Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

December 23

England & Wales Police Structure

I would like to know more about the policing structure in E&W but can't find any helpful sources. Specifically, I would like to know more about the trade-off between management and specialisms within, say, the Met. If you're a detective, how much is your career limited in terms of doing the most penetrating interviews by ascending the ranks to chief inspector than if you stay as a constable? Or is it the case that you can do a broader range of detective work but the actual volume that you do is reduced and you spend more time managing people to compensate for this? Thanks. asyndeton talk 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP has an article on Police ranks of the United Kingdom, which might help you, as might TV Tropes' page on British Coppers. Can't be any more help than that I'm afraid. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tell a lie. Just found an interesting site, the Policing Professional Framework, which breaks down the skills and qualities required for the various ranks. Might be of some assistance. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Church, Windsor, Ont.

It seems with a lot of church articles First Baptist Church, Hammond, Indiana, etc you are careful to be honest and fair. However I feel you dropped the ball in not explaining where Mr. Rock got his 35 starting members. If you had done your homework you would have found that as assistant pastor Aaron took them and a secret way and without approval of the Senior Pastor of Campbell Baptist Church, an established church. Besides most church that start with 35 unchurched people usually grow to over 400 any way. So I don't see the need implying it was an unusual accomplishment. 216.59.228.61 (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got valid sourcing, you could add that info to the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What article? Contact Basemetal here 22:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, there is an article First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana). That one seems to be a coatrack about various nefarious activities there. I don't see an article for Southwest Church, Windsor, Ontario. I wonder if the OP is in the right place? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's Southwood Community Church in Windsor Ontario. Should I correct the section header? Contact Basemetal here 23:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw this post should be at the talk page to the article not at the RD. Contact Basemetal here 23:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the IP OP's only edit in the last 5 years, so it might be best to move the whole discussion (such as it is) to that article's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 24

Oil price drop - Saudi Arabia & USA

I'm trying to understand the background to the sinking oil prices and Saudi Arabia's insistence on continuing to produce at the same level as before, even if reaching very low levels such as $40. So I read this week that there is a happy willingness through this to let Saudi Arabia's antagonists (Iran) or the USA's (Venezuela, Russia, Iran) suffer, which seems to make sense considering the long and good relationship between the USA and the Saudis. But the Süddeutsche is today reporting that Saudi Arabia is also disappointed with current USA-Saudi relations and is aware that this price drop will adversely affect the USA (which seems then a contradiction). So I'm asking here about, what is the background to the Saudi production & pricing tactic and how will it negatively affect other countries (or not)? ZygonLieutenant (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPR has reported on this from time to time. It seems that OPEC has taken a page from John D. Rockefeller's business plan: They are trying to compel other oil-producing nations to cut production as being not-cost-effective, and hence expand OPEC's market. One example:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding lower gas prices hurting the US: In the short run, the opposite is true, since it helps consumers, who then have more money to spend on other things. It could hurt American oil companies, but probably not much, as they sell more gasoline if the price is lower. But, in the long term, it could indeed be bad for the US, if alternative energy production, hybrid and electric cars, and other energy conservation efforts are abandoned, leaving the US in a desperate condition when prices inevitably rebound past where they were. One long term benefit, though, might be if the pipeline they are trying to build through the main water aquifer in the US gets cancelled as not financially viable. Otherwise, 30 years from now, when the pipeline gets old and starts leaking all over, the aquifer would be ruined and farming in the plains states would no longer be possible. But that aside, the smart US reaction would be to slap taxes on gasoline to keep the price where it was, and use those taxes to invest in alternative energy, but politicians will never go for that.

Regarding US-Saudi relations: The Saudis were quite angry that the US didn't actively fight the (Iran friendly) Syrian government, so started covertly funding "freedom fighters" like ISIL, but I think by now they realize they've created a monster, and are a bit more willing to accept US leadership again rather than go off on their own, but I don't know that this would affect their OPEC stance. StuRat (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this is primarily a business decision, motivated mainly by a desire to maintain or recover market share. Saudi Arabia's market share and its role as marginal oil producer able to set the oil price have been undermined by the expansion of production in the United States through fracking (as well as tar sand extraction in Canada). The Saudis' primary goal is to allow prices to fall to a point at which expensive extraction methods (such as fracking and tar sand processing) become uneconomical and have to be abandoned. At which point, production will fall, the Saudis will regain market share, and prices will rise. A secondary goal may be to allow lower prices to stimulate the global economy and increase demand for oil. In the short term, this policy will hurt Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, whose economies depend on high oil prices. In the medium term, conventional oil exporters (including those three countries) will benefit, and the United States and other oil-importing countries will suffer, when production falls amid steady or rising demand and prices rise again. In the long term, it won't matter, as high prices will restart fracking and tar sand extraction in North America, albeit perhaps at lower volumes than before, so as to keep prices well above production costs and not to restart this cycle. The Saudis are just looking out for their own interests. They don't care much what happens to other countries as this cycle plays out. Marco polo (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary is excellent. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Buddhism history question

The article on Cintamani states one of the Chinese terms for the object is ruyizhu (如意珠). Does anyone know of a source that mentions the earliest usage of the term? Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, Giles has ruyi mani as the year title for 692. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the Virgin Mary in a contemporary Catholic Church?

I once checked out a picture dictionary, which displayed cross-sections of some religious buildings - including a traditional, gothic-style church building. I went to a local Catholic church, and the layout was too contemporary and didn't match the illustration. I also couldn't find a statue of the Virgin Mary, and the people there seemed to walk in, sit in the big room with traditional pews, and walk out. I didn't see any statues of saints or paintings of saints, let alone an image of the Virgin Mary. I suspect the picture dictionary portrayed an outdated view of what a church is supposed to look like. Or perhaps, churches keep images of saints in safe places? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by your question. In any – and every – Roman Catholic church that I have ever been in, there are plenty of images/statues of the Virgin Mary. What exactly are you looking for? An image/painting? A statue? If the very first church that you visited had none of these, I am quite sure that the second or third that you visit will. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems that Catholics, in my one-day experience, ignore icons. No kissing, no praying. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you expect to understand even the minor points of a major world religion in just one visit to a church one day? Like Joseph, I don't think I've seen any Catholic church that didn't have a statue of Mary. I suppose that there might be one somewhere but even then I would expect a painting or some other portrayal. And Catholics do pray to Mary. After all, she has a number of feast days. Many Catholic saints have feast days which would satisfy your desire for praying. Dismas|^(talk) 06:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to sit through a service, or listen to someone praying using the Rosary, to hear the prayer to St Mary, called a "Hail Mary" or an "Ave Maria". It's not that they go to her statue and pray in front of her. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they may well pray to Mary in front of a statue of her, but rarely out loud. It's very common to have stands of candles, and even kneelers, in front of or near statues, to provide a focus for prayer, but it would be unusual for someone to be demonstrative about it in public. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does Catholicism justify what appears to be a violation of the Ten Commandments, i.e. "idol worship"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Catholic_doctrine_regarding_the_Ten_Commandments#Graven_images. Dismas|^(talk) 15:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The same way mainstream protestantism handles the contradictions of the Trinity - by a mixture of hypocrisy, and religious re-definition. In particular, I think the saints, including Mary, are not worshiped, but venerated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To misquote Huck Finn, "It's OK, because they done it themselves." Also, the term "venerate" originally referred to the worship of the goddess Venus,[2] who I'm guessing did not qualify as a virgin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same way you've had it explained to you, every single time you decide a question on Catholicism is an excuse to post your own personal take on Christianity. They would reply that a statue is a not an idol unless you worship it, and you'd have to be very confused as a Catholic to think you were meant to be worshipping statues. They would reply that the commandment is against having other gods before God, and worshipping those, and that they do nothing of the sort. They would reply that the English word "worship" has had several meanings which have evolved over time, so you must be clear which meaning you intend: that the Latin words "latria", "dulia", "hyperdulia" have no such ambiguity, although they can all legitimately be translated as "worship" in English, given how the English word has carried different meanings. They would reply that latria is due to God alone, whereas dulia can be paid to the saints (or people in general who you honour), and hyperdulia to Mary. But the statue of Mary is obviously not actually Mary. Since this has now been answered, and you have an answer, does this mean you will refrain from asking the same question the next time someone is discussing something where you think the question might appear relevant? Since you already know the answer? 86.156.148.98 (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Basilica and National Shrine of Our Lady of Consolation in Carey, Ohio might be a convenient place for you to visit. Thincat (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word veneration comes from trhe same root as "Venus" but it doesn't mean specifically to worship Venus. "Wean" as in "overweaning" comes from the same PIE root. (See BBB's link above, and follow the link there for Venus.) Second, the RC church I attended for much of my youth had an alcove with a white (marble-appearing) statue of Mary with a kneeler before it. You'd occasionally see people kneel and say a prayer (never touching, that's more Mediterranean), but it was much more common to see people arrive early to Mass and sit and do a Rosary. Finally, an atheist since I was 16, I still say three Hail Mary's when I hear someone I respect has passed. It's a way of marking the moment to myself, not that I expect it will gain them entry to heaven.

Oh, and specifically, walk around the outer perimeter, and if you don't find a statue of a woman, ask the priest. There may also be a grotto outdoors. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you say Hail Mary in Latin or in the vernacular, and which vernacular language? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say the Lord's Prayer in the Ruthenian Recension as well as English, but since the closest Byzantine Catholic Church was at an onerous distance we attended a Roman Catholic church during most of my grade school years, except for holidays or when visiting relatives. Since the Hail Mary is not said in mass (as is the Lords Prayer) we learned it in English, as I was post-Vatican II. -- 02:27, 25 December 2014 Medeis

Oddly enough I don't seem able to find a text copy of the Church-Slavonic influenced Rusyn language liturgy on line. This is not the best quality video recording, and I hardly expect anyone to listen to the full 1:15:00 of it, but it will give you an idea. -- 02:44, 25 December 2014 Medeis

Interesting info. I read that many Latino Catholic immigrants in the United States can't find enough Catholic churches, so they join Protestant churches instead. When you say you recite in English, do you mean Middle English or Modern English? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 10:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I'm not Latino, Rusyn is Slavic, and the prayer is archaic modern English. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on Lady chapel (and probably should have a separate article on "hyperdulia")... AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone ever make a story like this (probably don't read if you've lost someone) or who knows, maybe there's an Aarne-Thompson number for this exact story

I was watching a black and white movie (on the retina of course, does anybody watch video on extra-eyeball screens when they're dreaming?) while I was dreaming. An 8-9 year old girl in the Old West wanted her mother pregnant (presumably she either wanted a sibling or a kind that she lacks). She and her friends tried but had highly misguided ideas of how pregnancies happened so it never would've worked, but managed to accidentally get mom pregnant anyway (thankfully knowledge of the details wasn't given (and the last sentence given by false memory)). Then imparted by unjustified belief is that her mother wouldn't have died without this happening (now this wasn't given in the dream but maybe from suicide or maybe it caused her to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and got killed by Indians) and it shows her hanging at a rather slight angle without a broken neck and lying on a wood thing which meant her feet probably touched the ground (as you can die with only 13 pounds of pressure on your neck or something like that). And a narrator said that she [girl] doesn't know that her [mum] brain is not getting enough oxygen. She still looks light brown (is that possible? Maybe she was unconscious, then entered the sleep cycle from being up all night and got above the "turning-blue level of air", while the coming dream-level metabolism combined with settling or something would kill her? (I'm not a doctor) If so, that's be sad), implying that she could've saved her but didn't realize she was in danger. So presumably she didn't want to bother her sleep (Are kids that naive?) or was in semi-denial and whoever "rescued" her was too late. Fin. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, SMW, were you dreaming when you wrote this? Maybe you should actually wake up first next time and then post your refdesk q :-) --Trovatore (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I once had 23 false awakenings in a row, after several times thinking this feels so much more like awake than the last one (knowing that this was how you tell), I must be awake now. Then I gave up and started counting awakenings. Soon afterwards, it became a drill - as soon as I wake up I look for errors as fast as I can so I can get it over with and get annoyed when a reality mistake doesn't come quickly. Sometimes I'm not in my room. Once I was like, "Wait, I don't live here anymore. How could I forget that?" "Okay, the bed is not quite where it was. Next!, [explore, wake up], This is a casino. Next!, [explore, wake up], It's daytime in the real world. Next!, [explore, wake up], My building is on my old place's street. Next!, [explore, wake up], There's a hotel on the ground floor. Next!, [explore, wake up], That woman makes me horny, and they never object when I'm dreaming, but I can't risk it, I MUST look for a certain continuity error [explore, wake up], Am I awake now?!? I've been dreaming for at least 20 minutes by now, so only 10 more minutes until I can't be asleep anymore" When I reached the outermost level I was like "how could I have ever thought those awakenings were real, it's like comparing an elephant's weight to an ant's in the level of realness. I'd have bet my life I'm awake the first instant, just like always." I'm awake now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I didn't watch this video on purpose, clearly when it's in your eyeball you don't have much choice what you watch, sometimes it's comedicly inaccurate 360° documentaries, sometimes it's 0 to low-free will Matrixes with you as prophet/psychic and character, sometimes a holodeck.. maybe this is strange to those who only watch films in living rooms or cinemas if sleeping. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when I dream I get shown ridiculously inaccurate documentaries by, um, myself (or more accurately, the parts of the brain that come up with this stuff). They're documentaries since I'm not a character can't affect it and I know it, but having access to more advanced graphics means that I don't have to watch on a screen, it can be pretty much how PBS or the History Channel would do it when people have 360°x360° TVs with a clear force field to stand on. Sometimes I can even take a few steps so it's a holodeck. There are anachronisms or other errors every few sentences but I watch for the lols . As you're being shown this in your eyes and not a dream theater, TV etc. your only choice is to watch or not pay attention and they're never boring so I always watch. Also, just like on Google Earth can have elevation exaggeration often there's emotional exaggeration compared to if this happened to you awake (not possible with our technology) so you can really get into it. If I'm aware I'm dreaming I watch for logical inconsistencies and um, interesting new facts (steam trains in Ancient Egypt..) though I have to wake to catch the least obvious. This time it was fiction. Sometimes it's a holodeck play so I the only free will I have is what's not in the script but I know the story from being a prophet of the Greek myth type guess. More like a dream of a universe with too much fate to suspend disbelief so I have to follow the script even if I get horny or am somewhat scared of the ending. It's kind of awesome if you were religious growing up it's kind of awesome because that's the only time you can feel what a prophet feels. Sometimes it's repetitively boring or tediously long (often involving flying/levitating long distances and I'm like it at least it'll be over within 30 minutes cause that's the maximum amount of time a dream can last.. Often it's a normal dream on the free will vs fate scale (but half are lucid), though sometimes somewhere in between. Also I'm aware that being in a TV room or theater and watching is not the usual form of dream, but most probably have at least had one (I have). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I was in hospital last year with internal bleeding from an accident, and I was literally dying, and had a dream (knowing full well that I was completely awake) that I was watching a film about war, with all sorts of different types of soldiers from different areas and eras fighting each other, with all my favourite actors in it. It was bizarre, and it kept repeating. I enjoyed 'watching' it the first time, and maybe the second time, but after that it became boring, because it was the same every time. Then I had a dream about myself, and my life over the past 40 years, but from a third person point of view. Like, my life was flashing before me, as they say. Then I went blind, for some reason, before they took me to have the operation. I have a lot of lucid dreams normally. The trick is to notice that something is different. Try to levitate, or put your hand through a wall, or ask the pretty actress to take her clothes off. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The night after reading SMW's OP I had a lucid dream complete with multiple "interesting facts". (Although it didn't really become a lucid dream until the interesting facts started popping up, after which I continued to watch for the lols.) I had no idea reading SMW posts could induce similar experiences! I should go search their contributions! Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, I had not read/seen Ancient Greek, twisty, tearjerker, horror, Native American or Westerns fiction in ages, nor had them on my mind, and have never used drugs. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an age limit to join the monastery?

In a biography of Ikkyū's life, Ikkyu was trained as a Buddhist monk somewhere in his early teens, though the popular portrayal of him in the mass media makes him look like a child. In a lengthy film adaptation of Journey to the West, the Buddhist monk protagonist is adopted by a Buddhist monastery as a little baby, and he's raised to be a monk all his life. But when I watched a film adaptation of Thérèse of Lisieux's life, it seems there was some concern of admitting an underage girl into the monastery. Nevertheless, she entered the monastery with the pope's permission, and she was 15. So, what do Christian monasteries do if they discover a little baby at their doorstep? Do they adopt it and raise it as monastic, or do they send it to a local orphanage? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nuns often ran the local orphanages. See also Baby hatch. Rmhermen (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Holy Spirit" in Greek Gospels

The Holy spirit article has the hebrew that the Tanakh/Torah uses, and also the Arabic used in the Qur'ran, but what is the Greek uses in the orignal-language Gospel? (and maybe original-language Aramaic term as well) I can't seem to find an original language, non-translated Bible, which is suprising considering how important a book it is. (I would actually be interested in buying an all-original-languages Qur'ran.) Also perhaps an IPA pronounciation as well.Scientus (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Holy Spirit (Christianity). Any university with a religious studies program or the like should have original-language books of scripture via its bookstore, but Amazon and the like will, too. Try "Koine Greek New Testament" for that particular one. My understanding of Islam is that any text marketed as the "Holy Qu'ran" ought to be in the original Arabic, as translations don't retain the sacredness of the original text. — Lomn 21:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try for a Interlinear Greek-English New Testament if you don't read Koine Greek.[3]--Aspro (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's Ἁγιον Πνευμα Hagion Pneuma, as in the Trinitarian formula. You can probably acquire a student (UBS) edition of Novum Testamentum Graece at a reasonable price. AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. πνεῦμα equates to the modern neopsyche ego state.--Aspro (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

off topic

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

When the good book says the disciples were filled with the holy ghost / spirit, it simply means that they now knew how to separate themselves from getting their judgements contaminated by their archeo- and extero- states. The church could do themselves a favour by stop dressing it up in language that modern people find difficult to grasp. But then again they might find themselves out of a job. After all. Power is maintained by withholding understanding to those whom the powerful considers to be inferior and below them. It's a psychological smart trick that the pharaohs of ancient Egypt seized upon. Keep the people in the dark and feed them manure and promise these mushrooms, that one day, if they are obedient (to you first and to the Good Lord second), (notice the priority), that they too, may-one-day see the light and bask in it - Hallelujah.--Aspro (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could this possibly be done without the politics? If it is humour/ satire, it is not new, so I have taken the liberty of reading it as a purely political side-comment. Thanks, IBE (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Politics is defined by Wikipedia as the practice and theory of influencing other people on a global, civic or individual level. It must encompass that too...--Aspro (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget Friday's meal, the Holy Mackerel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biblegateway includes a modern edition of the Greek new testament (SBLGNT), see e.g. Luke 1:1. The text seems to be courtesy the Society for Biblical Literature, about which I ~~know~~knew nothing else ;-) (But Wikipedia does, at Society of Biblical Literature. It seems to be quite a good source). The society does offer a free download. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And let me add (after a good night's sleep ;-): The reason why you cannot find a full untranslated Bible in Greek is that only large parts of the New Testament were originally written in Koine Greek. The books now in the Christian "Old Testament" were largely written in Hebrew. The best-known translation into Koine is the Septuagint, most likely from the third century BCE hellenised Egypt, and that seems to be the version known to and used by most New Testament writers. Septuagint has a number of links to different editions, some of which seem to be online. But this version long predates the harmonisation efforts of the later church. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

Christmas Day moon eclipse

Was there a Christmas Day moon eclipse in 810?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might be the right place to ask in terms of historical records, but you might also ask at the science desk, where they can use astronomy tools to see exactly where the Earth, Moon, and Sun were on that day, although the change in calendars between the Julian and Gregorian may complicate things. StuRat (talk)

I asked also at the science desk. Thanks for hint. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in The historie of Cambria, now called Wales: a part ... . Caradoc, of Llancarvan.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA eclipse website doesn't list one, though it does list a total eclipse of the moon on 14 December 810. It also says "Eclipses of the Moon can only occur during the Full Moon phase", so that seems to rule out December 25. --Antiquary (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC) ~~I've only just noticed your comment about the Julian calendar, Stu. Doubtless that explains it. --Antiquary (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Actually, according to Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars 14 December 810 in the Julian calendar was 18 December 810 in the Gregorian calendar. Not a Christmas bullseye then, but very close. --Antiquary (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my last revision here: the NASA website linked above uses the Julian calendar for all dates before 1582, so the eclipse really was on 14 December for everyone who witnessed it. --Antiquary (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Is it possible that:~~
~~A) Some places were using yet another calendar then ?~~
~~B) Christmas was observed on a different date in some places then ?~~
~~C) It fell within the "twelve days of Christmas" ? StuRat (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
To the best of my knowledge it's No to all of the above. I've never heard of any calendar other than the Julian being used during the Middle Ages in Wales, or indeed in any other part of western Christendom; the date of Christmas was perfectly uncontroversial in Britain, whatever dispute there was over Easter; and the Twelve Days of Christmas begin at Christmas rather than ending then. I imagine the explanation is more simple: at some point in the transmission of this eclipse date to the Historie of Cambria the word "about" got left out. --Antiquary (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are average 2.4 moon eclipses a year a year, let's call it 2 since that excludes the ones under the percentage limit that people can see. So there should be an average of 183 years between eclipses on a specific day. For people of a specific point in the world out should be no more than 365 years on average. If half are blocked by clouds, it should be 730 years. No, let's call it 1.8 eclipses a year since anything less might not be casually noticed by people who don't have an almanac and don't use the "eclipses repeat every 18 years, 10 or 11 days and 8 hours later (depending on leap day count) rule" to look for it. But an average visible eclipse lasts about 3½ hours and Christmas nights are at least 15-16 hours at Europe, so there's at least 18½ hours of chances to be on Christmas. Take off some time since many eclipse types can't be seen near the horizon, more math and it shouldn't be more than 640 years between Christmas eclipses. It's certainly possible that Wales hasn't had one for 1204 years (or even 2000) so if that's the last then you're due. But no eclipses this winter, sorry. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Who is the audience in a Roman Catholic funeral mass?~~
I would assume it would just be the family members and close friends of the family with the deceased family member, who happens to be Catholic, going to be Catholic, or raised in a Catholic family, and who is also in good standing with canon law. Yet, I've seen popular portrayals of it, which seem to suggest a huge celebration of the death, with the men and women all dressed in black, and the women wearing veils. After the funeral service, the dead body would be carried by horse and buggy to the cemetery. That's the movie portrayal. In real life, are Catholic families really that big? Does the immediate family invite every single person related to the deceased person according to canon law (which may extend to third cousins)? Or is the Roman Catholic funeral mass a mass for the parishioners rather than a mass for a particular family? I think this is a Roman Catholic funeral mass. The room looks as spacious as a typical Catholic church, which may suggest that it's Catholic. Plus, one does the sign of the cross. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholic funerals I've attended have all been open to anyone who has known the deceased, which may involve parishioners if the deceased attended the church. (Which is just as well as my family isn't Catholic and neither am I) --TammyMoet (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only restriction on non-Catholics attending any mass is that they not take communion, a restriction which applies to lapsed and unconfessed Catholics with a sin on their conscience as well. (It does occasionally still happen, the priests don't have sin- or heretic-ometers.) The number of attendants will depend on the person. Veils are an old-fashioned custom related more to class and ethnicity than to any Christian sect. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Catholic, but have been to both Catholic weddings and Catholic funerals. Those events are typically by invitation, either formal or verbal, that being up to the family. There's no requirement to be a Catholic, just that you be welcome there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, is the Roman Catholic funeral mass traditionally, according to canon law, done in front of the whole congregation, or was it specially arranged as a private event? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article Helena (song)#Music video your video was shot in a presbyterian church in LA. The absence of plaster saints is a big clue that the church isn't RC. Don't confuse a funeral and a Requiem mass, which always involves communion and may or may not be attached to a funeral. The mass is usually open for all to attend, but the sacrament is only for Catholics. How strictly this is applied is in practice down to the individual priest. The funeral may or may not involve a mass, and can just as easily happen in a crematorium chapel as a church. The whole thing is down to the next of kin, their budget, and the expected attendance. Most funerals are private events which run in a public space (church/crem/mortuary chapel). There is an assumption that people don't generally go to funerals of other people they don't know, unless they're desperate for a beer and a ham sandwich. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found your answer most helpful, Fiddlersmouth. I actually did confuse the funeral with the Requiem mass, probably because they both had to do with death and the celebration of death. Also, every time I see the word "Requiem", I think of Mozart's piece that goes by the same name. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get any food or drink at a funeral. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, not at the ceremony itself, but it's normal for funerals in the UK (and elsewhere, I suspect) to be immediately followed by a funeral reception where ample food and drink is available for the family and friends. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's often true in America as well. Typically not for everyone, just a few close relatives and friends, to commune and to talk about the deceased and whatever else. (Kind of like a mini-Shiva.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you scroll over my text you'll see I linked to the ham-sandwich mini-Shiva. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was still misleading and unhelpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not only was my comment strictly correct, anyone who bothered to read the link would have gotten more information. I don't provide links as mere adornment. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funeral and wake are not synonymous, as I'm sure you know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Catholic Encyclopedia and in consultation with my father who was trained by Jesuits, the mass is open to all with a few exceptions. The priest may forbid late entrance once the mass has begun. The mass may be closed or secret due to persecution, and disruptive parties may be expelled. (Personally, I have seen people turned away who arrived late.)
Historically, there was the expulsion of the catechumens which was the exclusion of those studying to join the church after the readings and sermon, but before the Eucharist (communion) which was considered a "mystery" in the classical sense. This is attested to by Augustine in the 5th century and by others before him, but fell out of use by the 800's, when almost all attendees were raised Catholic from birth.

Nowadays the only exclusion from taking communion is voluntary exclusion by the unshriven and exclusion at the discretion of the priest for the excommunicated, etc. Specifically for funerals, over 1,000 believers and not attended my sister's funeral mass, and only a dozen were at the graveside when my grandmother was buried, although the mass in her neighborhood church was full. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Born Catholic in the Philippines. Having just attended a funeral mass for a friend's father: it's open to anyone, regardless of background or religion. As for size, it depends on the person (as well as the wishes of the family). Usual size of funerals I've attended is around 150 to 200 people. Usual invitation is in the form of a general announcement that "so-and-so has died and funeral services will be somewhere at _____ on _____" (published in the local paper, local radio, and also in social media sites). Black clothing is not required, though it's traditional for relatives of the deceased. People sometimes also wear white. Black veils (mantillas) are not a funeral-only thing, they are worn on any Catholic mass, but it's usually older and really devout women who wear them nowadays. It's not a celebration by any means. It's normally very very quiet, with people speaking in hushed tones, aside from the mass itself or family members/friends/loved ones getting emotional every now and then. It's basically just like regular mass, except the sermon is tailored a bit more about the deceased's life/death, there are no happy songs, and there are eulogies. If you're not Catholic, you can just sit quietly when they do Catholic things. There is a procession to the cemetery by hearse (if it's not beside the church), final blessings, lowering of the coffin, then everyone goes home as workmen seal it up. Food is provided afterwards usually (especially if the services extend past lunch), but most people forgo it, aside from immediate relatives. Also like everything else Catholic, it's far less strict than you think it is. At least it isn't here anyway. It depends on who your pastor is.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say people wear white on funeral day in the Philippines. Seeing that the Philippines is near China, could the white part be a Chinese influence? In Chinese culture, white symbolizes death. When my parents saw toilet paper on trees, they immediately thought someone had died in the family; apparently, they weren't aware that they were in the United States, and the concept of toilet papering is just a prank in America. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. But no, nothing to do with Chinese influence. White is nontraditional and it's not common at all, just underlining the fact that black isn't required. It's usually simply the family saying "black is too gloomy" or "[the deceased] wouldn't like us wearing black", etc. I don't know about the Catholic Chinese-Filipino community though. I've never been to a funeral of one (at least not those who still visibly uphold Chinese family traditions). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, you don't even have to be Catholic to get a funeral in a Catholic church. I knew a woman whose husband, Greek Orthodox his whole life (though decidedly not practicing towards the end of it) who received a funeral in the Eastern Rite Catholic church she attended. Her daughter's husband also had his funeral in that church (the daughter was also a parishioner). At the very least, the church does not worry about those who attend the funeral. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~This would normally require an episcopal dispensation, just as would a mixed marriage. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
Certainly, in my parish, funerals typically appear in the parish bulletin or on the noticeboard, and parishioners typically attend funerals of people they barely knew, if at all. But the people attending such funerals are usually the older parishioners, who have more free time during the weekday. There is a feeling that the more people attending, praying for the deceased, the better, so parishioners especially try to attend the funerals of people unlikely to have a lot of other attenders. There is also a sense that everyone in the parish is part of a parish 'family', the community, and so attending their funeral even if you barely know them is like attending the funeral of a distant cousin you rarely saw. This does not, of course, extend to attending any private event set up by the family. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~December 26~~
~~similarities in Judaism and Shi'a Islam~~
Besides praying three times a day, what other similarities does Judaism and Shi'a Islam have in common? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.158 (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do they? In any case, there's a "comparisons" section in Abrahamic religions which you may find useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Gathering. Darkness. The Gathering Darkness (and the light within). Dualism. Feudalism. Submission. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:34, December 27, 2014 (UTC)~~
~~Why did Greek change so little?~~
Today's Greeks say they can speak and read Ancient Greek but the Wycliffe Bible is partly undecipherable and Chauncer speak is 9X% gibberish. Heck, even today's English can bewilder Americans ("He paid for time with the best lassie bowler in all England. He was given two full tosses, then a fast bouncer. A ball bent so much that it hit his leg stump. That was a proper yorker old top — he was given out bowled clean through the gate by the express pace which was a faster pace than his usual fast men") Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First off, there's not much compatibility at the pronunciation level; I don't think that modern Greeks would find ancient Greek pronounced in the ancient Greek manner (e.g. Φυγη as [pʰugɛː] or [pʰügeː] instead of [fiyi]) to be very understandable. And what reading comprehensibility there is kind of depends on intermediate bridges; someone who's studied Katharevousa (formal archaizing modern Greek) can probably take a stab at reading 1st century A.D. New Testament Koine Greek, but someone who knows only Demotic (modern Greek close to the current spoken language) would probably have great problems trying to read 5th century B.C. classical Attic Greek... AnonMoos (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So in what ways is it hard? Like 1395 English, for me it's the horrific spelling: "And the sones of thi puple seiden, The weie of the Lord is not euene weiyte; and the weie of hem is vniust." (And the sons of the people said, way of the Lord is not one way; and the way of Him is unjust.) (probably). Ancient Greek probably has a different biggest reason.
"...is not even way...". Rmhermen (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not spelling -- words which exist in both modern and ancient Greek, and have been affected only by standard conventional sound shifts (without morphological restructuring), are spelled the same in modern and ancient Greek, as far as basic letters go (ignoring diacritic marks), even if the pronunciation has radically changed, as in the case of Φυγη.

To start with, modern Greek has no verb infinitive forms or noun/adjective dative case forms, and the future tense is formed from θα + the present tense. So whenever a modern-Greek reader comes across an ancient Greek infinitive, dative, or elaborately-inflected future verb, there's going to be a comprehension gap, unless educated about such matters... AnonMoos (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And how do they know so much about ancient/medieval pronunciation anyway? Whatever sounds in foreign words the Greek sounds were compared to are also long gone by the invention of sound recording. Do they model it as a random walk so the average of the earliest solid pronunciations of all the ancient transliterations of word X is likeliest? And add a few rules like speakers tending to remove high effort to need things like the b in debt? And weight transliterations with non-vernacular holy languages (e.g. Catholic Latin) which should change pronounciation much slower? Or did they write phoneme/tongue shape books much earlier then I'm guessing? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sagittarian Milky Way, there's a ssubstantial literature on reconstruction of Ancient Greek (and Latin, and Hebrew, and Chinese ...) pronunciation. Ancient Greek phonology#Reconstruction gives some of the methods. Sidney Allen's Vox Graeca (referenced therein) is the seminal book. --ColinFine (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Quality of mouth (ancient greek)~~
I look for bibliography that deals with the way which greeks saw the function of the mouth - the fact that in one way it could be used for speech, but on the other way it could be use for oral sex. --79.178.22.136 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Did ancient Greeks not consume food the usual way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
It sounds as if you might be asking if the Greeks used different terms to describe the mouth depending on context based on its functions for speaking, sexual stimulation, or (as BB pointed out) eating. I don't know about the Greeks, but the Romans used the term os impurum. Is that the sort of thing you are looking for? Perhaps you can better explain your question. We do not have a Sexuality in ancient Greece article, but that is an entry under Outline of ancient Greece#Culture of ancient Greece. The only mention of oral sex I find is in Pederasty in ancient Greece#Sexual practices: "Oral sex is likewise not depicted, or is indicated only indirectly; anal or oral penetration seems to have been reserved for prostitutes or slaves." -- ToE 11:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Did the medieval church do anything to limit the number of abandoned, unwanted children?~~
Or did they just let it be and place the abandoned, unwanted children in nun-run orphanages? In a nunnery, would the nuns actually wet nurse the infants, or would they hire wet nurses? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what were they supposed to do about it? (What can anyone do about it now?) But abandoned children wouldn't necessarily be taken to a nunnery. They were often raised by monks, or by the local bishop (probably the origin of my last name, for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that the wet nursing issue was probably decided on a convent by convent basis. Regarding attempting to limit the number of abandoned, unwanted children, well, good luck there. Except for the children of the nuns themselves, there wasn't a great deal they were actually in a position to do there. But, yeah, more or less in general, I think that there were a number of children who like Quasimodo were dumped on the foundling's bed for the church to work with in whatever way they saw fit. Unfortunate, and not something most of us today would condone, but when the church was pretty much the primary if not only social-service agency running that sort of thing happened a lot. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, what was the medieval church's stance on contraception and infanticide during the Middle Ages? Or did they silently avoid this issue? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Resolved~~
~~Never mind. I already found my answer via Google. Duuhhh... 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
In case others are interested, the Church never condoned infanticide, or induced abortion, which it viewed as witchcraft. Aquinas defined quickening at about four months (when the baby first kicks) as the time of ensoulment. Child mortality was so high that most children did not survive until adulthood, and were highly valued as future laborers and providers for aged prents. Abandoned children left at the church doorstep (usually illegitimate) were given names like Iglesias (churches) Cruz (cross) and Blanco (blank). μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly sexual abstinence reduced population growth, and the more unwanted laborers tended to drift into monastic orders the more they did so. When abstinence failed, there were things like monk's pepper and hemp seeds ("gruel") with (not well established) negative effect on fertility. Wnt (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The other effect on population growth was infant mortality, which was very high in certain places in the Middle Ages, and indeed right up until living memory in the UK (for example, my own mother was one of 11 children, 5 of which survived infancy). So it's quite possible unwanted infants weren't as common as the OP might imagine. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't put an exact number of unwanted infants in the past, but this website suggests that foundling homes started in the Middle Ages, and actually increased over time. By how much, I can't say. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disease helps to keep a population in check as well as to enable the fittest to survive. Infants with weaker immune systems and serious deformities are probably not going to survive to adulthood, so those who do get to pass their healthier, stronger genes to the next generation. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditions were quite good in the late Middle Ages, which is what drove laborers into town to seek work, as well as the increasing phenomena of foundlings. This icreased population density made the Black Death possible, and population losses weren't recouped for about a century. As humans are the apex predator, much of our evolution is driven by diseases, but this is more of a Red Queen hypothesis situation. We end up developing cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell anemia as genetic diseases to deal with endemic contagions like cholera and malaria, while the diseases themselves like chicken pox and HIV become less virulent through attenuation. Technically, developing immunity to a disease counts as fitness, but as the fitness landscape changes there's always a new emerging infectious disease to deal with. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I do remember back in high school, that the lowered population density caused by the Black Death contributed to less competition for resources. Then, the people could demand more pay from their employers. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a slightly different topic, but the survivors lived in a world where abandonned capital had become cheap and labor scarce. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even a skilled orphan stood a chance. Good times. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, December 27, 2014 (UTC)
~~Comment: I find it hard to understand how celibate nuns could lactate and so wet-nurse infants. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
Response: One, you're assuming that they were in fact individually celibate, which is open to question. Two, it would certainly be possible that in some cases a convent could have hired or otherwise employed in some way some lactating women to wet-nurse children as required. Convents did tend to have serious money relative to the community in general, and they could easily have paid wet-nurses or had priests prescribe wet-nursing as penance as required. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A she-wolf works for free, and Romulus and Remus turned out alright. Bartholomeus Anglicus warned that wolves "loveth well to play with a child, if he may take him; and slayeth him afterward, and eateth him at the last." But Isidore of Seville assured they lose their ferocity if you keep an eye on them. It doesn't take a special nun to watch a wolf. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, December 27, 2014 (UTC)
Humans don't need to bear children to lactate. See, e.g., [4]. Basically, if a woman tries to breastfeed a child for long enough, the child trying to suckle, she will begin to lactate. People in the past were aware of this, just as they were aware of the ability of mothers who had lost their children to wet nurse the surviving children of other mothers. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Syed Shah Nasiruddin (Sipah Salar)~~
~~How come there is no page for Syed Shah Nasiruddin (spiah salad) and his lineage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazida88 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
Assuming he is notable and you have reliable sources, feel free to create the article yourself. I have placed some helpful info at your talk page. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The standard answer for this is "because you haven't started it yet." :) Wikipedia is made up of volunteers. In this particular case we have another problem, which is that we have very few people who speak Arabic, in part due to poor Internet availability in many Arabic countries and in part because http://ar.wikipedia.org/ may see more of their efforts. Add to this that they might even have an article that we can't find because different transliteration is used! And to make an article based on English sources... each one might have its own transliteration, which means when we search, we don't find enough information to get started working on. To give an example of how bad the situation is, even ten years after the infamous September 11 attacks, many newspapers still wrote "Osama" while many others wrote "Usama"! We really need help with all these sorts of articles, because most of us couldn't tell this person from Naseeruddin Shah... Wnt (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Or of course because the dreaded Deletionists got to it. —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Yes, see the Langoliers. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
If we knew more about him it would help. As it stands we have some titles (syed, shah, sipahsalar), and a fairly common name Nasiruddin. Was he actually a shah or is that part of his name? This could be dozens of people. When and where did he live? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~December 27~~
~~Threats against government officials, internationally~~
(1) Is it illegal for someone in the US to threaten to kill the leader of North Korea? (2) If a US citizen goes into international waters, is it still illegal for them to threaten to kill the President? (3) Is it illegal for a US citizen to threaten to kill the US President from North Korea? Please note that I do not intend to do any of these things, and I don't know anyone who would even consider them in the slightest, so I am in no way asking for legal advice, just for a reference to the laws that determine what is and is not technically allowed. 63.228.180.122 (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~I believe you are referring to the recent Sony hacking incident.~~
1 No, it is not illegal to threaten to kill the leader of North Korea.

2 What president? There are lots of them.

3 That would be treason. So, yes.
~~KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
You may find this of interest, as it discusses First Amendment limits on threats of violence. For question (1) I doubt they could prosecute unless it was a totally serious and practical threat. Questions (2) and (3), presumably both about the US President, might not be prosecutable from their locations. But when or if they come back to the US, I expect they would be fair game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can also read Jurisdiction and Universal jurisdiction. For question (2) the jurisdiction varies in different countries. Some of the conditions that countries can use when they choose to exercise jurisdiction in criminal law are: crimes within the country's borders, by a citizen, against a citizen, against the country's interests or on vessels and planes registered in the country. So the answer to question (2) is a firm "it depends". Sjö (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to kill the president of the US by a US citizen may be treason, but in ordinary circumstances it's more likely to come under Title 18, Section 871 of the United States Code as per Threatening the President of the United States. I'm not totally sure whether the US government will apply this or some other law if the person is in North Korea however, although as per universal jurisdiction which Sjö tried to link to, and also Extraterritorial jurisdiction, there's probably no particular reason the US couldn't apply the US Code, definitely I don't see anything in the wording of the law suggesting it's restricted to actions in the US. (Couldn't find any evidence for or against this ever having been tested.)

As already mentioned, the US may not be able to easily arrest the person when they are in North Korea. There is Extraordinary rendition, but's it's particularly risky in an unfriendly country and if the only thing is a threat which for some reason they're worried enough about to try that, as per those articles and others the US has also shown a willingless to kill people if they feel they are that much of a threat (or whatever). Unmanned aerial vehicle may be a bad idea in North Korea, but there are the older alternatives.

I'm also going to a ^{[citation needed]} on the claim it's not illegal for someone in the US to threaten to kill the President of North Korea. This may fall under US Code Title 18, Section 878 [5]. I say may because (and showing IANAL). One I'm confused whether section d means only any of 1, 2, or 3 have to apply; or it's 1 and 2, or 3; or it's 1 AND 2 or 3. I think it's the first, but not totally sure. Two, if I understand 1116 and how it applies to 878 [6], in any case it will only be against the code to threaten to kill the president of North Korea when he's somewhere outside North Korea (but doesn't have to be when he's in the US) as he's not an "internationally protected person" when inside North Korea. Of course if you make the threat while the president of North Korea is in the US, you don't have to worry about most of this and can assume you're screwed if it's taken as a serious threat but I took it this wasn't under discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I had world leader power, you threatened to kill me, and I believed you, I don't see why I'd want to take it to court. I'm sure Nil Einne meant to say "willingness to kill". Where there's a will, there's a way. Most of the ways aren't nearly as overt as a drone strike, but just as far above the law. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, December 27, 2014 (UTC)
~~Senior management In large corporations~~
~~What's the difference between what a chairman, a ceo and a coo does in a major corporation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.212.193 (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
I think this varies between companies. I assume that you've read our articles on Chief operating officer, Chief executive officer and especially Chairman#Public corporations. Dbfirs 14:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Church vs social security in the US~~
I've heard it suggested that one of the reasons for higher levels of religiosity in the US than in Europe is that social security tends to be weaker in the US. I'm also aware that American churches tend to be politically conservative. Is there any evidence that American churches espouse conservative views because social security is their competitor?--Leon (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These churches were around long before Social Security was enacted. And conservatives' typical complaint about any kind of socialism is the theory that it erodes individual incentive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think American churches are more conservative than elsewhere, it's just that the conservative ones tend to be more vocal, like televangelists. A more liberal sect, like the Quakers, would be aghast at such publicity- and money-seeking tactics. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Crime vs Offence in England and Wales~~
~~What is the difference between a crime and an offence in the E&W legal system? Is it just that offence covers civil law as well? Thanks. 78.151.100.0 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~How does Christianity and Islam determine the religion of offspring?~~
In Judaism, if a child is born to a Jewish mother, then the child is considered Jewish. The father's religion had no bearing. How do the various sects of Christianity and Islam work for passing religion to an adherents natural offspring?--Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you start with Interfaith marriage and see what conclusions you can draw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a large number of the 1 billion Catholics is people who were made Catholic as a baby and are secular, non-observant, believe little or none of the Bible and rarely think about religion. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By Catholic Canon Law a Catholic is born to the religion and rite of his father. So even if a Roman Catholic woman marries a Maronite Catholic man, her children are supposed to be raised in the Maronite Church. Again, there are dispensations if, say, you live in a Roman Catholic diocese and the nearest Maronite church is at a burdensome distance. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Catholic, and I have never heard of that. Traditionally, the Catholic Church prefers that offspring of its members be raised Catholic. It's usually a condition of interfaith marriage by Catholics that the couple promise to raise their kids Catholic. Also, one is not born in Catholicism; one must be baptized. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good Lord (irony) Bugs & Milky,it was a simple question. Not everyone is trolling this place. The answer I was seeking was along the lines of what Medeies proffered. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was the link I posted inadequate to answer your question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your link led to this rule for the Catholic denomination (I don't think "sect" is quite the correct word). Other mainstream Christian denominations tend to be less formal about upbringing, often with a parental promise at infant baptism to "help [their offspring] to take their place within the life and worship of Christ’s Church"( Anglican baptism), or just hoping that parents will bring up their children in that same or a similar denomination. Some cults may have stronger expectations. Dbfirs 09:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~December 28~~
~~Radetzky′s politics~~
~~According to evidence available, would Radetzky be best described as a “conservative” or as a “progressive” of his era?--85.74.139.220 (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Racism in Jamaica~~
~~Are alot of Jamaicans racist and homophobic? Venustar84 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
Define "a lot". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spend a month teaching a class at UWI. I noticed neither homophobia nor racism. I might have missed the first, but as basically the only white person in class and one of two I noticed in the university or the hotel, I think I would have noticed the second. They do overcharge touristy looking people on jerk chicken, and the taxi drivers will curse you if you haggle the price down to native levels... ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~We have an article LGBT rights in Jamaica. Some Jamaican musicians are apparently incapable of stopping ranting on the subject... AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Mythology-Xena question~~
1. what do you people think Callisto on Xena was inspired by? 2. Since Callisto on Xena was from Cirra Greece was there any connection in mythology between Callisto, Adrasteia, Rhea, Adrasteia, Erinyes, Cybele, Nemesis, Atë, Dirae, Tyche, Fortuna, ect Venustar84 (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Currnet ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Middle East - is there an article about it?~~
Is there already an article dealing with the ethnic cleansing of Christians that is currently taking place in the middle east (is it only in the middle east?...)? Tshuva (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a contentious article to write, until enough newspapers and historians have written on it, synthesising the individual events together for us. Wikipedia, after all, is not the news. The problem would be if editors were synthesising the events into an overall narrative themselves. I'm sure we do have articles on the Syrian Civil War, on the situation with ISIS, on the effects of the Arab Spring, especially in Egypt. We also have articles on topics such as the Coptic Christians, who are suffering the brunt of the effect, and Christianity in Syria. Between those articles, and the links within them, you should be able to build up a picture. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]