical discrepancies didn't hinder a number of British victories in India during the 18th and 19th centuries. AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really buy Medeis' argument. The losers' relative weakness is always a factor in their defeat, and unless the losers are literally annihilated, defeat is always a decision not to fight. I do agree that the Americans did not kick out the British—on their own, that is. It's unlikely the American Patriots could have won without outside help. The Americans and the French, however, did jointly kick out the British. The British decided not to fight because they judged that continuing to fight would not deliver a result (a restive and resentful population needing repression at best) that was worth the cost of facing the combined French and Patriot forces. That they made this decision does not mean that the outcome was not a defeat for them. It was a defeat because effective military action compelled them to abandon the fight. Likewise, after Hitler's suicide, the Nazis decided not to fight. They could have fought until every last German soldier and/or every last Nazi had been killed, but they decided not to do that. That does not mean that they avoided defeat. Marco polo (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't characterize my argument as an argument, more as just a comment. I would mention Edmund Burke and Tom Paine, who had strong support in Britain. There's also John Locke's work.) Arguments don't work well in history anyway, since you can't do controlled experiments or argue from axioms. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the argument that the Ethiopians had more troops doesn't detract from the impressiveness. Winning with a smaller number of troops indicates good tactics, but winning with a huge number of troops indicates good logistics and coalition building. Both are good things in a war, but any clever barbarian can have good tactics - it takes a civilization to bring 200,000 people together. Wnt (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to follow your reasoning. I don't think anyone is doubting that the kingdom of Abyssinia was a "civilisation". The disparity in numbers simply detracts from the impressiveness of the military victory. It may reflect the impressiveness of the social bonds. But bringing a fairly large number of people together in one place is surely not the greatest of logistical achievements. Paul B (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably have just kept my mouth shut. But when I went in the garage this weekend I heard some rustling. First I thought it was a bird. Dad had a plastic grocery bag (it turns out with a few ponds of grass seed in it) hanging at head heighth off the end of the track for the overhead garage door.
I went to the living room and told them I found out that we actually had a hamster eating the seed, not a field mouse as has long been suspected. Mom croaked what?!?! (They are closer to 80 than 70, but quite fit and active) So I said, well, actually it's a vole. She said eew, they are blind and eat worms.
Dad said no, it's a rodent. (I doubt that clarified things.) I said it's cute, it's like a hamster, and it hid when it saw me. (I.e., it went from peeking its braod nose out the top of the bag to hiding in the depths of the bag.)
Then dad said, oh, I better put all the seed down the basement! So I realized no good could come of this.
So I went back in the garage and "found" the vole in the bag. Dad came in and asked where I had seen it. I said it's in the bag. What bag? This bag. This bag? (pointing at one of twenty on the floor).
No, this (bright yellow rustling) bag I am holding. How'd it get in there? It was in there. But you said the vole was scurrying along the rail. Yes, (pointing at the garage door track) That rail.
What rail? (looking at the work bench) That rail (I said, shaking the bag with the poor vole in it, wagging my finger at the door track)
How in the world did the vole get in the bag from being up on the rail? I don't know, you put it up there! 'The Vole? No, the bag! It obviously didn't work. See, (showing him the bag) It chewed through here.
Okay, how do we get rid of it? (Certainly not like my sister, I thought, who went to buy a no-kill trap for a mouse, only to have her 3y/o announce they had a rabbit. An they were going to kill it...)
I don't know, Dad, I am not going to kill it, it probably has babies. What are you going to do? Put it out back. How are you going to get it out? I am not.
We put the bag outside. Assuming Mom hasn't already had Dad take some secret drastic action I am thinking of putting it in the woods.
Well, if you have some honeycombs and wine (and a hammerlarge rock, for historical accuracy :) ) you can plant this sack's seed along the edge of your property. Pliny the Elder may (or may not) have described this as the augurium arvicolinium. :) Wnt (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also to consider; getting this vole out may be possible, but how do you keep more from getting in? I'd imagine your yard is redolent with rodents of all types, and a few of them are going to move in to escape the snakes and feral cats from your neighborhood. In my experience, they'll just keep coming back (trying to find and fill all the holes where they can sneak in is a Sysiphian task, given that a) they can squeeze through a hole the size of a nickel and b) even so, they can chew through concrete and steel. The only thing that has worked for me is to keep a relatively constant supply of those little rat poison bags in the corners of the basement and garage (D-Con works well). They eat the poison and tend to wander off looking for water (apparently the poison makes them thirsty) and so die somewhere else, and not your house. The first 2-3 years I lived in my house I had a real problem with mice/voles/feral hamsters/etc. in my garage and crawlspace, as evidenced by the mouse turds that collected everywhere. I started using the poison as recommended by the nice man at Home Depot. Since then (about 10 years ago), I haven't had any more problems, and I have only once in ten years had a dead mouse to remove from my crawlspace (trust me, you KNOW when one dies inside. Kinda unmistakable in an olfactory sort of way) otherwise, I've been rodent free. I know they are getting in and eating the poison, because I replace the little bags every few months as they get chewed through, but a) they aren't living in my house (because there's no poop) and b) they aren't dieing in my house (because there's no stinky mummified mouse corpses), though they are still getting in because they are eating the poison. If the knowledge that they are dieing is too much for you, I suggest you get used to the idea that you've got free-range voles as household pets, because in my experience, that's what'll happen. --Jayron3213:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative to keeping them out by securing the perimeter is to make sure there is plenty of food and shelter outside the house, so they'll be less likely to seek ways into the garage. Similar to having a squirrel feeder to keep squirrels away from a bird feeder, you could leave some trays of birdseed on the ground for voles (also would attract ground-feeding birds). Of course, at that point, it may turn into a hawk feeder... Otherwise, store garage/outbuilding grain products in plastic 5-gallon buckets with screw or snap lids (not impervious to rodents, but much more deterrent). I've never kept a vole as a pet, but I suspect it would work fine, there is even anecdotal evidence that other people do it [10]. Keep in mind this may be illegal (e.g. it is illegal in USA to catch a wild cardinal and keep it as a pet), and there may be some disease risks. I'm not sure if e.g. hantavirus infects voles in your area, but it's worth at least mentioning. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all. I called the animal rescue number Dismas gave, but they answer with a machine saying to leave a message if you have an orphaned baby. All I know for sure is they have a vole in a bag of seeds which I suspect may be its nest, and which I suspect might have babies. My parents don't normally get rodents, as they do have plenty of food and nesting sources outside. Over 40 years they've had a few years of squirrels in the attic, fixed by lining the walls with wire mesh, overnight visits from chipmunks who got locked in the garage when the door was shut behind them, and for two years this vole and its relatives, which had been assumed to be field mice. The yard on the order of an acre is riddled with chipmunks and home to half a dozen squirrels on average, but these never come in the house intentionally.
My main concern is getting rid of it humanely. I did already think of hantavirus and the like. The biggest problem from my viewpoint is that if it comes back, Mom will want to get glue traps. Although I know voles are basically nature's idea of hors d'oeuvres, I can abide natural deaths, but not murder for mere aesthetic purposes. I have convinced them to leave the bag with the seed and vole outside till I visit on the weekend, when the snow should have melted. I think, ironically enough, given Wnt's suggestion of pagan sacrifice, I will simply dump the contents of the bag by the corner of the fence where there's plenty of cover and an abandonned groundhog hole, as well as access to the neighbor's woodpile. I'll convince them it's their fault the vole came in since they've been storing seed on the floor for years, and take the seed and hang it by hooks from the roof of the back yard shed. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it going to be vulnerable to attacks from cats and dogs where you left it ? If so, you could build a little enclosure around the bag with chicken wire. Hopefully the holes are large enough for the vole to get through but not cats. In summer, snakes might also be a concern, since they can probably get through. You could use twist ties to tie the chicken wire into a cube shape, and stake it to the ground with tent stakes. StuRat (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not dogs, but maybe cats. The yard is fenced. Most people keep their cats inside. The neighbors had two cats which we would chase off when we saw them, but I think they got rid of them as their daughter's allergic. The big threat right now is my father, who can't see why there's a good bag of bluegrass seed out on the back porch. He thinks maybe the vole is gone, so he can retrieve his seed. I told him maybe so, but it doesn't hurt to wait till friday to bring it in, and I'll buy him a new bag. On the off chance it has pups I'd rather it be disturbed as little as possible. It's a paper bag of one or two pounds of seed, in a doubled light plastic shopping bag, up against the side of the house, on an open but roofed porch. If the vole's still there on friday I will build it a little pile from sassafras logs that were left on the ground when a small tree was cut down. That was my sister's advice, turns out she trapped and weighed voles as a lab assistant as an undegrad, which I didn't know. It may already be back in the garage for all I know, but I have convinced them not to disturb it for now. Dad said there's no more seed in the garage. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had grass seed in the basement, and mice got to it, so I vole-heartedly agree that it's an attractive nuisance. I think it needs to be stored in a container impenetrable to rodents, like those huge tin cans popcorn comes in at Christmas. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sci-fi detective story
Does anyone remember a science-fiction (well, construing the term broadly) story that involved a computer that read the last words of (possibly) Dutch Schultz, and took on the gangster's personality? One more clue: The following bit of children's verse features prominently, though I don't remember in exactly what way:
F for fig, and
J for jig, and
N for knucklebones
J for John the Waterman, and
S for sack of stones
A search at books.google.com for "figs jigs knucklebones" found "The 13 crimes of science fiction", an out-of-print collection of 13 stories, edited by Isaac Asimov, Martin Harry Greenberg, and Charles G. Waugh (see here), and another hit in "The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, Band 46" from 1974. "The 13 Crimes" apparently contains the following stories:
The Detweiler Boy by Tom Reamy
The Ipswich Phial by Randall Garrett
Second Game by Charles V. De Vet & Katherine MacLean
I skimmed down your list quickly and with the last entry, since "bell" was just to the right and down from "William", thought "I wonder how William Tell was as an author!". Dismas|(talk)09:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mouthpiece by Edward Wellen is what you were looking for:
Edward Wellen’s “Mouthpiece” first saw print in the pages of Fantasy & Science Fiction Magazine’s February 1974′s issue. Most of the stories I’ve read by Edward Wellen tend to be focused on the workings of the human mind, and this one is no exception. This one fictionalizes a fascinating historical curiosity regarding the final hours of “Dutch” Schultz and takes it just that bit farther – into artificial intelligence – leaving us pondering the nature of personality, memory and thought. It’s also a great little mystery to boot! (Review of Sci-Fi Private Eye edited by Isaac Asimov and Martin H. Greenberg)
Thanks, y'all Tobias! I think you've cracked the case. Pity that book is out of print. Or maybe good for me — I have it somewhere, if I can find it; maybe it's a collectors' item. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That Wellen story (actually a short novel, almost seventy pages long, and divided into twenty chapters) is also included in The Mammoth Book of Fantastic Science Fiction – Short Novels of the 1970s, again edited by Asimov, Greenberg and Waugh and published in 1992 by Carroll & Graf (ISBN 0-88184-795-X). This should be somewhat easier to find. I actually own this book and have it now in front of me, but I had completely forgotten about Wellen's novel. Anyway, The Mammoth Book of Fantastic Science Fiction also includes Robert Silverberg's Born with the Dead (Nebula award 1975), Donald Kingsbury's novella The Moon Goddess and the Son (later expanded into a novel of the same title), Joan D. Vinge's Tin Soldier, Larry Niven's ARM, John Varley's The Persistence of Vision (Hugo and Nebula awards 1979), Poul Anderson's The Queen of Air and Darkness (Hugo Award for Best Novella and Locus Award for Best Short Story in 1972, Nebula Award for Best Novelette in 1971), and three short novels/novellas by Frederick Pohl (In the Problem Pit), Norman Spinrad (Riding the Torch), and Gordon R. Dickson (The Monster and the Maiden). — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alright, according to the article, some US military groups gave the media the pictures of abused prisoners. The question is where did they get the pictures in the first place? The guards, who committed the crime, took the pictures themselves right? Are the guards stupid or what? Why would they give the pictures to someone else to release it? Or why would they give the pictures to someone at all. Don't the guards know if people see it then they will be outraged? When the US military was investigating the guards, they could have hidden the pictures somewhere or delete it with ease. It puzzles me how can the media get the hold of those sick-messed up pictures. 75.168.125.23 (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did they photograph their deeds? For the same reason that countless civilian idiots film their bad behaviors and post them on youtube, sometimes leading to arrests and convictions. Note that it's not just Abu Ghraib, as various photographic evidence of other bad behaviors by some soldiers has surfaced from time to time. As far as destroying them, believe it or not there are people in the military with a sense of integrity and ethics. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get the parts where some people are simply idiots. However, I don't get this part "As far as destroying them, believe it or not there are people in the military with a sense of integrity and ethics." If they have integrity and ethnics then why did they commit the abuse then took the pictures in the first place? They have integrity to not destroy the picture, yet committed a terrible crime? Seems contradicting to me.75.168.125.23 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's the same people. Keep in mind that the reason people film their misdeeds is to laugh and joke about them later. And sometimes they make copies of them. And the more copies are floating around, the greater the chance of the wrong person (so to speak) getting hold of them and blowing the whistle. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Pretty much to sum up my answer. There are some idiots who took pictures of their terrible acts and thought it's funny then made copies and spread them around. No wonder how eventually the media will get the hold of those pictures or films.75.168.125.23 (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you have given us your answer I am closing this. We don't discuss the state of mind of living people, we give references. If you have a request for a reference, do so outside the hat. μηδείς (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should refer to the original article and related stories. My guess: people coming from the U.S. have been indoctrinated with a hypothetical view of the world where all men are created equal, or at least all white men. They think something is either against the law, or else it's a "right". So if soldiers see prisoners routinely being humiliated and tortured by agents of civilian spy agencies, private contractors, and anyone else who comes by, their instinct isn't to think that this is something totally illegal for them only. (Nowadays, with the television networks awash with programs about how you could build tanks and machine guns and blow up bombs if only you were rich and had the license, this indoctrination may gradually be fading) But assuming one law for all, a person could think, these are criminals and this is their punishment and nobody cares. And who would have imagined that Lynndie England would end up regarded as the worst criminal in this affair, even as the whole country was abuzz with detainees being in agony from water boarding, or having dogs lick peanut butter off their genitals, etc. Of course, this also indicates a much larger number of people who nonetheless had the foresight not to take pictures. Wnt (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
musical effect
There's something I first noticed in some orchestral performances but it also happens a lot in marches. Basically at some cadences the players end the measure by playing a little louder and then muffling the last note rather abruptly, giving a "tump" sound if that makes any sense. When I listened to classical radio stations I could often tell when Lorin Maazel was conducting even if I didn't know what music it was, because he did that all the time. I think it's supposed to show that the conductor has good control of the orchestra, by getting everyone to stop at the same time. But I found the effect kind of annoying.
My question: is there a name for what I'm describing? Is it written into the score? (I doubt this, since it's much more noticable in some performances than others). Is there any literature on what mood effect it's supposed to have, when to use it, etc.?
Thanks, unfortunately none of those are what I mean though. I'm just referring to a style of musical phrasing where (some) notes are accented in a drum-like way. I'll see if I can find some examples in the non-Flashwall parts of Youtube. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Medieval Warfare. The Impact of Arrows vs Armour ?
I've always found it very silly when watching popular movies, how men-at-arms run around with armour, -usually with chain-mail, occasionally with full steel-plate- and yet enemy arrows always pierce them as if they are running around naked and with no protection whatsoever. Then what's the point of wearing armour? I'm thinking that obviously this is highly unrealistic and nothing close to reality, but I'm left with this question; how well did arrows actually work against soldiers in chain-mail?
Did it penetrate the chains at all to pierce flesh and cause some damage, or did it not have much impact at all?
When it comes to full-plate I'm not even gonna ask, because surely it did not penetrate a steel-plate piece of armor. I might be willing to believe that crossbow-bolts could penetrate chain-mail and *maybe* even steel-plate, but I don't believe bow and arrows could .
So surely if you were to be a successful archer you had to hit the weak spots; around the neck, armpits, groins and even the face. Any area left unprotected really..
Now that I'm already going on about this subject I might as well throw in that swords, axes, etc. were definitely far less effective against armour as well than what is depicted in movies. So the same question applies here; how much of an effect against armour did it really have?
Once again, one really had to find the weak and unprotected areas I should think, to effectively put one's enemy down. Which is surely why the war-hammer eventually became so popular in the late middle-ages, since its blunt head would cause bludgeoning-damage even through armour, and its spiked head would penetrate armour much better than any other weapon, if the weapon was swung with full force.
So what do you think?
I'm just speculating really, and I'm not pretending to know any of these things for certain. I just like history, and right now I'm wondering about these things
Yes, the Battle of Agincourt is famous for lightly clad English longbowmen being able to defeat the heavily armored French at a distance because the didn't have to engage closely, and the bow allowed shooting an arrow with enough momentum (they sometimes drew the bows with their legs) to pierce the French armor. Until then short bows were less effective, and once the forces closed armor gave advantage against blades in close quarters. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, those were some good links you gave me.
I think it's fair to say that English Longbowmen and Battle of Agincourt was something else than a "normal" bow however - but a good thing you brought it up anyway. It certainly must have had a devastating effect indeed.
'Bodkin point' also made for a good read.
So thnx
109.247.62.59 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It also helps to remember that armoured, sword-bearing, and ideally mounted knights were a relatively small part of any medieval army. They looked the coolest and that's why we remember them, but an army was mostly foot soldiers, who had much less armour, if they had any at all. A mass of archers would be shooting at them, rather than at the knights specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Also good to remember when arrows rained, they often poured. A typical trained archer doesn't have much chance at hitting a chink with each shot, but when they're coming in volleys, the chance of a blind squirrel catching your nut gets discouragingly higher and gravity isn't your friend. But of course, not like movie strength.
Another thing movies make us forget is that you don't need the flashy sniper shot through the eyeball, and that arrows are often unintentionally poisonous. A good scratch can be enough, depending on which foreign soils and fluids happen to mix in till whenever you can take your clunky suit off and wash. If you lived before infection was common knowledge (like most of us), you might never clean it, and figure you're just dying from bad luck. In a long siege, those little pricks add up.
A good steel axe can go through most good steel armour, provided you swing it befitting a guy who brings an axe to war. But unless you're fictional, the second shot is never going to be as sharp or strong. And you're going to have to pull that axe back out of the armour. It won't split anyone in half. Good for duels, too cumbersome for war. Badass way to go out in a movie. InedibleHulk(talk) 08:44, March 6, 2014 (UTC)
Don't underestimate the ability of the ancients to deal with wounds - Dioscorides, whose work was well known for the past two millennia, wrote of many different herbs useful for preventing or fighting infection, some of which have some evidence to support them. [11]Wnt (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny there were some good doctors, or think people are generally more intelligent now. But standardization, collaboration and access to data have come a long way for wisdom. All the good work in the world is for naught if the surgeon assigned you hasn't heard of it. Then, even the most intelligent people have to experiment, piecing together their personal experiences to decide whether trepanning, toxic root or prayer seems most appropriate for your seizures. Science has broken a lot of eggs to make those revolutionary omelettes. InedibleHulk(talk) 00:18, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
It's true. But my feeling is that (a) I've seen many totally false characterizations of old medical practice -- for example, it was popular to say that in the Civil War there was no anaesthesia because ether wasn't being used, but the physicians had ready resort to copious amounts of opium; (b) where there were the most war casualties, the best doctors probably tended to win out; and (c) the witch-hunts of medieval times probably greatly reduced the average medical knowledge and practice from what was before and after. Wnt (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're still burning books in the North to stay warm (via petroleum, naturally). And "modern medicine" seems to have battle-hardened about as many diseases as it's eradicated or tamed. Maybe too much data being shared, now. Intelligent people are still experimenting and finding contradictory conclusions. All reasons we shouldn't imagine medical progress as an upward line on a chart. More like a bubbling, rippling cauldron.
Speaking of experiments and getting back on topic, I hit a filing cabinet with a maul axe yesterday, and can confirm you don't want to wear something like that. InedibleHulk(talk) 01:14, March 8, 2014 (UTC)
Some thoughts:
1) Armor was worn by the rich and powerful, while common soldiers had none. As such, armor was as much about showing your status as it was about protection.
2) All armor provides some degree of protection, from glancing blows, etc. Even the steel helmets worn in WW2 provided some protection to the wearer from bullets and shrapnel.
3) The question then, is if this added protection was worth the cost in mobility, speed, and money (which could be spent on other forms of protection, like digging massive trenches).
4) The effectiveness of armor gradually was reduced as the longbow, crossbow, and then firearms appeared on the battlefield and became common. Eventually armor became a liability rather than an asset.
5) Chivalry may also have made an impact, as being in armor would make you an obvious target as a leader, unless there was a code of honor preventing such attacks. So, where that code was observed, and "high value targets" were more likely to be captured alive and then ransomed back, armor was less of a liability. StuRat (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
March 6
Do some critical theorists disagree with critical pedagogy?
Critical pedagogy relies on the framework of the critical theory; that is, freedom could not be associated with any organized societies, for freedom is the primacy of the individual. Critical pedagogy, however, appears to forget the central tenet of critical theory, because “domesticating” the term “critical” in organized education implicitly invalidates the meaning of the notion critical. In other words, according to Pais, “its meaning can be lost when inserted in social frames (like schools) that aim not at emancipation but reproduction”. So it makes sense to ask if there are other more known critical theorists who object to critical pedagogy. Do some critical theorists disagree with critical pedagogy, especially when critical pedagogy applies critical theory in math and science formal education?49.144.216.169 (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a premiss in "critical theory", which, like "philosophy" is just a generic term, in this case typically for theoretical models in the humanities. The debate about socially critical forms of pedagogy dates back to the disputes over Louis Althusser's theories of ISAs and RSAs. Paul B (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the European American population still growing?
2. Is the number of middle and upper class residents of First World countries still growing?
3. What about by natural increase, without needing the help of upward mobility or international migration?
The title of your question, about European Americans, is specific to the United States. Your specific questions are somewhat impossible to answer, because there is no generally agreed bottom cut-off point for the middle class. In fact, there is no general agreement on the meaning of the term middle class. On the other hand, the question in your title can be answered, if we assume that the category "European American" is equivalent to the category "white" as used by the U.S. Census Bureau. If it is, then according to this table, the answer to the question in your title is no, as of 2008. As of that year (the most recent for which I could find data), the rate of natural increase for white Americans is slightly below the natural replacement rate, which means that, not counting net immigration, the native-born white population of the United States is very slowly shrinking. Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A children's book series
There was this historical mystery book series for children whose name I'm forgetting. It has four child protagonists. There were also many installments, more than 30 I think. Ring any bells? --Yashowardhani (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can remember any other details, those would help. In particular, can you remember when in history the stories happened, where they were set, and the names/genders of the children? RomanSpa (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there were four child protagonists, or maybe five. There were many books, set in different countries and different time periods. Sounds weird, but one time I was really fascinated with them and wanted to read them. I also think the books were for older audience than Enid Blyton. They had very interesting historical contexts, see. I really wish I could remember more details but that's all I have.--Yashowardhani (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's it! Thanks a lot. I probably got confused by some other book about that varying time period thing (I'm very forgetful). Thanks again! --Yashowardhani (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do the Amish allow paintings instead of photography?
It is known that the Amish doesn't allow photography. Do they allow paintings? Can "Englishers" paint portraits of the Amish, or is that a sin too? 140.254.227.87 (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are many variations in Amish traditions. "Old order" Amish use horse-drawn buggies, but are allowed to use gas or diesel powered tools. "New order" Amish can drive cars, as long as they are black. Not all Amish disallow photography. Some congregations frown upon the use of mirrors, while others don't. So-- I'm sure at least some Amish allow painted portraits, but some may well not. Also, note that many plain people are not Amish, though sometimes "Amish" is used incorrectly as a catch-all. See Amish, Subgroups_of_Amish, Amish_(disambiguation). True Old Order Amish are increasingly rare. There tends to be "creep", wherein children raised in one sect tend to move to more liberal sects as they age. Sorry there is no easy answer, but there is a lot of complexity in this question. If you really mean one specific denomination, I might be able to find a specific reference. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tḧe problem with Amish + photos is that posing for them is an act of pride, I doubt it's any better to let someone paint a portrait of you. However, they are less restrictive to unposed pictures, in a natural setting. There are plenty of pictures and videos of Amish that corroborate that's possible to do that. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some Amish, at least, don't mind if outsiders take pictures (for outsiders' use) of Amish people doing everyday activities. However, I think most Amish would object to sitting for "portraits" of any kind because doing so is an act of vanity at odds with the humility expected in their society. I think most Amish would object even more to displaying portraits of themselves, whether photographed or painted, because that shows even more vanity and immodesty than allowing the portrait to be made. Marco polo (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Movement/organization advocating people to not report their race/ethnicity
I remember some years ago at a movie theater, there was a pre-trailer ad for some group that advocated for people to always put "don't wish to answer" or similar on any survey which asks for their race/ethnicity. Then it had some URL to go to for more information. Does anybody remember this and is this movement still going? -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't specify a country, but in the U.S. Michele Bachmann and some others advocated for that in 2010, even though the U.S. census has been collecting such information every 10 years since 1790... AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea was to do it as a protest against collecting racial and ethnic statistics, and/or move towards a post-racial society. And, yes, it was in the US.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The OP asked to identify the movement, not for our opinion on the movement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems as a well-meant, but ill-conceived movement, if they meant to not disclose the information not even in the census. Knowing about the income, distribution, age, education (and so on) of different ethnic groups can be invaluable soemtimes. A different thing would be to be asked at a job interview (which I have never seen, BTW). OsmanRF34 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but some people have good reason to be suspicious of the invaluable uses ethnicity data will be put to. As a hypothetical, if the census data on populations is used to decide distribution of education resources, and you are concerned about institutional racism in the provision of education, then you might feel that encouraging people not to report their ethnicity will lead to more equitable provision of education. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that approach fails to detect when a particular grouping is being disadvantaged in some way, or not being reached by a service of some kind. That is the raison d'être of ethnic monitoring. Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it is beyond insulting to say "race is irrelevant", which means "my culture is the only one that matters, so long as you abandon your culture and follow mine, I acknowledge you, however, I'm going to ignore anything that isn't my culture" Instead, race and other cultural groups should be recognized and accepted on their own terms. Other cultures are not irrelevant to the people that live in them. They are very relevant to them. --Jayron3213:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mixing race with culture and ethnicity. I don't think anyone would argue that culture or ethnicity are irellevant, but race really should be. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Race is a cultural/ethnic concept. Unless you mean "skin color", and insofar as people from an ethnicity share can often share similar skin colors, such factors certainly play a role in cultural and ethnic identity, so cannot be ignored as though they didn't. --Jayron3213:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a website that shows a sentence in English and then translates into different Turkic languages like Turkish, Azeri, Qashqai, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Turkmen and Tatar and other existing Turkic languages like for example "I am black", "I am twenty-three years old" and etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.80 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why can Christians only claim affiliation to one church?
Some Christians claim they are Methodist. Some Christians claim they are Catholic. Some Christians claim they are Orthodox. Some Christians claim they are Lutheran. Some Christians claim they are Quaker. Some Christians claim they are Amish. Et cetera. Why are they mutually exclusive? What if a person only takes part of the teachings from one denomination (i.e. the Amish teaching that following the Bible does not guarantee salvation and weighty emphasis on humility and simplicity) and only takes part of the teachings from another denomination (i.e. Lutheranism but only four Solae, because the person may prefer the Roman Catholic view of prima scriptura). 140.254.226.194 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People can claim whatever affiliation they want. Your beliefs are your own, whatever anyone else's opinion. For acceptance into these individual denominations, however, you usually need to demonstrate your loyalty to it, sometimes by a simple statement or profession of faith, sometimes by elaborate ritual like baptism. Sometimes the denomination will expressly forbid participation in another. If you are an "independent" worshiper or believer (that is, you believe in God and Jesus but don't go to church), you can pretty much do whatever you want. Mingmingla (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] In terms of private belief, there is no reason why a Christian can't hold beliefs from different strains of Christianity, and no doubt some Christians do this. In terms of church membership, however, a person cannot, for example, belong to the Roman Catholic church without either accepting the church's dogma in its entirety or risking a charge of heresy and excommunication. Some Orthodox and Protestant churches impose similar requirements of doctrinal adherence. In some Protestant churches, it might be possible to adhere to beliefs from other Christian traditions without a risk of expulsion, but even then, if a person were to share those heterodox beliefs with their pastor, the pastor might impose pressure on the congregant to conform, since one of the premises of Christian church membership and worship in most Christian churches is adherence to a shared body of beliefs. The main exceptions, to my knowledge, are Quakers and Unitarians, who welcome people with a wide range of beliefs. (Not all Unitarians, however, consider themselves Christian, and some Christians consider all Unitarians non-Christian.) Marco polo (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It's not merely Christianity. In Islam, if you're Sunni, you're not Shia, and vice-versa. In Judaism, if you're Reform, you're not Orthodox or Conservative (and if you're Orthodox, you may or may not be Hasidic). Buddhism and Hinduism are a bit more open, but what's true and acceptable for the Nyingmapa will get you thrown out of the Gelugpa, and possibly prompt a Zen school to have a restraining order put on you; and a California Krishna Consciousness commune would still call the police if they saw a practicing Aghori.
Sometimes, the differences are philosophical ones that cannot be reconciled. Most Reformed Churches teach Calvinist predestination and symbolic interpretation of Communion as official doctrines, both of which simply cannot be reconciled with the Catholic Church's teachings on Thomistic free will and Transubstantiation.
Sometimes, the differences are a matter of practice. I like stain glass windows in a sanctuary, maybe some icons and even the occasional statue, but some other Christians think all that's heathen, and want bare walls in their church. My granddad's church has their "worship center" (not a sanctuary, by their own admission) set up like a concert hall, which some might regard as modernist materialism, letting the corporate media drown out the message so that people worship the media rather than who the message points to.
There are some denominations that are generally open to cross-denominational members. The Baptist church I grew up in had a number of members who identified as Episcopalians, Methodists, and I think a few Presbyterians. The local Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) wouldn't mind at all if I joined and continued to refer to myself as a "Zen Baptist Humanist." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been pointed out, one can claim any belief. Pi in Life_of_Pi is an adherent of three religions. Strictly speaking, one can claim to be an adherent of any church too. The problem here is only whether or not those churches will claim to accept YOU into their flock. The main reason why one church would not accept you to be part of another church would be if that church denies the teachings of your church. For example, the word "protestant" comes from "protesting against the catholic church". Therefore, the catholic church has very specific rules against accepting anyone to also be protestant. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confucianism, Taoism, Chinese Mahayana Buddhism and Shintoism aren't mentioned here. Or the syncretism of African religions and Neo-Pentecostalism. 140.254.226.194 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned Zen, earlier, which started off as the Chan school in China, and is a branch of Mahayana. Many of the Chinese Buddhist schools were quite distinct from the Tibetan Mahayana Buddhist schools, rejecting a great deal of tantra and placing more emphasis on logic. Taoism had its own apocalyptic works, such as Nuqing Guilu, which was quite clear that Taoism is the one true religion and other religions are demon worship; and this attitude allowed it to become a driving force behind the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution. Whether or not Confucianism is classified as a religion or as a philosophy is a matter of debate, even among Confucians. Mainstream Shinto does differentiate itself from offshoots such as Tenrikyo. Folk religions, regardless of region, can be syncretist, but usually borrow from more organized religions that would not encourage such mixture. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many churches have membership. That is you sign up and and are on the books of one particular congregation of one particular denomination. To become a member you have to agree to certain doctrinal and sometimes financial obligations and as a member you gain certain privileges (voting, financial, etc.) If you move, you need request your membership be transferred to another congegration. If that new congregation is in another denomination, there may be extra steps to have your membership accepted. In these churches you can only be a member of one denomination so would only ever identify yourself as one type of Christian. Rmhermen (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To give an example, rather than generalities. A Roman Catholic can celebrate full mass with communion and so forth at any Catholic church in communion with the pope: Assyrian {Chaldean} Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, etc. He can attend any Christian service he likes, but he can't participate in the sacraments (no communion) or make any statement of faith like their version of the Nicene Creed that contradicts the Catholic Church. I.e., they should mostly stand silent. 1f Catholicism is attacked they shouldn't attend. Attending Jewish ceremonies is difficult. Jews have an area for gentiles to observe. The Birkat haMinim is offensive to Christians, and a reason not to attend if recited. (Hearing it caused a woman I know to break of an engagement.) Attending Hindu or Muslim ceremonies, for example, would be very problematic--you'd have to ask your Bishop, who'll want to know if you'd be condoning an attack on the church (e.g., Islam) or participating in forbidden worship (e.g., Hindu). As for affiliation, Catholics are required to belong to a local parish church (of their Father's denomination if the differ in rites), and the parish church will necessarily be of one denomination/rite within Catholicism. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "the modern Assyrian Church of the East is not in communion with any other churches, either Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Catholic."
Come on, people, I was confirmed at baptism, and baptized as a swaddling, as is cromulent in the Byzantine rite. My father's the one who was risen by West Catholic Jesuits, he knows this stuff. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you borrow from a 401k, you are required to repay the loan with interest. Since you will collect any amounts you repay after retirement, you are in fact paying interest to yourself. Marco polo (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those questions we can't answer because of the legal implications involved. Ask a lawyer or your fund manager. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can be answered and it was. I wasn't asking for myself but in more of a general sense which is just exactly what everyone but you seems to have read. Again. Dismas|(talk)20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually an interesting question and one I am not sure actually has an answer. Because this pertains to who witnessed the overthrow or may have been alive to understand what was happening and survive longer than anyone else from that period, it may be nearly impossible to answer. Now, who was the last surviving person of note "involved" may be a little easier to answer but still very difficult because not everyone who may have been involved has been fully recognized. This period in history is very difficult to unearth but, I suppose one could simply look to all peoples listed in the numerous documents and see who was the last man or woman standing but still may not be truly accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Parliament of USA?
Does the USA have a similar kind of parliament that pretty much all northern, western and central European countries do, among a lot of others? If not, what body performs the same function? How do USAn politics work compared to, say, Canadian, British, German, Swedish or Finnish politics? JIP | Talk17:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state in which the executive branch derives its democratic legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the legislature (parliament); the executive and legislative branches are thus interconnected. In a parliamentary system, the head of state is normally a different person from the head of government. This is in contrast to a presidential system in a democracy, where the head of state often is also the head of government, and most importantly: the executive branch does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature.
It clears things up somewhat. It says that in a presidential system, the executive branch does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature, and apparently isn't accountable to it either. I don't think it still means that the executive branch is free to dictate any laws it wants to just like that, right? At least the president himself can't do that. It's also interesting to see that apart from Mexico and a bunch of other North American countries (except Canada), the USA is pretty much the only fully presidential republic in what one would call the "western world". This is excluding South America, which is geographically in the western hemisphere. JIP | Talk18:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)As for how it works, since I haven't taken any civics courses on other nations, I'll just give an overview of how it's supposed to work:
Congress is divided into the the House of Representatives (one per so many people) and the Senate (two senators per state). Each election, people vote for a senator (every six years) and a representative (every two years). Pretty much any citizen can suggest a bill to either their representative or senator, who probably modifies it, and puts it before whichever house they belong to (representatives or the Senate). They argue about it, amend the bill to appease everyone, and then either pass it or drop it. It then goes to the other house (HoR to the Senate, and vice versa), where it's argued about and amended further, possibly killed, but maybe passed there. If there are substantial changes, it may be kicked back to the first house, until both sides agree on something. Then the President gets the chance to pass it or veto it (in which case Congress has to get a two-thirds majority to pass it instead of a regular majority). Then a citizen or group of citizens can go to court over the law (maybe because they were arrested under it, maybe because they sued the state). If the case gets to the Supreme court, they can declare it unconstitutional and illegal, thereby nullifying it (or at least preventing the law from being enforced).
Every four years, the President is elected, not directly by the people, but by the electoral college, which consists of Congress. There is a popular vote because many congresspersons do go with their constituents' will even if it's against party lines (e.g. a Republican may represent an area that voted Democrat, and he may put his vote in for the Democratic presidential candidate).
The President, pretty much at any time, can appoint judges (though there has to be some congressional approval). This usually doesn't happen unless one of them dies or steps down, though.
All this forms the system of checks and balances, i.e. congress, the President, and the Supreme court all have ways to stop the other branches of government from screwing up too badly.
This is under ideal conditions, and does not reflect the role lobbyists, special interest groups, career politicians, the media, Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the myth of voter fraud affect things.
Indeed "no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." (Article II section 1.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in the U.S. is that the U.S. has a clear Separation of powers which includes a series of "checks and balances" between the three branches of government. The U.S. government is organized into three branches:
Legislative Branch (Congress) passes laws by voting on legislation
Executive Branch (The Cabinet of the United States and the Federal Agencies headed by the President) is responsible for enacting the laws passed by Congress. That is, congress says what the U.S. government is to do, it is the executive's role to do it
Judicial Branch (the court system headed by the United States Supreme Court) interprets the law and enforces violations of it.
Thus each branch has a narrowly defined role. There's often considerable bickering between branches, however, as to how the legal apparatus works. For example, by its role of Judicial review, the courts have the ability to invalidate a law which violates the Constitution of the United States. Courts do, at times, interpret the constitution different ways, sometimes confining their rulings to the explicit text, and other time basing their rulings on implied Constitutional principles like the right to privacy. This leads to accusations of "legislating from the bench", especially from Congress which doesn't like to have its laws invalidated. Likewise, though it is the executive branch's role to enact the laws that Congress passes, they have CONSIDERABLE leeway in enacting those laws, and they may at times alter or change the intent of a law (or even completely ignore it). So there's a constant tension between the branches as they negotiate their roles within the system. If you really want to know how the U.S. government is designed to work, the Federalist Papers really do a good job explaining and justifying and providing rationales for how the U.S. system was set up. --Jayron3219:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest difference, to my mind, is in the separation of power, which is much more pronounced in the US than in Sweden. In Sweden, for example, on votes on one color/flower/party, and that is it. The winning party gets seats in Parliament in accordance with the votes they get. The Prime minister is normally simply the party leader of the largest party. In effect, he holds relatively more power than the president, since he often is both the chief executive and leads the main party, and especially powerful if the party has more than 50 percent of the votes. In the US, the president has a lot less to say about which laws are passed, since the congress and senate are voted on separately. Even if congress, senate and president happen all to be of the same party and that party is in dominance, the US president can not get laws passed as easily as the Swedish Prime Minister can get laws passed in Parliament. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is one small flaw in the above explanation: Sweden does not have a president, but a king. But if you substitute my own home country Finland for Sweden, then the above should apply to at least some degree. (There is even the difference that, to my understanding, the King of Sweden has no political power whatsoever, but is purely a ceremonial figurehead, whereas the President of Finland has some small traces of political power remaining.) JIP | Talk19:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, according to my understanding, the congress is like the parliament in European countries, and the cabinet is like the government, and the president is like the president (but not like the King of Sweden, who doesn't get to actually decide anything). The judicial branch seems somewhat like the same in both systems. There are of course differences between what powers each branch actually holds, but I guess the overall analogy is like this. I, of course, am but a layman - I should ask my stepbrother, as he has currently a minor career in Finnish politics. JIP | Talk20:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that we have a King here in Sweden, JIP, and that he is irrelevant to any discussion about our government. In Sweden, the Prime minister is the one with the power. The point that I am making is that in most cases, since the separation of power is weaker in Sweden, the prime minister has a lot more say in Swedish matters than the President of the US does in US matters.
A more interesting comparison might be to compare the US to the EU, and its respective states to each other. The Swedish population is only the size of Georgia, in both cases, most of its laws are dictated in another place, Washington and Strasbourg respectively, and in both countries the interest in voting participation to that central authority is low, despite the the number of laws passed there. European states do have some things that sets them apart, namely culture, language and the option of leaving the union, but in legal matters, I think the grand scale comparison is more interesting today. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it's the same situation here in Finland. Although the President of Finland has some small traces of political power left, in practice the main power is on the Prime Minister. In fact, there have been discussions in Finland whether we even need the whole president any more. JIP | Talk20:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most interesting cases of separation of power might be in South Africa, where they really seem to have taken separation of power seriously, by having three capitals. Pretoria (executive capital), Bloemfontein (judicial capital) and Cape Town (legislative capital) to make sure that they do not interfere with each other. This is a far cry from Sweden, where in the past I have felt that the term "Monarch", in the original sense of the word - Only One Person Rules - should really have been applied to the elected Prime minister of Sweden. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From a Swedish perspective, where there is a powerful prime minister and a king with no real power, here is how the US system is different: The US president has some, but not all of the powers of the prime minister as well as the symbolic role of the Swedish king. Like the Swedish king, the U.S. president is the symbolic leader of the nation and is the one who meets with kings or queens on foreign visits as the head of the US state. Like the Swedish prime minister, the U.S. president is the head of the government. The U.S. president appoints all of the cabinet officials, and all of the heads of government departments (I think known as ministers in Sweden). The president, with his department heads, sets government policies for the application of laws, but cannot himself make laws. One of the president's greatest powers is control of the military. The president can order the military into action almost without effective limitation. However, unlike the Swedish prime minister, the U.S. president does not control the U.S. law-making body, known as Congress. The president cannot introduce bills into the legislature for passage as laws. Only a member of Congress can do that. Only Congress can formally declare war, but in fact the United States has been involved in a number of undeclared wars due to the president's ability to command the military without the need for approval by Congress. The president may be able to use his influence to get laws passed, but even his own party members are not required or even fully expected to do as the president wishes. The U.S. president may veto, or reject, laws passed by Congress, but Congress may override the president's veto with a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress. So the system is very different from a parliamentary one in which parliament is supreme. In the U.S. system, there is a separation of powers among three branches of government (legislative (Congress), executive (president), and judicial (courts)), such that each of the three branches is able to limit the power of the others and, ideally, prevent abuses of power. This is what is known as the system of "checks and balances". Marco polo (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Sweden, most suggestions of law come from the "riksdagen" (corresponding approx to congress) , but these are almost all rejected, much to the dismay of "riksdagen". Instead, the suggestions of law that actually passed (about 97%) come from "regeringen" (approx cabinet), where the Prime Minister sits with those he has appointed to help him. "Riksdagen" is still the place where these laws are formally passed. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
German, France and Italy have implemented clear separations of power, whereas Canada, Britain and New Zealand have muddier separation of power. Instead of separation of power, the latter three have each implemented less formal systems of checks and balances. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Marco polo's answer above is a excellent one. I would simply clarify that given the exigencies of modern warfare Congress has seen fit to pass various war powers acts which authorize the President to use force under specific situations for a limited time and subject to his making reports to the Congress and their review. Politically, it has been almost impossible for the Congress not to back presidential military action since the Carter and Reagan administrations. GWB famously sought congressional permission for his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not declarations of war. Obama's claim in Libya was that we weren't actually in hostilities, so he didn't even need to report to Congress.
JIP's question seems to imply that "pretty much all northern, western and central European countries" each have similar political systems to each other when compared to the US. But they are not very similar. The one thing that is similar is that most are part of the EU, and therefore their politics are largely decided elsewhere. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think the EU compares remotely to the US federal government. The EU is still a relatively loose union; I think it's a gross exaggeration to say that the policies of its member states are largely decided at the EU level.
In the US, while it's true that most of the laws that directly regulate individual-to-individual relations are at the state level, federal law is nevertheless extremely important. For example, in almost all cases, your federal tax bill is substantially higher than your state tax bill, and the social insurance plans for the elderly (Social Security and Medicare) are at the federal level. The EU really has nothing like that. --Trovatore (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this reply. I am annoyed when people claim that the EU is a tightly-coupled federal nation just like the US. It's not even a nation at all, but a union between independent nations. JIP | Talk10:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most Europeans get annoyed by such claims. Usually such claims are born out of ignorance. The EU is not tightly coupled and it is certainly not a nation. Not all have the same currency, they all have their own military force, EU does not have any federal institutions, each state can all leave the EU whenever they want. The list goes on. But on a purely legislation-based perspective 70% of the local legal decisions made by the local council the city where I live are EU-related, either directly or indirectly, and most people in my city do not have a clue about this, or even what kind of laws are decided where at what level, city, state or higher. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to compare how large the corresponding proportion of laws were local and nation-wide in some large city and state within the USA , just as a comparison. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Current events: Bridgegate
Here is something I don't understand about the Bridgegate scandal. Some individuals are being asked (or ordered) to turn over documents. Some of these individuals are refusing to do so, under the "self-incrimination" protections of the US Constitution. See, for example, this article: [13]. So, here is my question. Isn't it true that any documents created by a government employee (during the course of their employment) is property of the government? And not property of that individual employee? I assume this is the case. So, what exactly is at issue in a case like Bridgegate? Are they asking for other (non-governmental) documents, emails, texts, etc., that the employee did at home, away from the office (i.e., outside of work)? They shouldn't have to request the documents created at work, as they belong to the government; they do not belong to the individual employee. So, can someone clear this up for me? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are basically looking at executive privilege. Government agents argue that they don't have to turn over "work product" they themselves have created. That doesn't extend to subpoenaing someone else who has the records in question. NJ state law may differ on this. And I don't think there's any settled federal law on this doctrine, since it has been used explicitly as recently as Clinton, if not more recently. (Looking at our article, GWB and Obama have both evidently used the doctrine.) μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess I didn't word my question properly. So, for now, let's ignore the reasons for which someone might not hand over the documents. I'd like to focus on ownership. My question is: who exactly holds ownership of the documents? In other words, who do they belong to? Do they belong to the government? Do they (in this case) belong to the people of the state of New Jersey? Does the creator (employee) own them? Does a specific branch of the government own them? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Current events: Trial of Oscar Pistorius
per BLP, or provide sources for every claim
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have a question about the trial of Oscar Pistorius. His story is that he thought he was shooting at an intruder/burglar who was hiding in the bathroom. Here is his chronology of events: He was in his bedroom; he thought that his girlfriend was also there in bed, with him. (He didn't know that it was the girlfriend who left the bedroom and went to the bathroom.) So, he goes to the bathroom and shoots at what he thinks is a burglar but in fact is his girlfriend. So, according to his story, did he say why he left the bedroom and went to the hallway/bathroom area in the first place? What prompted that action on his part? I missed this. What reason did he give? Or did he just say something generic like, "I heard a noise coming from the bathroom"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph asked for a fact: ... did he say why he left the bedroom and went to the hallway/bathroom area in the first place? What prompted that action on his part? I missed this. What reason did he give? Or did he just say something generic like, "I heard a noise coming from the bathroom"?.
Thanks, Jack. Exactly. I am asking about a fact that happened in the past. (Most likely, within the formal document that Pistoruis had to offer at the beginning of the investigation a full year ago.) How that involves speculation, I have no idea. How that invokes BLP, I have no idea. And, in fact, since all of this is happening in an open court, it's probably public information anyway. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
I have no idea about the BLP thing either but I've learnt to just let it slide rather than worrying my pretty head about it. Had you asked "Did he intend to kill Reeva?", that would have been a problem. But you clearly didn't. You chose your words carefully, as always. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]23:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Jack, this is not talk space. The ref desk is required to offer sources just like article space for BLP, and the OP himself has reworded the question. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, again. In essence, my question could be re-phrased as something along the lines of "What did Pistorius say on June 5, 2013 (or whatever date his statement was presented to the court)?". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were no questions asked about "why" anything. They were all about "what" he gave as reasons. The whole point of the trial is to gauge whether those stated reasons were in fact why he did it. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]00:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point. Nobody disputes that he shot her. He claims he was shooting what he thought was a burglar behind a door, but the prosecution maintains he knew full well whom he was shooting. That's the issue. If everyone accepted what he said about why he pulled the trigger, there would be nothing to have any trial about. Joseph is asking what he said; in a case like this, whether that is really and truly "why" he did it or not is very much the question to be settled by the court. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]04:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"What he said" has been covered. He said he shot while standing on his stumps, as he had not taken the time to attach his blades because he was kind of in panic mode because somehow he thought there was a burglar in the bathroom. He fired through the door, yelled at his housemate to call 911, and discovered to his horror that it wasn't a burglar, it was his housemate. That's his story. The police analysis is (or was) that he was, in fact, standing on his blades. If they demonstrate that claim, then it tends to erode the credibility of his story. If they fail to demonstrate that, then it tends to improve the credibility of his story. But that's his story. The OP needs to read the links in that article and here, and tell us whether he has further questions or if it's clear now. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does talk space have to do with anything? BLP applies there just as much as anywhere else. The OP reworded his question only because you advised, erroneously, that his original formulation was contrary to BLP because it contained speculation. Well, that is just not true. I asked you to point out where this alleged speculation was, and you have failed to do so. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 12:54 am, Today (UTC−5)
I've restored your objection. I also reported this to BLP before you made that objection. This is a living person, and every searchable part of WP needs refs supporting otherwise defamable remarks, at the least. This is not the ref desk talk page. μηδείς (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for sure who made them since they were unsigned, but I have removed some rather dumb hattings here by removing completely the posts. Please remember if you believe a BLP violation has already occured, it's serves little purpose to hat and doesn't help deal with the BLP violation. The only reason you may hat a discussion relating to BLP, is if you believe a post may lead to a BLP violation but none has occured yet. This may apply to the first posts, but from the closing summary did not apply to the posts I removed. I don't personally know if a BLP violation occured but I generally prefer to defer in favour of BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are foods allowed to be dropped into the offertory plate?
Are foods allowed to be dropped into the offertory plate? Instead of dropping bills and coins, can you drop fruits and vegetables instead? The fruits and vegetables may be alms, because they can be consumed. Instead of being tithed money, can you give a tithe in terms of your weekly consumption of grain? Every week, you may buy a sack of grain. You keep 9/10 of it for yourself and donate 1/10 of its weight to the church. 140.254.227.86 (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Churches might do food drives, where food is gathered for the poor, homeless, etc. It doesn't go into the offering plate, though. I think a church would probably exempt anyone who had to pay in food from tithing, unless they're some prosperity cult.
Paying with food instead of money is sort of the origin of blackmail, if I remember correctly (though with taxes instead of tithes). Pre-modern tax-collectors would sometimes accept food only to tell the taxpayer that it wasn't enough, coming back for more and more than if the peasant had just paid with gold. Any "church" that would do that I'd gladly set fire to in the name of Christ. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are asking this about a church you go to yourself, this is not really a question that Wikipedia can answer. The best thing to do would be to ask your priest/pastor/minister. The more general answer is that in the past tithes were sometimes paid "in kind", which includes agricultural products. You will also see from our article on the offertory that alms given at this time have sometimes included other things than money. You may have slightly misunderstood one thing about tithing, though: you do not give 1/10 of your consumption (or whatever the proportion is in your community), you give 1/10 of your production or earnings. So if you earn $1000, or pick 1000 apples from your orchard, a full application of tithing would mean you would give $100, or 100 fairly chosen apples, to your church, even if you only spend $500 taking care of yourself, or only eat 500 apples. That is, your tithing is a gift to the church (and thus to God), based on the work you have done. (Also, notice that the rules about tithing differ from church to church, and even vary in different parts of the Bible; see the article on tithing for more details.) RomanSpa (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Basically, the collection is to cover the running expenses of the church and you can't pay the electricity bill or insurance premium with fruit.
However, in the Church of England most parishes observe a Harvest Festival in the autumn, when parishioners bring gifts of food. This is either donated directly to someone that needs it, such as a homeless people's shelter or a hospice, or sometimes the food is auctioned off to the congregation at the end of the service and the money raised is given to a project in a developing country. People don't put the food in a plate, but at a given point in the service, people bring their gifts to the front of the church and it is laid in front of the altar. Alansplodge (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on the church. Some collections may be taken to cover running expenses, but at some churches collections are taken for the "poor of the parish", or for a wide variety of charitable organisations, both local and of wider scope. RomanSpa (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're, again, overcomplicating matters for the OP. Under normal circumstances, when the "plate is passed", they are asking you for a cash donation if you can spare it. The church doesn't want your leftover celery. Could you maybe, possibly, find a church that collects food somewhere in the entire world? Probably. But if the OP wants to know how most Christian churches work, the passing of the plate is for the collection of cash for a variety of reasons; including both the churches operating budget (to pay the salary and/or living expenses of the clergy, to pay the electric and water bills, insurance, etc.) AND to pay for the church's various missionary activity, including charitable work and proselytizing work. That's what the plate is passed for, that's what it is used for. There's no need to hedge on the standard procedure and expectations here on the off chance some weird church actually expects a small sack of grain from any of the attendees. The church passes the plate for money. Don't put an apple in there. You'd confuse everyone, quite probably insult people. It is absolutely OK to put nothing in the plate; no one would notice or care. Many church members tithe electronically nowadays anyways. We do; my family tithes by automatic bank draft once a month, so we put nothing in the plate. No one would care if you put nothing. Or, you put in money if you are led to by your heart. --Jayron3202:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In olden times, farmers would store their harvest in two barns, the smaller one called a "tithe barn" which was to hold 10 percent of the farmer's crop, which would be donated to the church, presumably for distribution to the poor. Pretty hard to fit a tithe barn into a collection plate. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the point is, the OP is not asking about "If I lived 300 years ago and was expected to give from my grain stores, what did people do back then" He's asking about people going into a Christian church today when the plate is passed. Put a check or some cash in. Or don't. Those are your options. Either of those is very much acceptable especially putting nothing in the plate No one will think bad of a person who did put nothing. Doing something like putting food in the plate would be weird and possibly insulting. --Jayron3203:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't do it. I've been to churches where worshippers have left gifts of food, toys etc. at the altar rather than in the offertory box or on the plate. Maybe that would suit your purposes better. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with several commentators above. Few if any churches would welcome this. For starters even if a church did welcome contributions of perishable food, just dumping it in the collection plate is unlikely to be welcome. Depending on the country, coins may be common and even without coins, passing the plate, hands putting in donations etc could easily damage the food. Not to mention even one or two pieces of fruit or vegetables would easily fill the plate, let alone the amount that would be necessary for a decent donation in many countries.
Of course, even most charities and churches which do welcome food usually don't want perisable food (like fresh fruits and veges) from random donors, they'd usually want some sort of coordination to make sure they can resonably use the food.
Also as I understand it, in many cases even donating non-perisable food like canned goods is often not particularly helpful, frequently (depending on stuff like country and size of the organisation), the organisations can get it a lot cheaper than you ever can so unless you are actually producing it, it's dumb for you to buy it to donate plus you create coordination and similar problems. If you bought a lot of canned food and find you don't want it, you could undoutedly find a church or other charity which would accept it by asking, but this doesn't mean it makes sense to tithe in that fashion.
We cannot offer legal advice, but we can advise you to speak to a lawyer. Google Search gives some information, too. DISCLAIMER: The results of this Google search have nothing to do with Wikipedia, nor with any of Wikipedia's contributors. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)13:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many people said they saw his body? The evidence in the article above seems kinda thin, since all appear to be connected to him somehow. On the top of that, the piece of skull, that was thought to be Hitler's, was not. It is also known that prominent Nazis fled to South America. Why wouldn't a man with all the power in his country board a submarine and disappear? I am not a friend of conspiracy theories, but in this case, how to prove that he died when they say he died? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Berlin is a couple of hundred kilometres from the next plausible submarine harbour, all through allied-controlled territory. Hitler was 56, not particularly healthy, and one of the best-known faces on the planet. On another level, how do you prove anything in history? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certain things have better evidence backing them than others. This is not about ancient history, but something that happened, in historical terms, recently. The submarine bit is just speculation. But he could have survived and have hidden in the same way that Saddam hid for a long time, or, Radovan Karadžić hid, and even attended conferences giving lectures to hundred of people, in a country where everyone knew him too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, I can't see how Pistorius would be completely innocent, whether he shot a burglar through a door, or his girlfriend. But, yes, not every jurisdiction restrict self-defense to the minimum force needed to defend yourself. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
South Africa is of course somewhat famous for being the home of the Blaster (flamethrower). Anyway there is some discussion of South African self defence laws here [14][15]. These are general not specific to this case, I found some which are specific to this case from a simple search, but for WP:BLP reasons I will not be providing them here (I could email them to you if you really can't find them). It's worth remembering that Oscar Pistorius says he was on his stumps during the shooting of someone he thought was an intruder in his bathroom (and from what I can tell, the prosecution agrees the stumps bit is likely [16]). What is resonable in such a situation may be different from someone without such a limitation on their movement. On the other hand, there's no question that the person he killed was not an intruder. Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greek daktylos
Does anyone know of a source for which finger the ancient Greek measurement of "daktylos" refers to?
Upon comparison to ancient Hebrew measurements it would seem that it is a thumb (the Herews calculated a handbreadth as 4 thumbs or 5and a third regular fingers or 6 little fingers). 77.127.225.235 (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved