Revision as of 02:22, 12 January 2015

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

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.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 6

Titles and authors of novels

Are there reference books or web sites that can identify novels and authors based on plot lines, principal characters, historical settings, etc.?173.67.38.55 (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Goodreads is a popular website that some of those features. --Jayron32 01:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

AbeBooks has such a forum here. --Antiquary (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Or you can try us here! --Viennese Waltz 10:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Presumably the categorization of articles should help the OP. There's no guarantee it's exhaustive, but it should be a good start. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Tsar's children

According to Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia's article The Tsar's children were raised as simply as possible, sleeping on hard camp cots unless they were ill, taking cold baths every morning. Servants called Olga and her siblings by their first names and patronyms rather than by their imperial titles." What was the purpose of this almost Spartan style of raising these children? Was it something only Nicholas II did to his children or was it a Russian imperial tradition for all the tsar's children? How were the children of his predecessor's (Nicholas I down to Alexander III) raised?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason, presumably, would be to keep them from growing up as spoiled brats, which in turn might make them poor leaders and potentially lead to them being removed from power. StuRat (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but by all accounts Nicholas was a very nice guy. He took his responsibilities very seriously and conscientiously and really loved his family. Kind of like Louis XVI, who was also a much nicer guy than his predecessors. Of course, in both cases, a more ruthless guy might have had a better chance of keeping things under control and of surviving. As things went, he got no respect from anybody and most Russians think of him as one of the worst rulers ever. --Ornil (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems Nicholas II and his siblings were raised in the same Spartan manner. Was it just a practice that Alexander III introduce and later his son follow?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pure speculation on my part, but I do know that Alexander III's wife, Maria Feodorovna, had been raised with relatively little money (based on what I know of her sister, Alexandra of Denmark). So perhaps Maria raised their children in a Spartan-like manner, and her son Nicholas II continued his mother's approach? Ruby 2010/2013 17:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Two term limits in Rwanda and DR Congo

Do Rwanda have a two term limit restriction for presidential elections? Paul Kagame were elected as president of Rwanda in 2000 and the next election is 2016. Will Paul Kagame still be eligible to elect as president, or he will be prohibited from next election? Does Republic of Congo and DR Congo have a two term restrictions for president election. I remember on other day I was researching President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo it said for Joseph Kabila the term length is five years renewable once, for Denis sassou Nguesso it just said seven years. Will they still be eligible to re-elect as president at next term?--107.202.105.233 (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Two terms only in Rwanda. Rwandan constitution Article 101. --jpgordon 06:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

With regards to the DRC, Article 70 of the constitution states clearly that the President is elected for a five-year mandate which can be renewed only once. . For the other Congo, the presidential mandate is seven years and only two mandates are allowed; moreover a candidate cannot be over 70 (Sassou Nguesso is now 71). . In both cases the constitution would need to either be changed or ignored for them to run again. --Xuxl (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"Rescuing" a pirate

In the Pirates of Penzance, Frederick appeals to the maidens "to rescue him from his unfortunate position" by marrying him. Obviously, a "fallen woman" could be "rescued" that way, she automatically became respectable in that case. I always took this to be the intended joke - gender reversal. I do wonder if indeed it was somehow possible in Victorian times to improve a disreputable man's standing by a respectable marriage in the same fashion, or would the audience of G&S find this to be an obvious intended nonsense. Any thoughts? --Ornil (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd think it's always possible. Not automatically, but impress the right influential father, and he'll vouch for you. The more despicable you've been, the higher you'll need to go, but the higher you go, the less impressive your despicable acts become. Only the lowest of the low reach the very top, but you wouldn't know it to hear it from their friends.

But yeah, in this case, seems to be for laughs. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

It's apparently been prevalent throughout history. That paper starts with a Renaissance case. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that's true, but it was a rare enough thing. I am trying to figure it out if it was intended to be taken as a joke. --Ornil (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I never took it as a joke, nor to have anything to do with his social standing per se. Frederic's "unfortunate position" is his lack of beautiful young female companionship. His piratehood doesn't have much to do with that except that it's what he's begging to be forgiven for. --Trovatore (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No small part of his "unfortunate position" is that he was apprenticed as a pirate for what he thought was seven years - but because the contract read seven birthdays, and he was born onf February 29, he's apparently stuck with this role for 28 years. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

21 birthdays! "That birthday will not be reached by me till 1940". This enables us to date the setting of the operetta quite precisely to 28 February or 1 March 1873 (Frederick's birth date being 29 February 1852) - not the best time of year to paddle in the sea in Cornwall, but it is fictional. Tevildo (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Worse than I remembered. And definitely an "unfortunate position." It's interesting to ponder how far away the year 1940 must have seemed to an audience of the 1870s. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Pirates of Penzance was introduced late in 1879. If his 84 years were to end in 1940, that would imply an 1856 birthdate and a setting of 1877. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

1900 wasn't a leap year. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

D'oh! You're right. In any case, it should be clear what Fred's "unfortunate position" was. Of course he found a way out of it, or rather someone else found it. But that would be a "spoiler". :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

But was this commonly remembered decades beforehand? I remember reading at least one work in which this was a key plot device. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think G&S worried about the fine details. After all, they wrote an entire work called "The Yeomen of the Guard" which was actually about The Yeoman Warders of the Tower, an (almost) entirely different body. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Trovatore, it can't be about his being single, because where's the "moral beauty" or "sense of duty" in rescuing someone from that? He strongly implies that it would be a sacrifice to marry him, but one that is ethically uplifting. Ornil (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The sacrifice would be she would have to wait until he's 88 years old. And she says she's willing to wait. So the guy must be some catch! ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

At the time Frederic sings this, he still thinks he has already been released from his indentures, so there's no "waiting till 1940" implied at this time. But I think Ornil is being a little too "picky" for G&S exegesis. Frederic is in a bad way because he's been on a ship since he was a baby, with no girls or women around except Ruth, and all of a sudden he's exposed to Mabel and her "sisters". He phrases his desire for them as duty and sacrifice (on their part) because he thinks of everything in terms of duty (the full title is The Pirates of Penzance, or, the Slave of Duty). I really don't think it has anything to do with them elevating his social status. --Trovatore (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he sees it as about social status, but about moral one. My take on it that he thinks marrying a respectable woman makes him redeemed morally, in the same way as I mentioned in the original post. --Ornil (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, consider Mabel's answer to her sisters. She mentions that "he has strayed", and her love will help with his "peace of mind". I think it's clearly the case that she is rescuing him from a moral predicament, at least ostensibly. Of course her sisters suggest a different motive. But none of them say that Frederick is crazy for framing it in terms of duty - they all accept that as a valid thing for him to say. Of course everyone in this story leaves in an intentionally crazy upside-down world, and I think in it duty is hugely important for everyone, not just Frederick. Though pirates clearly care even more about poetry and Queen Victoria:). --Ornil (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, consider the stanzas of his plea. In the first one, he is being modest, suggesting that he's not worthy etc etc (O is there not one maiden breast/that does not feel the moral beauty/of making worldly interest/subordinate to sense of duty). When that doesn't work, in his next stanza, he gets a little mean (O is there not one maiden here/whose homely face and bad complexion/has caused all hope to disappear/of ever winning man's affection). --Trovatore (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Come on, that's not mean, that's just super-naive. That would be a totally plausible bargain, and it must have happened a lot too, it's just not something you could say aloud. But he has no way of knowing that in his circumstances. Ornil (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hakaristi

Does the Finnish Army still use the Hakaristi symbol? 49.226.54.98 (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Western use of the swastika in the early 20th_century#Finland the hakaristi (swastika) is still used by the Finnish air force and the Utti Jaeger Regiment, and still appears on Finnish medals. Yes, I was surprised too. --Antiquary (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not used in the roundel (as it was until the end of WW2), but it's used in certain air force flags, and in an attenuated form on the Finnish presidential flag)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Deaths/Punishments of Prophets/False Prophets, Apostles, Messengers, Oracles, Gods, Goddess, Demigods, Messiahs/False Messiahs…

Hello!

Does anyone know any stories similar to the death of the Pharoah III whose death was exemplified by God? Or punishments? Names with a short definition would be helpful, or only names would be fine.

Regards.

(Russell.mo (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC))

Could you be a little more specific? Who is "Pharoah III"? - Lindert (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Book of Exodus does not state that the pharaoh dies, but only that his first-born son is killed during the tenth plague of Egypt (Exodus 12:29), if that is what the OP is referring to. WP:WHAAOE: Pharaohs in the Bible. --Xuxl (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect "Pharoah III" would refer to Ramesses III, maybe confusing him with Ramesses II, the alleged pharaoh of the biblical exodus and one of the main characters in Ridley Scott's recent Exodus: Gods and Kings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: Yes, I meant Ramesses II. Apologies. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC))

The latest version of the heavenly book does apparently, i.e. the Qur'an. I'm talking about the one who was mummified. I read in one[REDACTED] article where it was stated "Pharoah III", as a link, I thought that's what he is called. I can't recall his real name. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

With regard to stories of the sort suggested by this thread's heading, you might find the article Simon Magus of interest. Deor (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what I'm writing peeps:

"Some of God’s descendants/incarnations became celestial during living their test of life after passing the first phase (when their time came) then continued with their second phase; some of their destiny was told to others before they were born and or to themselves after they were born, e.g., Jesus (Isa), Muhammad, Zoroaster, Oedipus, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Samson, John the Baptist, Prometheus, Perseus, and some of their destiny was exemplified by God, e.g., Pharaoh (Fir’awn) and many more."

I have a rough idea of most of their story, and I'm assuming only one of them posses a death/punishment sentence i.e. mummification. I require names of people with death/punishments now as most of the embolden ones I have are about their fortune foretold before or after they were born, to themselves or to their heirs.

(Russell.mo (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for - people that were bodily resurrected after dying? Would Lazarrus be an example? Or people to who are the subject of prophecies? Then take a look at List of oracular statements from Delphi. Croesus is a fine example. Basically all Pharaos were mummified - it was one of the defining parts of ancient Egypt's culture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well that's new to me; everyone's mummified!?!

I heard a story of a Pharoah who died because he tried to claim heaven on Earth, what he said he created to his followers. He died right before he tried to step on the door of the so called heaven he made on Earth, and this was his punishment by God for providing false belief to his followers, as no one can create Heaven but God... This is apparently in the Qur'an. I'm thinking now that this could be the reason why mummification started for claiming to be God... I'm looking for similar kind of stories (definitions) with names who were punished by God or died due to some kind of stupidity. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

Ancient Egyptians believed that the quality of life (or death?) in the afterlife depended on the preservation of the body, on the quality and preservation of symbolic grave goods, and on continued religious services. Thus, everybody tried to have their corpse preserved as well as possible, and the more power and influence one had, the better the mummification process. See Mummy and Ancient Egyptian burial customs. For your list, take a look at Loki from the Norse mythology. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• The false messiah Shabtai Tzvi was held in a birdcage by the Sultan until he converted to Islam. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: I've inserted him in other section long time ago... Thanks anyways. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC))

I'll have a read through peeps, thank you all. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

WW2 Eastern Front Morale

In the film The Great Escape, one of the Germans mentions that going to the Eastern Front is a reproachable fate, and that as a punishment soldiers were sent there. This doesn't wash with me because surely the Germans would want their soldiers to feel good about going to the Eastern Front in order to boost their morale. To what extent is this true? Thanks, 49.226.54.98 (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The soldiers weren't stupid: they knew the Western Front was relatively quiet, with most duties in occupied territories not being particularly dangerous (until the D-Day landing, that is) and living conditions quite comfortable. On the other hand, the Eastern front was the site of furious combat, often in very difficult climatic conditions (see Battle of Stalingrad, e.g.) --Xuxl (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you couldn't really put out an appeal for civilians to donate winter clothing only months after the campaign had started and then pretend that everything was going well. "Here the German population could get a first really clear picture that things had gone drastically wrong". A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II by Gerhard L. Weinberg (p. 294). Even after D-Day, it was preferable to be captured by the Western Allies than by the Soviets. Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The OP might be interested by the works of Sven Hassel. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

All the books of whom were ghost written by his wife, except for the first one. She had no first hand experience of fighting in a penal unit. In the book 'Monte Cassino', she even mentions an attack on the German positions by a Japanese regiment in the American army, brandishing samurai swords, which is completely ridiculous. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Aside from their own risk of being killed in action, the genocide was also quite out in the open on the Eastern front, unlike elsewhere where Jews and "undesirables" merely appeared to be deported to labor camps. This would have two negative effects on morale:

1) Those who felt that genocide was morally wrong would have lower morale for this reason.

2) Those who felt they would be treated brutally, in return, should they fall into the hands of their enemies, would have low morale for that reason, especially later on when it became quite clear they were losing and would eventually be forced to surrender. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As Alansplodge notes, falling into the hands of the Russians was far worse than falling into the hands of the Western Allies. As the war was ending, large numbers of Germans fled from the Red Army to the West; look at the Niall Ferguson quote in the German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union article. They presumably weren't aware that Article 58 was used to punish Soviet soldiers who escaped and returned to Soviet lines, but it was still well known that one would not be treated well as a prisoner of the USSR. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Because the Germans' behavior on the Eastern Front was atrocious. In France or Belgium, they did not burn thousands of villages with all their inhabitants alive, like they did in Belarus and Russia. The film Come and See gives some idea of what was going on there. Besides, the Soviet POWs were treated were differently from the westerners. They were sent for extermination to Auschwitz, Buchenwald, etc. rather than to the stalag lufts (as Stalin did not care to ratify the Geneva Conventions). Of course the Soviet soldiers were enormously bent on revenge. --Ghirla 09:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Alteration of winter solstice content.

I recently visited your site to gather information about winter solstice practices documented from earliest human experience, i noticed that the information has changed and some information completely deleted, the particular aspect in question is the ancient greek festival under the the former heading of lanaea, is there some page where this information is still stored or has it been deleted completely and if so, why? I would have thought any and all aspects of human experience that teach, guide and enlighten those who wish to learn of ancient practices be granted such information, but to alter/delete any information would be seen as showing a bias against the areas of experience said information is pertinant too, thus[REDACTED] fails to provide the truth of the content it allows to be accessed by visitors to its website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.202.69 (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not delete old versions of articles, except in rare cases, e.g. if it includes highly offensive or libellous material. You can still view an old revision of an article by clicking on the "View History" tab at the top of the page. When editors make changes to an article, sometimes they remove material. There are many reasons for this (e.g. because the material is unverifiable or not relevant), but fundamentally, the reason is that the editors thought that removing it would improve the article. If you disagree with a change to an article, you can edit the page yourself, in order to improve it, but make sure that you follow Misplaced Pages's policies for editing. You can also leave a comment at the article's "Talk" page (click the "Talk"-tab). - Lindert (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The information was removed by editor:Crumpled Fire just over a year ago with the explanation that the article is about the solstice, not about related festivals. Here is the information removed:

Influenced by the Ancient Greek Lenaia festival, Brumalia was an ancient Roman solstice festival honoring Bacchus, generally held for a month and ending December 25. The festival included drinking and merriment. The name is derived from the Latin word bruma, meaning "shortest day" or "winter solstice". The festivities almost always occurred on the night of December 24.

You can find fuller accounts at the articles Brumalia and Lenaia. Dbfirs 13:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

January 7

Why did Roosevelt support Taft in 1908?

Why did President Roosevelt, a progressive, support a conservative like Taft in 1908 for president? Wasn't it obvious for TR before the election that Taft would not continue progressive reforms after the election? Or was their friendship the only reason? --62.153.225.50 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Roosevelt had expected Taft to follow his lead, and when he didn't he formed the Bull Moose Party ticket to run against him. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't quite that simple. To say that Taft wasn't progressive isn't exactly right. Taft had many progressive issues: he was public supporter of the reforms of Booker T. Washington, he carried on Roosevelt's Trust busting programs, etc. Part of the issue was the influence of OTHER more conservative Republicans in his cabinet, which wielded some power and pushed the administration in directions that Taft lacked the political willpower or skill to stop. Personally, he was as progressive in his political viewpoints as Roosevelt. But he didn't have the political skill of Roosevelt, and when the conservative wing under people like Philander C. Knox and Nelson W. Aldrich began to assert their control over policy, Taft basically let them. It wasn't his personal views (which were close to Roosevelt's, which is why he was Roosevelt's protege and chosen successor) it was his political skill that led him to be abandoned by Roosevelt and the progressive Republicans. It is important to note that Taft wasn't a politician per se. He was a jurist first, and knew more about running a courtroom than running an administration. Those failings and lack of political skill are why he was driven out of the Presidency after only 1 term, but also later named to the Supreme Court. He was still a very well respected jurist, and knew the law more than he knew politics. He's the only person to have very served in both realms, and was far more successful (and respected) as a Supreme Court justice than as President. --Jayron32 00:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It counts entirely as OR, but my 11th grade US History II teacher in high school spent a good three months on McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft (I wrote my senior thesis on Wilson's responsibility for WWII) and he kept emphasizing Roosevelt's growing resentment for Taft, whom Roosevelt saw as a rebellious protege, for Roosevelt's attempt at a third term. I don't disagree with Jayron's facts, if I would place the emphasis differently. Glenn Beck spent quite some time on these presidencies when he was on Fox. The material was available on YouTube but was taken down at some point. I am not sure if it's available there or elsewhere now, but it was pretty accurate and comprehensive. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of Tafts political problem was that he didn't hold necessarily strong convictions. He tended to be easily swayed by those around him: When he kept company with Roosevelt, he was an ardent progressive. When he was around Knox, he became an ardent conservative. Which isn't to say his beliefs (in either direction) weren't earnest, or that he deliberately changed his opinion for his own political gain. He just seemed to have that personality that tended to find earnest agreement with whoever had his ear. Once Roosevelt didn't have that ear, he found he couldn't count on him anymore, and cut him loose. He wasn't a terrible person (and as noted in many biographies, was a damned good judge). He just wasn't a great president. --Jayron32 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The recent PBS series on the Roosevelts squares pretty well with Jayron's description. Something to consider: If TR had won the presidency in 1912, we probably would have gone to war in Europe even sooner. He was constantly badgering Wilson for not doing anything, even calling him "yellow" i.e. cowardly. (Politicians weren't especially polite in those days.) Fittingly, perhaps, Teddy's taste for war soured after one of his own sons died in combat.

My university history teacher talked about how Taft really didn't like being president. He was never small, but he gained dozens more pounds while in office, an obvious example of relying on "comfort food" in times of stress. He lost most of that extra poundage after he was out of office and then began serving on the Supreme Court. And I do recall the teacher opining that Taft wasn't really that far out of sync with TR philosophically, but he lacked the iron will that TR used to keep the cabinet grunts in line. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Taft needed a great deal of support, or else the platform on which he stood was likely to collapse. StuRat (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Kabbalah or Qabalah

Which one is correct? Kabbalah or Qabalah. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

Read the article Kabbalah or even Cabala - it seems it depends on context. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The word originates in Hebrew, which uses a different writing system to the one we use. To write it in English, you have to use the letters of the Latin alphabet as used in English to approximate the sound of the Hebrew word, and that can be done in different ways. See Romanization of Hebrew. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Russell.mo -- Which one is correct, "Koran" or "Quran"? (Not to mention "Cabbala" and "Coran".) The problem is the same in both cases... AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The pronunciation of Kabbalah is closer to the original than Qabalah, so I would suggest you use the K spelling. Ariel. (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? What does that even mean? It's not clear that English has a usual sound associated with the bare letter "q", but to the extent there is one, it's /k/, so no difference on that basis between the two spellings.

You're probably mapping the letter "q" to the /kw/ cluster, but that's an error. English doesn't associate the letter "q" to that sound. It associates the digraph "qu" to that sound. --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• It comes down to the problem that there is no single standard of transliteration or transcription from many non-latin-alphabet languages into English. You run into the same problem with Cyrillic names (-ski / -sky or -ov / -off / -of, etc.), the spelling of tsar / czar, or the various ways Muammar Gaddafi's name has been spelled, or really transliterations from many other writing systems. The Quran/Koran issue noted above as well. When we borrow a word from a language which uses the same alphabet we do in English, it is quite common to take it as-is, or perhaps drop a few diacritical marks from the original at most. When taking a word writing in another script into English, the process of transliteration can be tricky, and there isn't often an agreed upon standard. So the answer to the correct official, single spelling for Kabbalah is "good luck with that". Kabbalah seems to be the most common, but many other spellings are also accepted to varying degrees. None are "more correct", as there isn't any universal standard. --Jayron32 00:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am very confused by these answers. Unless my blindness has progressed, the Hebrew word starts with the letter qoph. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

lol. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC))

• It certainly does. It doesn't mean that the transcription/transliteration of the term which starts with the English letter "Q" is universally accepted. The existence of that fact does not force the behavior of thousands of writers to simultaneously agree. --Jayron32 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, spelling the name of the Hebrew letter as qoph is itself a Romanisation of Hebrew. But think of it this way. In the Latin alphabet, the letter c can stand for a number of different sounds - in English /k/ and /s/, in Italian /k/ and /ch/, in Castilian Spanish /k/ and /th/, for example. If you're going to try and render a word with a c in it into Hebrew, do you simply decide to map one Hebrew letter to it and explain that this letter can have a variety of sound values depending on language and context, or do you choose the Hebrew letter that most closely corresponds to the sound the letter stands for in the particular word? --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I have to use 'kabbalah' since this word is universally known... I also thought 'Koran' was a modified version of 'Qur'an'. The actual book. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

Since Arabic doesn't have any of those Roman alphabet letters, that just doesn't make sense. --jpgordon 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

lol. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC))

• Aren't /q/ and /k/ separate phonemes in classical Hebrew and Arabic? (For those unfamiliar, the /q/ sound is further back in the throat, in the same way that English "k" is further back than "ch", with /q/ even further back than "k". English, at least, has a habit of respecting original spellings based on sound distinctions (hors d'oeuvres) even if we don't have the relevant sound or distinction in English. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they're distinct phonemes in classical Hebrew and Arabic (though not in Modern Hebrew, for most speakers). And for purposes where this matters, there are transliterations which preserve the difference. But for many English speakers who simply want to refer to the foreign item, name, or concept, they will never encounter the distinction in practice, so little is served by making the distinction, and so they often don't bother to do so. What English does with words from other languages which use Roman script, is not relevant. --ColinFine (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if this helps. There is no real equivalent in Hebrew to the "q" sound we're familiar with in English. Like there is no "th". But there are approximations. When I hear Israelis talk about The Queen, I typically hear them say "Ze Kveen". The Q/K may be a closer approximation than the Th/Z, but it is still an approximation. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Dweller -- You're talking about approximating a sequence with a sequence, but in modern Arabic and earlier Hebrew ق ק is/was a completely separate (and phonemically distinct) consonant sound from ك כ. In "standard" modern Arabic, qaf tends to be a voiceless uvular stop, but that's not necessarily the same sound the consonant would have had in old Hebrew. If the Semitic k-q contrast is connected with the early Semitic opposition between "unemphatic" and "emphatic" consonants, then it's possible that qoph in old Hebrew would have been a glottalized (ejective) voiceless velar stop... AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And if the queen was a horse, a blanket would still be a blanket. There's no need for confusing ifs and buts here. The fact is that way people pronounce qoph is similar to both q and k, hence the confusion. --Dweller (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That's nice -- nothing in your comment of "12:46, 9 January 2015" had any relevance to the question of how ק was pronounced in old Hebrew (back when it was not simply pronounced , as it is today in just about every tradition except the Yemeni)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

God, Animal, Fruit and a Baby

"This animal story is similar to what is found in Germanic paganism, a prayer to the bigger god Odin is mentioned in stanzas chapter 2 of the ‘Völsunga saga’ where King Rerir prays for a child. His prayer is answered by Frigg, wife of Odin, who sends him an apple, which is dropped on his lap by Frigg's servant in the form of a crow while Rerir is sitting on a mound. Rerir's wife eats the apple and is then pregnant with the hero Völsung." This story dates back to ______ and is from the Norse _____________ (Mythology/Religion), similar stories can be found in ________________________________ which dates back to ________________________________ , e.g., ________________________________.

Can someone help me fill up the blanks please? I'm looking for similar stories quoted above regarding God, animal, fruit and baby. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

The Völsunga saga was written down in the 13th century from oral material going back to the 5th century. See Rerir for the story you mention. Off the top of my head, two other folktales where eating a fruit results in a child are the Italian Pome and Peel and the Hindu story of Jarasandha, whose father cut the fruit in two with unexpected results. However, neither involves a bird. Taknaran (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll read through thanks. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

@Taknaran: Hello! Any idea when Jarasandha birth or story occurred? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

I don't think anybody does, but check out our articles Mahabharata and Magadha to get some context. Material in the latter implies that it would have been somewhere between 1200 BC and 600 BC, unless entirely fictional. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

What does "damsel dark" signify in "There is a Tavern Town"?

I ran across the origin for the children's song "Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes", the late 19th century folk tune "There is a Tavern in the Town". Despite being pretty upbeat, it's apparently about longing and hopeless love.

Lyrics are pretty straightforward folk "bluesy", but there is a term that puzzles me:

"He left me for a damsel dark, damsel dark, Each Friday night they used to spark, used to spark, And now my love who once was true to me Takes this dark damsel on his knee."

What does a "damsel dark/dark damsel" mean in this case?

Peter 16:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but this google ngram confirms that "dark damsel" peaked in usage during the late 19th century . I'd be tempted to think it just means a young lady of dark complexion and/or hair, similar to the phrase "tall, dark and handsome" for men. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Ngram tip. So basically a concept of a female "sheik" for straight men?

Peter 17:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The word dark did not necessarily imply any ethnic difference or even dark skin. It could also mean "having dark hair" or "having a morally problematic or troubled background". There is some ambiguity to the lyrics. Marco polo (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Just think about the The Dark Knight (film)--Noopolo (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There's also the prohibition, for example, from the Mishnah Torah, against going out alone after dark: Similarly, he should not go out alone at night, unless he has a set time to go out for his studies. All of these (restrictions are instituted) because of (possible) suspicion (of immorality). -- 18:45, 7 January 2015 Medeis

You're all over thinking this. It means a girl with dark hair - perhaps a Gypsy. Gypsies were a favourite in 18th and 19th century folk songs see The Gypsy Maiden, The Whistling Gypsy and many more. That's it. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it means a girl with dark hair. Also, dark is rhymed with spark. If it had been a damsel fair, a different rhyme would have been needed. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

But it would have had the advantage of fewer allegorical interpretations :-) Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what I said, isn't it? Dark(er) hair and/or dark(er) complexion. A Romani girl is a decent guess. It is my understanding that variations in we would now group as "white" skin tone used to be more worthy of comment, and certainly some Romani have darker skin than some people of the people of Trinity College. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please accept my apologies. I was rather taken aback by the Batman analogy. Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Much oblige for the input, everyone.

Peter 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There is obvious significance in "dark". The speaker is expressing a mood of dejection. Certainly the interpretation of dark hair is an open possibility. But it is also understandable that animosity is felt toward a rival. "Damsel dark" aptly conveys a feeling of dread toward a "damsel" regardless of hair color. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

January 8

Why is marijuana illegal?

So many areas have such tight restrictions on this but I can't figure out why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.211.178 (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Where? Australia is not the only country in the world, you know. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Legality of cannabis by country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.211.178 (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In the US, it seemed to become illegal because of racism, since marijuana was primarily popular with Hispanics initially. If it had been widely used by the majority of Americans, it either wouldn't have been made illegal in the first place, or those laws would have been quickly repealed, as in the prohibition on alcohol. Once it was illegal for several decades, you then get a type of circular logic: "Marijuana is illegal, therefore those who use it are criminals, and we certainly don't want to legalize it and let criminals go unpunished for their crimes". StuRat (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As opposed to Prohibition, which had potential to turn anyone into a criminal without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

They're trying to build a prison. There are only so many beds they can fill using traditional criminals. Now that they own the world, how do they own disorder? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:23, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

Religious objections to cannabis from Egypt and Turkey during a 1925 conference played a large part. This is quite a good summary for the UK. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Marijuana is illegal for the same reason heroin is illegal and LSD is illegal and cocaine is illegal. Because it is a drug. Akseli9 (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's not terribly good for you. Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Or terribly bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

This may take the prize for least helpful answer ever. Under any non-arbitrary definition there are many legal chemical compounds and mixtures that can reasonably considered to be drugs. Caffeine and theobromine, for example, have all sorts of interesting pharmacological effects, but right now I'm sitting with here with a half-consumed cup of coffee and an empty chocolate wrapper, and I am not expecting to get into trouble for feeding my addictions. Tomorrow morning I may have to take an aspirin to deal with the hangover I shall incur drinking alcohol at a party I'm attending tonight. Not all drugs are illegal. RomanSpa (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a word in English for "illegal drugs that are not good for you as opposed to all other legal or medical drugs"? What is the English translation for the French "drogue"? Do I have to use the word "dope" in order not to win any prize for least helpful answer? Thanks in advance for your help. Akseli9 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with your answer is that it is circular logic - you in effect said this substance is illegal because it is illegal, like LSD or cocaine. "Drug" in USA English is used for both illegal drugs and pharmaceutical drugs. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What word should we use, please, in order to get back on topic and have an answer to the original question, thanks-in-advance? Akseli9 (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no single word in English. The best I can do would be "controlled substance" or "illegal drug". But note that these only refer to the legality, and not to the putative harmful nature of the substance. As RomanSpa points out, many substances are legal and harmful. I would also contend that many illegal substances are less harmful than certain legal substances. Indeed, LSD is very safe from a purely pharmacological perspective, though indeed someone could harm themselves while under the influence, much like with alcohol. Unlike alcohol, long term use of LSD is not highly damaging to the body (e.g. liver, heart, many other negative complications described here ) and unlike alcohol, LSD is not addictive, and has no withdrawal symptoms. Heck even tylenol can cause massive problems in the body with long term use, and we sell that to minors without any regulation or limit. So we really shouldn't conflate legality with safety or illegality with harm. The history of what's legal and what's not in the USA is not really about public health - it's usually more informed by corporate interests, racism, and fear of youth subculture. I can't speak much about other nations but perhaps it's worth pointing out that Portugal has decriminalized most drugs 10 years ago, and has experienced many positive benefits of that approach, see Drug_policy_of_Portugal and here . SemanticMantis (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the laws about cannabis in the USA are very different in history and rationale than those regarding LSD and cocaine. See Controlled_Substances_Act and the DEA page here for information on drug schedules. LSD didn't have the historical component of racial discrimination the way marijuana did, as Stu has mentioned. Here are a few links that support that claim . Additionally, the cotton lobby in the USA was very concerned about protecting their market, and feared competition from hemp fiber. LSD has no known lethal dose, it is one of the safest drugs known from a personal and public safety perspective. Cocaine is more of a mixed bag. There are indeed many public and personal safety risks, but the laws describing sentencing from crack cocaine compared to white powder are also quite racist in effect. I'll also note that the inclusion of LSD and marijuana as schedule 1 drugs is highly criticized by medical scientists - these categories were made by politicians, not doctors or public health officials. There are many known medical benefits of marijuana, and LSD does not have high potential for abuse/addiction. That's a bit off topic but I wanted to state clearly that your answer is wrong. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

When America imposed Prohibition, which race were they discriminating against? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

More or less anyone who wasn't a white middle-class Protestant. Do a little research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of who was pushing for it. It was, to some extent, a battle between Protestant and Catholic. It also gained momentum on the theory that banning alcohol might reduce the amount of wife-beating in America. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A number of studies indicate that marijuana is less harmful to a person's health than alcohol or tobacco. Alcohol, however, is heavily consumed by much of the socioeconomic elite in the United States, and their control over the political process makes it hard to conceive of a ban today. Tobacco was heavily consumed by the elite until recent decades, since when there have been moves to limit its consumption in the United States, but the power of the tobacco industry lobby has prevented an outright ban so far. Marijuana, on the other hand, has only made inroads into elite society recently. While the people have been able to function reasonably well in the workplace while consuming tobacco or alcohol at moderate levels daily, I believe there is a general recognition that frequent consumption of cannabis damages productivity. The elite do not want their employees showing up for work stoned. Marco polo (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Less harmful" than booze or tobacco is hardly a ringing endorsement. Ingesting smoke of any kind into your lungs just doesn't sound like a good idea. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well sure, people shouldn't show up for work stoned, but they shouldn't show up for work drunk either. As for the belief that frequent use of cannabis damages productivity (WP:OR) tell that to the many pot-smoking PhDs I know in math and biology, several of whom smoked all through their degree programs. You can see why I can't cite a ref for that claim, but on the topic of science and drugs, I'll take this opportunity to mention that, according to its creator, we wouldn't have PCR without LSD, as related in Kary_Mullis#Use_of_LSD ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• This article (don't know how reliable) gives several contemporary reasons. Supposedly DuPont and Standard Oil lobbied against it early on in the 1900's because its fiber and oil competed with their products. I haven't found a source for that yet but I've heard it repeated quite often. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

These claims mostly check out, here's an article that makes similar points . For the WP coverage: Andrew Mellon was a treasury secretary and good buddy to DuPont, and his nephew Anslinger became the first head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (after his big success with alcohol prohibition). Anslinger was one of the biggest liars about marijuana in history, as described in our page on him: Harry_J._Anslinger#The_campaign_against_marijuana_1930.E2.80.931937. Also described there are the accusations that he was a racist/that he leveraged racism to promote fear of the plant. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In Canada, little was known about marijuana though Emily Murphy's book, The Black Candle, tied it to opium and contained outrageous quotes from foreign experts stating that all weed users eventually either murder others or kill themselves. So when opium was banned so was marijuana. 76.68.49.155 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a TED talk that is titled 'Why is Marijuana Illegal?' I haven't listened to the whole thing yet but it seems fairly reliable and mentions several of the concepts discussed above . SemanticMantis (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

For anyone's amusement, here's a clip from International House, a film made before the Hays Office was in full control of movie content. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're actually interested in an answer, and don't subscribe to the belief prevalent among people today that the only people against drug use are uptight conservative killjoys, then you might find the essay below more enlightening than the above empty-headed arguments that e.g. drugs are really okay simply because the arguers, who are evidently omniscient and have devoted their lives to the serious study of social phenomena, see no harmful effects from them. (I also found the "it's mainly because of racism and cause they don't like youth subculture" argument particularly laughable. No offense dude, but if you seriously believe that you're either an adolescent or you're high on something.)

http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html

But knowing most people today, I doubt you really are.

70.185.254.48 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You seemed to miss the point of most of the discussion above, that while marijuana does cause some harm, it's less than many legal drugs, like alcohol and tobacco, at least in terms of number of deaths. So, the question is an obvious one, why do we ban the less harmful drug, and not the more harmful ones ? Then there could also be the Libertarian argument, that it's none of the government's business if people want to use drugs that harm themselves. The counter-argument to that is that they also harm others. But, again, drunk drivers and secondhand smoke seem to cause more harm than marijuana. StuRat (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you'd taken the time to actually read the essay I linked, you'd have seen that seen that the questions you and other people have raised are already addressed there, and therefore I'd have no need to repeat them. But since you insist that ten minutes of reading is too strenuous an exertion for your mind to handle, I'll go ahead and repeat a short version of the answers to the points you put up:

1. There's a huge difference between banning a substance that has been in widespread and customary use for centuries (in the case of tobacco) or millennia (alchohol), and legalizing substances which were previously not legal and NOT in widespread use. (Supporters of legalization will likely argue that e.g marijuana is widely consumed, but that's not correct. Although its use among young people and adults is certainly becoming more widespread, its prevalence is nowhere near on the scale of the consumption of alcohol, which in Western countries is often drunk with meals, as well as on nearly every social occasion. This argument is merely another example of their sloppy, unrigorous reasoning.)

2. Your "libertarian argument" was addressed at the very beginning of the essay, if you'd taken the time to actually read it. People are not islands, we live in a community, and whether we choose to accept it or not, our actions and choices affect others around us. That's why we have things called laws that govern how we act. Sometimes our laws limit our freedoms for the sake of the greater good. Wanting to legalize illicit drugs which cause widespread social problems merely because there are substances whose consumption causes widespread social problems but which happen to be legal, is NOT a rational argument.

Have a good one.70.185.254.48 (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the legal troubles, what widespread social problem did pot cause? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oh wait, "It impairs their ability to pursue more important human aims, such as raising a family and fulfilling civic obligations." That's some They Live shit right there. Luckily, the word "marijuana" is nowhere at all in that essay (and "pot" is only in "hypothetical" and "potential". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Drugs limit their consumer's consciousness. They restrict their level of activity, range of interests, and leave them mainly preoccupied with how to get more of the drug. They impair their taker's judgement and have significant negative effects on physical and psychological well-being, including cancers, memory loss, and impaired mental function. Marijuana isn't directly mentioned, but it's clearly implicitly considered as falling under "drugs which exhibit a tranquilizing effect". And yes, having a family and being an active member of society are important goals for people to have, shocking as it may seem to you.

I'm also not surprised you'd mention an adolescent movie like "They Live" which, through e.g. bank signs which secretly convey hidden messages like "Obey", express the view that all signs of rules and order are actually conformist, stifling, and totalitarian. Your own thinking is lazy, shortsighted, and adolescent, and it's clear you understood very little - if any - of the essay.

There's a spectrum of tranquility, and weed is nowhere near heroin or ketamine on it. Far more of a psychoactive drug than a tranquilizer, and these have long been associated with higher consciousness, not limited. I read enough of that essay to realize it wasn't about pot, and if you smoked, you would have, too. We just have different views of life, and barring a long and meaningful alley fight, there'll be no unconvincing either of us. We probably agree on a lot of other things, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments are basically splitting hairs. Of course, I understand that drugs like marijuana give sensations that make a user say "wow", which someone could consider an "expanded consciousness" in a very superficial sense, but they limit a person's consciousness in a meaningful sense, for the reasons the essay mentions and which I repeated for your benefit above. I don't need to have smoked marijuana to understand that the essay talks about all drugs, including marijuana. Its effects might be mild enough as compared to other drugs for the author not to feel the need to give it direct mention, but I have enough confidence in my reading comprehension skills to be certain that he means all illegal drugs.

Also, contrary to what many postmodernists might say, there are other distinctions in the world besides "different". Your arguments are sloppy, ill-thought, and inexperienced, mine aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.254.48 (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even know I made an argument. I thought I made a correction, suggested you try weed and (maybe) get back to me when you understand the difference, then calmly (or lazily) backed away, offering a puppy. He's cute, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

He's definitely cuter than your responses, but then again I can think of a lot of normally uncute things that would also qualify. Like blobfish.70.185.254.48 (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

1) That's basically an appeal to tradition, which could be used to argue no law should ever be changed, such as the former laws against mixed race marriages.

No it isn't. The pro-legalization argument goes something like: "marijuana is illegal because it's bad, but alcohol is bad too, how come marijuana is illegal when alcohol is legal?". Simply because there's little hope of banning a particular harmful substance (because it's been in customary use for millennia), doesn't mean the logical solution is to legalize all substances that cause negative effects. Ideally, alcohol should be illegal, but since that's next to impossible to achieve the next best thing is to preserve the status quo. That's common sense, tradition or a "desire to never change any law, ever" has nothing to do with it. Neither do mixed-race marriages.70.185.254.48 (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

2) We could also argue that unhealthy food should be illegal, since it increases medical problems and hence medical insurance costs (in the US system). At some point personal freedom has to come into play. Whether keeping marijuana illegal is for the greater good is rather questionable. If you assume that making it illegal stops it's use, then perhaps you would be correct. But instead it's usage continues, only now the money it generates is all criminalized, meaning growers and distributors have to use violence instead of the courts to settle disputes, police are bribed and corrupted, and many people end up in overcrowded jails at taxpayer expense. The same thing happened during the prohibition on alcohol, but we had the sense to repeal that travesty of justice. StuRat (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The last time I checked, junk foods didn't have significant psychoactive effects, unlike marijuana, LSD, cocaine, and heroin. Your argument is invalid. In an ideal world, people would through education (and by education I don't mean classes on what to eat in elementary school, but rather in a general sense of becoming smarter, independent individuals) be able to make smart choices about what kind of foods they consume, but even with the way things are, their harmful effects aren't sufficient for the government to make laws restricting junk foods. That's not the case with drugs.

With regards to it illegality fostering criminality, this point was also addressed in the essay, which you haven't bothered to read. My own view (and one the author expresses in other essays) is that simply outlawing drugs is not sufficient to decrease their allure or levels of consumption, and on its own is not - and can never be - the final solution to the problem. You need to tackle the social conditions that lead people to find taking drugs attractive. In reality, and for reasons I'm not going to bother getting into here, the likelihood of this actually happening is very low.70.185.254.48 (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You do need a widespread consensus on something being illegal if you hope for the law to work. Trying to build a consensus after you've made something illegal isn't likely to work, either. StuRat (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to what you might believe, there was a consensus on their harmful effects when drugs were first made illegal. You're insinuating that drugs were totally accepted in Western society before western governments legislated against them, which is a disingenuous and stupid assertion. That the consensus on their illegality is undoubtedly diminished doesn't mean their physical, psychological, and social effects are any less negative. There are societies where cannibalism and having sex with young boys (see: ancient Greece, the cradle of modern civilization) were totally accepted, but even if those communities found them acceptable that doesn't make those acts any less wrong. In fact today, we see a significant and increasing number of people who get off to child pornography, helped by (no doubt useful) technologies like Tor. But if 40 years from now child pornography becomes more accepted and widespread through more people collecting and children becoming increasingly sexualized, that won't make it any less morally reprehensible than it is today. 70.185.254.48 (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Many drugs were widely accepted before they were made illegal, like cocaine, which was in Coca-Cola (originally sold as a medicine) and opium, which was sold mixed with alcohol as Laudanum. StuRat (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Cocaine wasn't widely accepted or consumed before it was made illegal. Simply because it was an ingredient in the manufacture of Coca Cola in its very first years doesn't prove it was widely consumed. As the page you linked mentions clearly and as you freely admit, Coca Cola was initially meant to be a medicine and not a beverage, nor was it the universally known or widely consumed brand that it is today. Likewise, laudanum was also a medicine that was used to deal with serious diseases like cholera, and its use was advised against except when necessary because it was known to be very addictive. Again, you're making assertions that are inaccurate and disingenuous.70.185.254.48 (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Coca-Cola addiction is still a thing. The odd addict dies rather directly from it. If only it wasn't so damn lucrative, refreshing and wholesome.

Fun Fact: John Pemberton died broke, of stomach cancer, hooked on morphine. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Now you're confusing substance addiction with behavioral addictions like being addicted to sex, gambling, etc. No offense dude, but you're totally clueless.70.185.254.48 (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey @InedibleHulk: @StuRat:, I appreciate the effort you're taking to engage with this IP 70...48 (after all it's me he accused of being very young or very high, and he's saying a lot of things that are not even wrong), but this person has only posted one 'reference' (to an un-sourced opinion piece), and doesn't seem interested in rational or fact-based discussion - he just wants to WP:SOAP. I really don't know why he feels the need to share his opinions about me as a person, but it's not very civil. I will keep my suspicions about the IP to myself, but let's just say after reading through his tired drivel I would use a lot of the words that were used in his original post here :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your putdowns and attempts to portray yourself as having a superior intellect and point of view are about as subtle as a pink elephant trying to sneak into the royal palace of the emperor of Lilliput.70.185.254.48 (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't really read through this thread, but over the years, I've been collecting all the reasons people say/think/speculate as to why cannabis is predominantly illegal. Caveat emptor, as there is very little hard evidence to go on. If someone wants the names of the actual proponents of these theories, drop me a line on my talk page:

1. Social control theory

   Citizens who use cannabis tend to question authority more easily than those who use alcohol. Why this seems to be true isn't exactly known and is difficult to study. Proponents of this theory argue that cannabis users are less easily controlled, giving governments, corporations, and institutions a motive to limit the use and availability of the drug. Paradoxically, people who use too much cannabis seem to lose this independence, so minimal use/dosage appears to play a role. There are many other aspects of the social control theory, such as the so-called Protestant (or Puritan) work ethic, which finds alcohol acceptable (to some extent, probably unwillingly) and cannabis culturally out of place. The social control theory leads directly into the repression of ethnic minorities, immigrants theory

2. Repression of ethnic minorities theory

   Historically, African Americans and Mexicans were for decades the primary victims of harsh cannabis legislation. Jazz musicians were often targeted because they used cannabis on and offstage to allow them to "feel" the space between the notes ("Music is the space between the notes", Claude Debussy). The effects of cannabis and time perception are well known to musicians, who take advantage of the "high" to find different ways of "hearing". Some music scholars have found good evidence of a link between cannabis, Jazz, Rock and Roll, and other music genres of the 20th century, many of which originally began in immigrant communities who used cannabis. The arrests of all of these people leads into the prison industrial complex theory

3. Prison industrial complex theory

   Criminalizing cannabis use led to huge profits for the prison industry, attorneys, and law enforcement. To this day, the DEA has an enormous budget to go after cannabis with, even though its own judges, who they ignore, have recommended legalization. Meanwhile, thousands of people have their property confiscated and their lives ruined, with no hope of ever landing a decent, respectable job due to their criminal record. Since all of these "sick" people need culturally acceptable, Puritan approved drugs to get them off of their immigrant drugs, we need a pharmaceutical-chemical-industrial complex theory

4. Pharmaceutical-chemical-industrial complex theory

   Once widely prescribed by the medical industry, cannabis lost out to newer products which were more profitable. Industry magnates favored replacing cannabis textiles with synthetic versions. To keep other countries in line with this agenda, the United Nations recommends and enforces cannabis prohibition at the highest levels. Other theories claim that cannabis has health benefits which are being suppressed, but it's more likely that these health benefits, if they actually exist, are difficult to prove in a lab. Which brings us to the question, who's in charge of this industry?

5. Organized crime theory

   History shows that organized crime syndicates control major drug distribution. There may be a connection between the rise of cannabis use in the west and the interest of drug traffickers. To protect their profits, drug traffickers favor criminalization. Have you ever heard a drug dealer say they were in favor of legalization? The financial sector depends on a large number of investments from drug traffickers to continue doing business. Legalize drugs, and you're hitting banks the hardest. Since the banking industry influences government legislation, it's unlikely that drug legalization will occur unless there is major banking reform.

That's about it. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What happened in places like Colorado and Washington? Did the banks lose their influence there? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are pretty poor examples of "drug legalization". There are strict limits on the drug, in terms of usage and availability, and the federal government can come in and still make arrests. You may want to do some research before commenting again. If anything, these are state "experiments". Try flying across state lines and buying cannabis and bringing it home. Good luck with that. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course you can't take it home, because most states don't allow it in any form. But it is a good example of the start of a "movement". Some other states have legalized medicinal usage, and that aspect is slowly gaining broader acceptance. In the year 2000 could you have predicted that same-sex marriage would be so widespread by 2015? Don't belittle these "experiments". They are a foot in the door. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I predicted same-sex marriage would be widespread today, back in 1993, and frankly I find it entirely unsurprising. In any case, you're missing the point. 50 percent of federal prisoners are there because of drug laws. In 2005 alone, 800,000 Americans went to jail for cannabis-related offenses. I know that you and others are happy to proclaim a new era for cannabis, but when you look at the facts, nothing much has changed. People are still getting arrested, dispensaries are still being shutdown, and the raids continue. Several states have made it easier to buy, but it's still a major crime in most of the world. The United Nations continues to actively preach the benefits of cannabis criminalization at the highest diplomatic levels, most likely at the behest of the U.S. Same shit, different day. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Then you were ahead of the curve, which is remarkable. The incarceration for illegal drugs seems race-based, but keep in mind that everyone dealing with illegal drugs runs that risk, and they know it. Same-sex relations are also a major crime in much of the world. That's not America's problem. And I don't agree that "nothing much has changed" in America. The fact is that some things have changed, and it's possible (though not guaranteed) that there will eventually be a snowballing effect, as there has been (so far) with the same-sex marriage issue. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

However, marriage can be argued to be a human right, while cannabis consumption really can't. So this means each US state will be allowed to continue making it's own laws, resulting in life imprisonment in red states for things that aren't even crimes in blue states. As for the Feds, I'd have to think they will eventually get the message and stop trying to enforce anti-cannabis laws in states where it's legal. If not, perhaps a Supreme Court ruling is needed to stop them from ignoring the will of the states. StuRat (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It might be. But there's also the libertarian question, namely where is the U.S. government constitutionally authorized to tell me what I can or cannot ingest? The answer is, it isn't, except for the since-repealed Prohibition amendment. Of course we're talking about intoxicants here. I think Drew Carey summarized it best: "I don't think the government has the right to limit the ways I can hurt myself." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In Drew Carey's America, "Ohio law imposes on them a basic duty of mutual respect, fidelity, and support. This means that each has the duty to care, support, and protect the other." There are rights, too, but again, granted by the state. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:55, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

If something crosses a state or national border, then I can see where the Feds might have a Constitutional right to regulate it. Since most drugs must be imported, that would be their way in. However, cannabis can be grown in most US states (probably all, in a greenhouse), so the Federal government's claim that they have the right to regulate it seems very weak. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

StuRat, cannabis advocates have been arguing that cannabis use is inherently a matter of human rights for decades, so I'm going to strongly disagree with you. Look up the concept of cognitive liberty for further information. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

StuRat's remark reminded me how much a definition of Social rights can be a frustrating notion. I checked Social rights and guess what, there find in it a See also link titled Social rights linking to not anything else, but to our Misplaced Pages article linked by with Social rights. --Askedonty (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The race theory was based on the notion of keeping black stuff away from white folks (same with rock-and-roll music). As more and more white folks either want it or lack strong opinions against it or see the incarceration as unjust, more Colorados and Washingtons may emerge. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

How is the world's religious population changing?

Is it growing, shrinking, what religions are seeing the most change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.211.178 (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Growth of religion and Major religious groups are good starting points. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As are Islamophobia, Antisemitism and Antichrist. Anti-Hinduism doesn't have the same global appeal, but India's general population is exploding. Anti-Manichaeism hasn't been cool for a while. We don't have an article on it. More due to Manichaeism itself practically vanishing than an unusually persuasive argument from their pro side. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

The medieval Christian church regarded Manichaeism as a pernicious heresy which had a way of establishing itself in widely-separated regions from southern France to Bulgaria (though I'm not sure what this has to do with the original question). We have an article Growth of religion... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The question was about shrinking as well as growing. Far more recently, Game of Thrones is doing a bit to reignite the flame in the West. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

The population of some religious extremists is exploding, in more ways than one. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

More ways than two, if you count the XXXtremists]. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

One way to think of the question is how the religion is growing, compared to world population growth. E.g. if a religion is growing but more slowly than the population (in world or region), then the religion is effectively shrinking in terms of its market share. See e.g. this table about the Mormon religion The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_membership_history#Table_for_recent_growth. In the USA, Irreligion is very fast growing, see also here , which shows a small but steady decline of religion in the USA as a whole, meaning that the percentage of religious population of the USA is shrinking. Not sure how that would turn out for the whole world but at least it's a start. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Angel article understanding problem

Peeps, the Jewish angelic hierarchy and Hermetic Qabalah, from the Angel article, I’m guessing they are two different sects in Judaism. Am I right?

Also, please view the link (Angel#Individual_angels), what/who are they talking about in the asterisk sentence. i.e. *These are the only two angels to be mentioned by name in the Hebrew Bible; the rest are from extra-biblical tradition.

(Russell.mo (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

The asterisked sentence refers to Michael and Gabriel. You'll see each has an asterisk at the end of his description in the immediately preceding list. RomanSpa (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I noticed it now after you mentioned. Thanks. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC))

Qabalah isn't so much a separate "sect" as a philosophical school of thought. However, like a lot of other, similar, schools of thought, it had to create names for things. This includes creating some names from nothing, as well as using a lot of names or descriptions included in extracanonical literature. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: So what do you suggest, should I define them as one just by mentioning "In Judaism"...? Will people understand it universally. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC))

First, I think if you have access to an "encyclopedia of angels," of which there are at least a few, and check more clearly what they say. Alternately, saying something like "Gabriel and Michael are the only two angels specifically named in the Jewish Bible, but noncanonical works and the Kabalah add several other names" would also work. I think the "several other names" include names for all the seven angels of the throne, although if I remember right there are actually more than 5 other names offered for those other 5 angels. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC))

I'll keep them separate to avoid causing headache for even myself. Thanks regardless. I'm taking your word for it, since there is not much of a difference. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC))

How can you calculate if something has hit bottom?

Is there a min. price for oil, stock, gold, foreign currency that can be calculated and defined as "bottom"? Does economics work with such a definition?--Noopolo (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Classic microeconomics posits that supply and demand can drive pries down to zero (if no demand or infinate supply). Clearly there will not be a race to supply things for less than their production cost. And, indeed, previously valuable assets can become liabilities. One could imagine oil, in an oil-is-banned world, having a negative value (i.e. the cost of disposing of it). IINAE, etc. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tagishsimon here. In general, the minimum price that something costs is at least equal to the amount of gain, but such things as loss leader pricing, Depreciation (economics), and other similar related ideas, as well as the often day-to-day (if not minute-to-minute or second-to-second) changes in the relative valuation of various currencies on the Foreign exchange markets are such that there is probably pretty much nothing that can even be declared as a "bottom" for more than a few seconds. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

But what if the price of something never goes below x in a period of decades? Could we say this is "bottom"? At least, I am not expecting in getting a useful product for 0, so, there will always an x higher than 0. --Noopolo (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If demand for that product collapses, though, the price could even fall below 0, such that the owner would pay you to dispose of it. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Try selling asbestos insulation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You may be confused because in casual speech people say "buy at the bottom of the market" or "the market bottomed out" - this does not mean that the value is a true minimum that cannot be crossed, it is more a statement of the existence of a local minimum. So people who bought houses at the right time in the USA ~2009 might say they "bought at the bottom of the market", meaning that the house prices have only gone up since then. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect, it's possible to identify a point where a price reached a "bottom" before rising, but it is impossible to predict it in advance. Anyone who could do so would quickly become extremely rich. Marco polo (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

what a bizarre two sentences, Marco, since your second sentence seems to justify the first, i.e. that it's 'impossible', because if someone could do so they would quickly become extremely rich. So it's like you're adding, "and obviously that has never happened". but people DO become extremely rich, such as becoming the second-richest person on Earth on investment alone, going from a $12,000 salary to owning (being personally worth) $73.8 billion on investment in a few decades, i.e. at a rate well in excess of $1 billion per year. (if that does not count as quickly becoming extremely rich, including his first million by the time he was 32, also on investment alone, then I don't know what does.) According to Investopedia (and normal reading), he likes to buy at the rock-bottom. On a more everyday level, people become rich through their predictions all the time. (Including normal analysts, who simply predict rock-bottoms that do not produce a billion dollars as they climb, but more mundane sums but which still make them rich.) your argument is therefore kind of a weird way to prove that something is 'impossible'! Maybe amend it to the fact that it is difficult (not impossible) to predict in advance, which is why relatively few people are able to do so and quickly become extremely rich as a result. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You cannot literally predict it, but you can make an educated guess based on experience and study. Guys like Buffett have spent their lives doing this, so their guesses are going to be better than yours or mine. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@212.96.61.236: I think you've misread Marco polo's comments. His first sentence is (with certain special-case exceptions mostly caused by interventions by governmental or regulatory bodies) correct for all kinds of assets. All that he's saying is that asset prices are unpredictable, so that although you can look back and see the local minima in the price time series that have already happened, you can't tell for certain whether you're at a local minimum right now. Apart from a technical exception that is unimportant for this kind of discussion, Marco polo is right that if you could identify market minima at the time you would indeed make a lot of money in a relatively short time. However, note that Marco polo's point is of the form "If A then B". The direction of the reasoning is that presented by Marco polo. He hasn't added "and obviously that has never happened", and in fact says nothing about whether there are or are not extremely rich people.

However, you have also entirely failed to understand how Warren Buffett purports to have made his money. If you read our article on him, you will see that Buffett characterises himself as a practitioner of value investing. That is, he is explicitly not concerned with identifying market tops and bottoms, but buys on the basis of the intrinsic value of the investments in question. (There are various reasons to believe that Buffett is not a pure "value investor", but there is no suggestion that Buffett is attempting to identify market bottoms in the sense that you mean here.)

In fact, the research that has been done on the ability of particular investors to identify "bottoms" for asset prices fairly clearly shows that it can't be done. There is no evidence that even professional stock analysts can consistently identify market (local) minima and maxima. Sometimes a stock analyst will make a sequence of correct guesses, but this is just by chance, and is not evidence of a particular ability to predict future price movements. RomanSpa (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

you'd be a really good match for biblical scholarship. if you want a new career, I'd go for it. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Neglecting some special cases (such as those already mentioned, and some pathological cases involving non-physical assets) it is generally the case that the only definite minimum price for an asset is zero. However, from your question it seems that your particular interest is financial assets. Financial market economists almost always model the prices of assets such as equities, gold and oil as geometric Brownian motions. Such stochastic processes can get as close to zero as you like, but don't ever reach zero. (For more complex financial instruments other, more complicated, models may also be used.)

Discussion of market "tops" and "bottoms" is particularly common among afficionados of technical analysis. Specialists in this kind of market analysis spend a lot of time identifying market bottoms, which they believe represent "buying opportunities" (with "tops" representing "selling opportunities"). Such analysts believe that successive market bottoms take values that are in some kind of mathematical relationship (almost always a straightforward arithmetic progression). I have not seen any adequate papers in support of these claims, though (nor do I expect to). RomanSpa (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "there will not be a race to supply things for less than their production cost", that's inherently true, but a company taking a page from the John D. Rockefeller business plan might temporarily drop the price below cost in order to stifle competition. That's the game OPEC appears to be playing at present. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct that many, if any OPEC members, have yet allowed prices to drop below production cost for themselves. Remember, most OPEC members have oil that's relatively easy to access. Prices may have dropped below production cost of other more difficult to access sources, but of course these generally aren't from OPEC producers (although their state oil companies may have involvement). And even then, there's often a key distinction between production cost, and amount needed to service expensive loans etc, the production cost tends to be a lot lower than people expect. OPEC members my have allowed the price to drop below what they need to balance their budgets , but again that's distinct from production cost. Social services and other things (and oil revenue being a big part of their revenue) are mostly what's contributing to their budget deficiets, not the cost of producing oil. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Tim Cole

Tim Cole is my brother. I was wondering if someone could post a photo of the Statue of my brother that was just dedicated on September 17, 2014 in Lubbock, Tx. I don't know how to do it. There are several images of the bronze statue online but none on the wiki page. There is a photo of the Historical marker on the wiki page but our family would really like to see a photo of the statue as well. The statue is the first of its kind to recognize a wrongful convictions in the United States. Please help if you can.

Thank you, The Tim Cole Family — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.202.193 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Pictures of recently-created statues and other artworks are not allowed on Misplaced Pages due to the lack of something called "Freedom of panorama" under U.S. law. I suspect that if the sculptor himself were to photograph his statue and give up his copyright on it, it might be possible. However, there would be a process to go through first. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

For "give up his copyright", read "allow use of the image to be licensed under one of the licenses relevant to Misplaced Pages content". Roughly this would mean allowing unlimited use of the image without cost so long as proper credit given, but for details the artist should certainly consult the actual policies and licenses. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

For sure. Just fair warning that unless the OP has their fair use ducks in a row, a deletionist will eventually target it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For those interested: the page is Tim Cole. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As the "first of its kind" the statue is clearly notable, and a picture would certainly be appropriate for the article on Tim Cole, so if an appropriate image can be provided as suggested above I think we should certainly include it in the article. RomanSpa (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

God bless your brother. May he rest in peace. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest you get written permission from the artist to use the likeness of his work in Misplaced Pages. Most likely he will agree, since it's more publicity for him, and neither you nor Misplaced Pages stand to profit at his expense. (If somebody wanted to use pics of the statue to sell corn flakes, he might very well refuse.) StuRat (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

January 9

Need help finding a short story

Hi, I'm looking for a short story I read five years ago which is from the late 19th-early 20th century. It's about an Irish union organizer whose name is Mulligan(?), who's job is to organize workers at a port city and (I believe) loses his job. At the end of the story he gets his job back (I think) or resolves whatever problem it was he had, and the only other detail I remember clearly is some kind of port official talking about his case at the end of the story who (incorrectly) mentions the man's name as "Mullarkey". Would really appreciate if someone could help me find this. 70.185.254.48 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

James Joyce? 49.226.162.124 (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like it could be him. The story had a lighthearted, somewhat humorous ending, if that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.254.48 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a 'Rat Mulligan' in The Informer by Liam O'Flaherty. The story is about some Irish revolutionaries and the time of action is 1920's. But it's much longer than a short story. Omidinist (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that's not it at all. This was definitely a short story, and it was about a union organizer.

Organization whose initial is C

According to CIA website about Canada, it says that Canada is a member of an organization called "C". What does it stand for? . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.171 (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting a "404 Not Found" from that link. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There was an extra bit at the end. I've fixed it. Still don't see the relevant part, though. Listed under Government>International Organization Participation. Stands for "Commonwealth", it seems. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

That was my next guess. Is there any standard abbreviation for the British Commonwealth? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless Britain has its own Commonwealth, seems to be "C". There was a Commonwealth of England, a while back. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

The "British Commonwealth" is the former name of the "Commonwealth of Nations". StuRat (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

But not since 1949. Alansplodge (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"C" looks standard for government, anyway. Apparently, business uses "Comm." and military uses "CW". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

No。 It is spelled out in full on pretty much every conceivable occasion. Like 'Olympic' - you almost never see that abbreviated. Matt's talk 03:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Incredible, above, gave the correct answer, but for those not familiar with the CIA World Factbook web site, here's one way to find it within the site. On the page that the original poster cited, every the section title is a link to further details about what it means. So the title "International organization participation" is a link to a page of definitions of terms starting with I, with parameters that jump you directly to the definition of "International organization participation". That definition isn't helpful, but the very next definition is "international organizations". And that contains a link to Appendix B: International organizations and groups]. Unfortunately, on that page (unlike the one Incredible cited) the organizations are sorted by full name. But the abbreviations are consistently in parentheses, so the final step is just to search on the page for the text "(C)". --65.94.50.4 (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you search my name for a C, you won't find it. I am a bit incredible, but truly can't afford to get sued. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, is that the explanation? We used to have User:FeloniousMonk and he may have had the same worry. Thincat (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Keeping Faith

In the Plot Summary section of Jodi Picoult's novel, "Keeping Faith, Misplaced Pages states that Faith has never read the Bible because she is a Jew. This is blatantly incorrect. Many Jew study the Bible. Many Jewish children are taught bible stories from the Old Testament in Hebrew or Sunday School. Many Jewish adults read the Old and New Testaments. Although, Jodi Picoult or her character, Faith, may not have read the Bible, it is very incorrect and misleading to state the a person has never read the Bible because she is a Jew.

Bobbie Levine Visalia, CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.238.194.188 (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read the novel, so I can't give an accurate answer, but I wonder if "New Testament" was intended? I assume that only a small proportion of Jews have read this part. We need to know exactly what the novel says, but Google won't let me preview any pages. I've added a heading to your question. Dbfirs 07:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In Judaism, "The Bible" refers to what Christians call "The Old Testament". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Many Jews have not read (all of) what Christians call "The Bible". --ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No? But at the climax of The Great Dictator, the Jewish Barber quotes spontaneously from Luke! —Tamfang (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of comments from anyone who has read the novel, I've made a minor alteration to avoid the implication that Jews have never read any of the bible. Dbfirs 10:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That unwarranted generalization, implicit in because, was certainly unjustified. Thanks to both OP and Dbfirs for the correction.

In my limited Bible study group experiences, having participated in a Tanakh study group for a year of readings and midrash only once, ordinary Jews are better interpreters of Christian scripture than ordinary Christians are of Hebrew scripture. Recent extraordinary readings: Levine & Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford, 2011) ISBN 978-0195297706

However, the actual text of the novel is plain enough in this specific case. I haven't read Keeping Faith, but I googled for an ebook and searched it for "Bible" in less time than it takes to type this: here is what a supposed expert on Faith, her mother Mariah (wife of Colin), has to say in chapter 2 (~10% into book, no page # in ebook, sorry): "It has been years since Mariah has studied a Bible, and as far as she knows, Faith's never even seen one. She and Colin had put off their daughter's religious instruction indefinitely, since neither of them could consider it without feeling like a hypocrite." Faith was barely 7 years old at the time and still wrote letters backwards. Looks like an interesting book. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've whittled that sentence down further and explained in the edit summary my reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvement. Paul evidently has better access to ebooks than I have. It looks as if the original editor of the article misunderstood the reason. Dbfirs 19:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Suborning sin?

I am looking for references for the following conundrum:

A priest who is also a diplomat in Renaissance Europe has been forced to send back two staff members to his home country to be investigated for treason. Naturally they will be interrogated (and tortured) for a confession and executed. So far so good: the priest, although conscientious and unusually religious-minded for a secular priest in this time period, is fine with the death penalty for treason, as it's standard operating procedure and traitors are the worst of the worst. But how does he conscion himself suborning others to commit treason against their masters to benefit his own master?

Note that I'm not looking for opinions from y'all; I'm looking for some reference from the era that he would rely upon to salve his conscience. I've searched for "suborn treason" and all I find is crap on American politics and old trial records. There got to be something; even if people "didn't worry about it too much" there would be some explanation of why they didn't meant to at least make their masters feel less guilty. Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "suborning others to commit treason against their masters to benefit his own master"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For example, if a Venetian diplomat stationed in Paris were to get secret information from the French King's private secretary, or the Imperial ambassador to England were to get secret information from the private secretary to the French ambassador. (Both real examples, by the way; King François's diplomats were pretty easy to suborn.) --NellieBly (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clearer, I mean that by getting the French ambassador's secretary to pass on information to him, the Imperial ambassador is suborning that man to commit treason against King François - a treason that benefits the Imperial ambassador's master, Charles V. --NellieBly (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Insofar as I can interpret what you're trying to ask, you seem to be querying how a priest-diplomat could "square away" (with his own conscience) encouraging in-country diplomatic staff to commit treason against their own sovereign, thus putting themselves at risk of the death penalty. Am I getting close? Though not Catholic, there are multiple references available to 17th-centry opinion from John Williams, the Archbishop of York with regard to a "public and private conscience" and such ideas don't seem to be unique to him or his time (just an easy-to-search-for reference). Oath of Allegiance of James I of England might also be of interest to OP. During the 17th century, there are plenty of examples of Catholic diplomats (those from Rome itself and from other Catholic countries) disguising themselves as noblemen, merchants and other things in order to function incognito in England. Though not the same thing, lying about their true identities, lying to diplomatic staff, and eliciting "diplomatic information" all while pretending to have no interest in diplomacy was very common. Had those functionaries been caught discussing such matters with "papal spies", they likely would have been hanged as traitors despite their ignorance. Such "papal spies" operated in England for many years and justified their activities as service to God. Doing the same between two notionally Catholic states might be a different matter, but it might serve as a relevant reference. St★lwart 00:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That's my exact meaning. Thank you for the references and especially the reminder of public vs. private conscience. --NellieBly (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It might help if you saw your hypothetical priest/diplomat as being exactly where he was and doing what he was doing as a career choice, rather than a vocation. We're talking about a period framed by Pope Alexander VI and Cardinal Richelieu. A diplomat/spy would do well not to be troubled by a conscience, and many who chose the priesthood as a career path fitted the bill. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And written justifications for diplomatic duplicity long precede Machiavelli's The Prince in the genre mirrors for princes. But in an era of God-ordained principalities, rife with religious conflict, it does not take a Machiavelli to sincerely justify sending all one's political/religious adversaries to hell. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly true, though we're not really talking about "adversaries" - a 17th-century priest is unlikely to have seen himself as sending treasonous collaborators to "hell". While he might have been sending them to the gallows, he would have been doing so for his king, his country and his God. He might have seen such actions as a "necessary sacrifice", or some form of involuntary martyrdom. While no longer the Middle Ages, many who chose the priesthood as a career still did so because they were the second son and for no other reason. In an era of religiously-motivated capital punishment, inquisitions, reformation, treason and wars of religion, conscience wasn't what we might think of it today. Cardinals hired brigands to take to the streets and beat Rome's own citizens to death in order to create enough disruption as to justify support for the status quo during papal conclaves. By comparison, "flipping" a foreign diplomat is unlikely to rate highly on the "guilty conscience" scale. St★lwart 01:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• You should probably also look at Scandal (theology) and Casuistry. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

January 10

Where is Hammeliski?

I'm having a go at improving a stub article, HMS Nile (1839). One source, W.L. Clowes on the 1854-56 Russian ("Crimean") War, says "On September 18th, the boats of the Nile boarded and burnt some vessels near Hammeliski". It's somewhere in the Baltic Sea, but the only references I can find to "Hammeliski" on Google relate to the same incident. Any ideas? Alansplodge (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I struck out on simple search, but you might do better first reading some instructions we have on the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names -- Paulscrawl (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like unique use on p 499 of v 6 of Clowes' The Royal Navy: A History - not in newspapers.com, Trove (which reprints lots of British newspaper clippings), nor index to Ency. Brit. 1911 ed. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Could it be the Russian name for some place we know by another name? If only I could transliterate it into Cyrillic I could check that. Alternatively, could it derive from someone's terrible misreading of an illegibly written "Helsinki"? --Antiquary (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it could be Helsinki; " As part of the Grand Duchy of Finland in the Russian Empire it was known as Gelsingfors", according to our article. You may be right about the Cyrillic transliteration though, I hadn't thought of that. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's a typo or an alternative transliteration or what, but the catalogue of an 1891 Royal Naval Exhibition renders the name "Hummeliski". Deor (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice find. Hummeliski also not in newspapers.com, Trove.

Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (direct link to search) allows wildcard * (asterisk) for right truncation only. No luck with Hammel*, Hamel*, Hummel*, Humel* - but more variations are easy to try. What else might be plausible Slavic (unspecified, not necess. Russian) transcription of what appears to be German name for "hill" (judging by hits)? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Helsinki is mentioned earlier as Helsingfors, along with its fortress of Sweaborg (Suomenlinna), which was the site of a major operation in July 1855. So Helsinki not Hammeliski. You can check the log of the HMS Nile at the National Archives, but it's not online and you have to go see it in person, so I'm not sure if that helps... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I see your point. "Hammeliski" reference source (Cowles Royal Navy, v. 6, linked above) has distinct index entries for "Helsingfors" (though none for "Helsinki") -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a place called "Humaliskari" in Finland, part of Pyhäranta, which is on the coast and conceivably could have been attacked here. I'm seeing some results in Italian for "Humaliski", "La fortificazione di Bjorkò e di Humaliski è necessaria per difendere i pressi di Leningrado" - this is apparently referring to WWII, but Björkö is mentioned in Clowes' book too (as Biorko). Another Italian source mentions "la base navale di Hango e le isole di Bjorko e di Humaliski", with Björkö and Hanko. So I assume it's an island near St. Petersburg. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, actually one says "Humaliski nella vicinanze della Carelia" - so it's in Karelia? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Björkö in Karelia is now called Primorsk, Leningrad Oblast; the unfortunate Finns had to give it to the Soviets at the end of WWII. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not much help but information from the Baltic Fleet a regular column in the London Times makes not mention of the Nile around the 18 September 1855, its mentioned before and after that date. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everybody for your input. I think we're about as close as we're going to get. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have amended the relevant sentence in the article to read: "On 18 September 1855, Nile's boats boarded and burnt some Russian vessels, reportedly near Hammeliski (possibly Humaliski on the island of Björkö, now called Primorsk, Leningrad Oblast)". I have also added a note to the talk page directing curious users to this discussion. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Percentage of US citizens with family members in another country

I know there are statistics on how many people in the US travel overseas to visit family or friends, and how many Americans are foreign born or second generation immigrants, but I am wondering if there are estimates on how many Americans have family in another country, say as defined as a relative they regularly keep in touch with (it could be a sibling, cousin, grandparent etc. but should be close enough that they know personally). Would there be a good way to estimate this information from other statistics if this kind of data isn't available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.108.89 (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Largest cities in mountain passes?

What are the world's most populous cities that are located in mountain passes (not mountain valleys, like Los Angeles or Mexico City)? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 09:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not really a mountain pass as such, but the city of Belfort (population: 50,000) in north-east France lies in a natural gap between the Vosges Mountains and the Jura mountains, thus creating the strategic "Belfort Gap" that has been fought over for centuries. Proper mountain passes in the usual sense are rather inhospitable places, see the Gotthard Pass. Alansplodge (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• The population of the administrative area that covers the Khyber Pass is supposed to be about 550,000 but I'm not sure that fits into your definition of a "city". St★lwart 15:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Denver ? It's on the Eastern edge of the Rockies, and extends towards Clear Creek/North Clear Creek to the west, into the Rocky Mountains: . Not sure if that qualifies. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As this nice map illustrates, Denver definitely isn't situated on a mountain pass - it is, as our Denver article notes, in the South Platte River valley. I think this may be a clue as to why few large settlements are built on mountain passes - more or less inevitably, the topography ensures that significant water supplies won't be found nearby. A pass is a local drainage divide, and will typically only have small streams flowing off it. Cities tend to be built on more substantial rivers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably not exactly on the pass, no, but perhaps controlling access to it, as seems to be the case in Denver. StuRat (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Our page on Tiaret, Algeria (pop. 178,915) says that it "occupies a strategic mountain pass at 3,552 feet (1,083 m)". It does admittedly stand on the river Mina, but since neither English nor French Wikipedias have a page on that river it may not amount to much. I also see references to Dhulikhel, Nepal (pop. 16,263) lying either on a pass or on a hill-top. But for the reasons Andy gives above I've a nasty feeling neither of these towns will stand up to close examination. The phrase "city in a mountain pass" only turns up on the Web in fantasy fiction and discussions of fantasy games. There's got to be a reason for that. --Antiquary (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Absence of water, I'd think. --jpgordon 00:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. As for Tiaret, a Google Maps terrain view seems to show pretty clearly that it's not exactly in the pass; more like sitting at one end of it. But Dhulikhel is an interesting case. The way I "read" the map, there is a sort of pass running southwest from Ravi Opi toward the center of Dhulikhel; and while the center of Dhulikhel is just southwest of the pass, the town's limits clearly include the whole pass. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Besides the water issue, years of hill walking in the UK lead me to the opinion that passes tend to be natural wind tunnels even on calm days and are therefore not a place that you would want to hang about. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Klyastitsy

On the page Battle_of_Klyastitsy, he Battle of Klyastitsy, is also called battle of Yakubovo. The last remark , is this correct ? Is Yakubovo a city in Belarus or Poland (Jakubowo) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.52.148 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Burton, R G (1914) Napoleon's Invasion Of Russia , George Allen & Co, London (p.77) which says "On 30th July, his advanced guard came in contact with that of Oudinot at Yakubovo...". I also found Mikaberidze, Alexander (2011) Moritz von Kotzebue's Memoir (p.5), which is based on an 1816 English translation of the German text, which says in a footnote: "He received the rank of a major general on 30 October 1812 in recognition of his performance in battles at Yakubovo, Klyastitsy, Golovshina and Beloe". Finally, Henry Cabot Lodge (1913), The History of Nations - Volume 15 (p.411) says in the index "Yakubovo: battle of (1812)...". That's as close as I could get to anybody calling it "the battle of Yakubovo", apart from several webpages which use identical wording to our article.

A map of Klyastitsy: Belarus can be seen here. According to the descriptions of the battle, "Yakubovo" is described as a village and it must have been nearby, as the Russians fell back from there to Klyastitsy during the afternoon. As the French were advancing towards St Petersburg, you would have expected them to have been coming from the southwest, but I can't see anything resembling "Yakubovo" in the area. Perhaps it doesn't exist anymore? Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, found it ! The Village of Yakubovo is no longer existing on (for example) google maps or google earth. I found it on a OpenStreetMap and the village is problably nowadays called Jakubova. See position: N55° 53.221' E28° 33.038' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.52.148 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

55°53.221′N 28°33.038′E / 55.887017°N 28.550633°E / 55.887017; 28.550633 fwiw --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Well done. Is there a Cyrillic transcription for "Jakubova"? Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Also found on an OpenStreetMap: http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=55.88756%2C28.54858#map=19/55.88689/28.55105 (якyбobo ?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.52.148 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Якyбobo (Yakubovo), to the east of which is Клястицы (Klyastitsy). -- Jack of Oz 18:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir. Perhaps there's a way of incorporating all this in the article. I might give it a go myself later on. Alansplodge (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

January 11

Apotheca - is it part of ancient roman houses?

There is a Hungarian article about apotheca what state it was a chamber over fumarium where the smoke helped to conservate and aging especially the wine in amphoras. There are references in the article.
Question: why not mentioned in the domus article? Was this in separated buildings? --hu:Rodrigo (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

All I can tell from Latin dictionaries is that an apotheca (a Greek loanword, by the way) was a storage room, especially one for storing wine. I don't know why smoke would help wine (as opposed to meat)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's explained here as a way of accelerating the ageing process by the application of steady heat, rather like the estufagem process in Madeira winemaking. The smoke was just a by-product if this author is to be believed. --Antiquary (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Jose Serrano 22nd amendment?

Why does José E. Serrano want to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution? Simple googling doesn't turn up any explanations. Staecker (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

He told this website in 2009 that he does it because he doesn't believe in limited periods of office for anyone. He's not the only person to propose such changes as Snopes makes clear. Nanonic (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It was passed by Republicans in order to prevent another FDR situation. During Reagan's term, some Republicans talked about repealing it, but nothing happened. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"It was passed by Republicans" is a considerable oversimplification. In order to get out of Congress it needed a 2/3 vote in both houses, that is 64 out of 96 senators and 290 out of 434 representatives. The Republicans had a majority in both houses in 1947 but that still included only 51 senators and 248 representatives. It then had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, that is 36 out of 48 states. It was actually ratified by 41 states and while I haven't tried to find out how many of them had Republican-controlled legislatures at the time, I would be surprised it it was as many as 36. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the article and note the hyperbole of Thomas Dewey about what a "threat to freedom" it was to allow the people to keep their president more than two terms. Also, it took four years to get ratified, so they had to do a persistent sell job. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources on a historic U.S. bank

I'm looking to research the history of an national bank in Philadelphia, which existed approximately 1875-1956 (as far as I can deduce). Where might I find information about incorporation, annual profits and capital, bank presidents and directors, etc.? Even just knowing the date and reason for the bank's closure (or merger, I'm not sure) would be nice, but I'm not sure where to look. The FDIC database wasn't helpful, so perhaps it was never FDIC-insured, but that's just conjecture. Knight of Truth (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what its name was? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It concerns the Centennial National Bank. I'm happy to do the research myself, I'm just not familiar with sources in this field. Knight of Truth (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust & the Kadoshim

Hi.

This is an Holocaust related question. Are those converts to Reform Judaism whose conversions were not recognized by Orthodox Jewish law and who were murdered in the Holocaust considered to be Kedoshim (Jewish Martrys)?

Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure "yes". Even converts in the other direction -- they were killed for their religion too, even though they'd renounced it. Check out this. --jpgordon 16:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

By whom? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the "naming" was done by the State of Israel in 1952, so their opinion is the only one that matters. --jpgordon 19:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That may be what the OP meant, but the use of kedoshim as a term for "religious martyrs" or "Jews murdered with anti-Semitic intent" dates to medieval times and is not dependent on the State of Israel's formal definition. (That being said, Israel does not (yet) recognize Reform conversions, so why would they accord them a Jewish-specific title?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Because their murderers did not care by which method they became Jewish? I'd like to see the 1952 declaration; haven't been able to find it yet. --jpgordon 20:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

True, but the question implies interest in the Orthodox point of view. I doubt Orthodox sources would use a term implying Jewishness in reference to people who, according to Orthodox Judaism, were never Jews in the first place. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Name of non-monetary transaction

I can't recall, what's the name for a non-monetary transaction, where one hires, for example, a homeless man to clean up his backyard and in exchange offers food and drink instead of money (certainly, this is something other than barter). As a side note, I've read about instances where girls voluntarily "paid" with sex instead of money for renting an apartment, I also wonder whether there's a name for this type of transaction. Brandmeister 22:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Paid in Kind? Uhlan 22:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree, consideration-in-kind sounds right. St★lwart 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. Brandmeister 00:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Nope. The word is barter. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What Should She Have Said?

Read this excerpt from the Loaded Question article:

Madeleine Albright (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.) claims to have answered a loaded question (and later regretted not challenging it instead) on 60 Minutes on 12 May 1996. Lesley Stahl asked, regarding the effects of UN sanctions against Iraq, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright: "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it."

She later wrote of this response:

I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. … As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy, and wrong. … I had fallen into a trap and said something that I simply did not mean. That is no one’s fault but my own.

• Madeline Albright clearly wanted to say something different, so my question is, what should she have said? Thanks, Uhlan 23:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The elided part of the quote is telling; "nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people." That's what she says she should have said and that's what Loaded question leaves out. --jpgordon 01:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's rephrase. What was wrong with the question in the first place? Uhlan 01:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out that too. Perhaps a read of Albright's book might clarify, since Loaded question says Albright claims to have answered a loaded question, but does not provide enough context to show where she made that claim. --jpgordon 01:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Her other options appear to me to be limited to a) repudiating the .5M claim, and/or b) repudiating the connection between sanctions and any additional deaths in the period. --01:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• What source are we looking for? There are ethical theories that hold all sorts of ridiculous ideas, such as that the blame for the death of innocents lies on the shoulders of those who instigate a war of aggression, not on those who end one in self defense. What exactly is the request here? μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Murder Most Contradictory

I was watching an episode of The Mentalist, where a murder is committed by two people. One stabs the victim, the other stands watching. They both claim the other murdered the victim, though both accept they were there when it happened and that they conspired to blame it on a break-in. Given it's a police procedural they don't go into the legal aspects, but I'm curious - in such a situation, what charges might be filed against the murderers, given they both claim innocence of the actual act, and there is no evidence to support one over the other? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy (criminal). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In the UK both can be done for murder - see Common purpose (aka Joint Enterprise). Here's a contemporary story on the issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, criminal conspiracy and probably felony murder as well. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk