Revision as of 00:01, 25 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 19

"body of a bird surrounded by 72 virgins"

Just saw this in the New York Times: "Mr. Benyettou reassured them that the soul of their 19-year-old friend was now in the body of a bird in paradise surrounded by 72 virgins." Obviously this seems a bit odd because what the hell use are 72 virgins if you're in the body of a bird? Yeah, yeah, I know... you use your little pecker as best as you possibly can. :) We don't have the word "bird" in Houri, either. I'm vaguely reminded of the ancient Egyptian conception of the Akh. Is this an authentic belief or some kind of confusion on the New York Times' end, and if it is real, can someone explain it? Wnt (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Various sources like do mention souls inhabiting green birds in paradise, originating at least partially from Hadith Qudsi 27 . I'm not sure how widely this is intepreted literally and of course not everyone accepts the Hadith, even the Hadith Qudsi as our article says, but the first source does suggest the green bird thing is imagery used by some radicals. Nil Einne (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

To bring some of the answer here, this cites Hadith Qudsi 27:

We asked Abdullah (i.e. Ibn Masud) about this verse: And do not regard those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead, rather are they alive with their Lord, being provided for (Quran Chapter 3 Verse 169). He said: We asked about that and the Prophet (pbuh) said: Their souls are in the insides of green birds having lanterns suspended from the Throne, roaming freely in Paradise where they please, then taking shelter in those lanterns. So their Lord cast a glance at them (1) and said: Do you wish for anything? They said: What shall we wish for when we roam freely in Paradise where we please? And thus did He do to them three times. When they say that they would not be spared from being asked , they said: O Lord, we would like for You to put back our souls into our bodies so that we might fight for Your sake once again. And when He saw that they were not in need of anything they were let be.

(I don't know enough about Islam to know if this is a sort of temporary heaven preceding some other judgment, or if a believer can picture having his soul flying around happy in a green bird even while he continues to live in his body being entertained by houris, nor do I have any real understanding how wide the range of opinion is about the origin of the text. Kind of funny though that they say they want their bodies back but don't get them...) Wnt (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the virgins, the possibility exists that they aren't there as sex toys, but as servants, where being virginal is merely to assure their purity, much like the Vestal Virgins. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That is contradicted by the Quran, however: "... and We will marry them to fair women (Arabic: Houris) with large, eyes." (52:20, Sahih International). That these houris are indeed virgins can be seen from this "In them are good and beautiful women - So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny? - Fair ones (Arabic: Houris) reserved in pavilions - So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny? - Untouched before them by man or jinni - So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny? -" (55:70-75 Sahih International)

Now that is not to say that the virgins are 'sex toys' per se, but Muslims are going to marry them. - Lindert (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

From our article houri "Importantly, some scholars argue that the promise of 72 virgins is a mistranslation from "72 angels" or 72 "white raisins" of "crystal clarity". According to Ibn Warraq referring to The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran, "Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offered, and not unsullied maidens or houris"." This interpretation may be heretical in most current interpretations of Islam, but it is regarded as possible by Western scholars. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

At least this version would content Muslim women as well, not only men. Isn't the whole virgin thing yet another example that shows religions (and their interpretations and explanations) are always made by men for men, and seem to ignore women or to submit women to men's view? Akseli9 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Although the common traditional view of the Houri may seem more targetted at heterosexual men than women (although our article those suggest there may be feminine male houri or that women will otherwise be happy with their houri), even for men some of the ideas seem to be either poorly thought out or restricted to a subset of men (even if we ignore the bird bit). The houri are supposed to companions of ~equal age, since you're eternally young, I guess this doesn't mean you're going to end up with 60 year olds if you die at 60, which is useful I guess it's fairly common that men may prefer somewhat younger women. However this doesn't seem to work out so well if you prefer much older women which some men do. Also the houri are supposed to have large, round, firm. This may be something quite a number of men would like, however these breasts seem somewhat "wasted" since the houri also have skin transparent enough that you can see their bone marrow. I'm not sure if there's some translation problems and transparent more means translucent but it would seem these breasts might be a bit hard to see. Of course mean with a breast feeding or pregnancy fettish seem to be SOL. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, though houris (and boys!) occur in the Qur'an, the number "72" doesn't -- in this context, it's only found in hadith... AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

To get back on track... is there any indication why the birds are green? Is a particular species being referred to? Wnt (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Chinese immigrants in the mid-20th century and marriage

I am not sure if this website would be true during the mid-20th century as far as how legal marriage worked in the United States at that time. It seems to me that the process for legal marriage is that one person must be an ordained minister, must follow the marriage laws in the state, must include the Declaration of Intent, and must sign the marriage license papers. In that case, I am wondering how Chinese immigrants in the mid-20th century or later would have married. At that time, did it have to be an ordained minister? Could it be the Justice of the Peace at the courthouse? Or did Chinese immigrants attempt to obtain permission from a local church? How did the US government handle civil marriages? (According to this webpage, the traditional Chinese wedding does not even mention having a minister solemnizing the ceremony, let alone saying any Declaration of Intent, presumably because the wedding was arranged by the families, not by the individuals themselves. Today, that has changed substantially, and many couples are self-arranged, but parental guiding and opinion are still important and involved.) 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The Justice of the Peace goes back much further than that. Our article is weak on the history in the US, but does mention that the Texas Constitution defined the position, and the current Texas Constitution was written in 1876. StuRat (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This still does not answer the question of how Chinese immigrants might have gotten married or have their foreign marriages recognized. It is possible that the state may have recognized common-law marriages, and this might have made foreign-born Chinese-American couples to be legally married, even though they might have never set foot in a church and have the wedding solemnized by a Christian minister. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You have to get married by an officially recognized celebrant, who could be a minister, priest, rabbi, Justice of the Peace, mayor, county clerk, governor, magistrate or a judge. () Each of the fifty states have different laws with different histories. Rmhermen (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That just repeats what I said. It does not answer my question for government recognition of marriages of foreign-born Chinese immigrants who were married in China who came to the United States as married couples. Perhaps, a married status on the visa would be enough? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be hung up on the idea of a Christian minister but that was never a requirement. There have always been alternative officiants and in all states Common-law marriage in the United States was allowed until specifically prohibited which some states have still not done. Rmhermen (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for providing a direct answer. :) 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I got confused, when I found out about how legal marriage worked in England, and I thought the same thing occurred in America, because America started as British colonies. I confess that I thought quite erroneously that it was advantageous to be Christian in America, because one could easily get married by one's pastor or minister. Thanks for clearing that up. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Easily" would likely depend on the church. The Catholic church for example is known for their requirement for the Pre-Cana and some other requirements (like requiring any Catholic partner to promise to do their best to raise the children Catholic). Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Quantitative easing

Hello, everyone. Is there any particular reason why money created in quantitative easing programmes is simply pumped into banks, as opposed to being used for investment spending (e.g. building and upgrading infrastructure, funding R&D, education, energy efficiency programmes, etc.)? Intuitively at least, the latter approach would seem to have a faster and more direct impact on the real economy. Thanks for your answers. Leptictidium (mt) 17:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Or more to the point, why doesn't the government instead offer a substantial line of free credit to every citizen directly? (Is there even a name for that idea? And true, I think the cynical explanation is the obvious one) Wnt (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Because if they offered un-free credit, they'd be indistinguishable from a bank? -- Jack of Oz 20:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances the money supply is manipulated through Open market operations. As you will see from our article on the subject, Quantitative Easing is essentially an extension of the same process, in that in both cases money is injected into financial institutions in exchange for the purchase of assets. In normal open market operations the central bank or its designated agent buys government bills or government bonds for cash, thus giving the banks more cash to lend and fewer assets to set against their existing cash and depositary base (see, for example, how it works in the USA). Sometimes in normal open market operations these purchases are for a fixed period of time only (that is, the central bank buys the assets and immediately sells them back to the same institution on some designated future date); such transactions are called repurchase agreements, and these have the effect of providing a temporary boost to bank liquidity. On other occasions the assets are bought outright by the central bank; since the assets are then permanently removed from the bank this has the effect of adding liquidity (that is, money) directly to the financial system. In the most common form of quantitative easing the central bank extends the range of assets that it is prepared to buy from financial institutions beyond the usual government bills and bonds. For example, in the USA the Federal Reserve bought mortgage-backed securities from financial institutions; in the UK the Bank of England bought bonds issued not just by the government but also by a range of corporations; in the past the Bank of Japan has indicated that it is even prepared to buy equities under certain circumstances.

On the basis of this, I think the answer to your question is, at least in part, that quantitative easing runs through the existing financial system because much of the necessary infrastructure and administrative machinery is already in place, in that quantitative easing can be regarded as a temporary extension of existing processes.

You suggest that direct infrastructural and investment programmes might be faster and more direct. It's unlikely that this is the case: infrastructure projects big enough to absorb the many billions that are required in a successful quantitative easing programme are likely to take many years of planning and design, and this is likely to be slower than simply making the money available to banks to lend to customers who already have plans for things they particularly want to do. RomanSpa (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There were some attempts to boost the economy more directly, like the cash for clunkers program. But I agree with the sentiment, that far more could have been done like this. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Economic theory reasons that the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources is through markets, and central bank quantitative easing conforms to that principle. Direct investment by a central bank, probably decided at least partly on political grounds, might misallocate resources that would be better directed elsewhere. Still, it is possible to critique central banks' assumptions. For example, one could argue that the real problem with developed-world economies just now is excessive public and private debt. Quantitative easing seeks to encourage banks to issue more credit and create more debt, which would not only add to the debt overhang, but also confront a reluctance on the part of banks and borrowers to increase their stock of debt. Arguably, a more effective central bank action would be to create money to repay and erase outstanding debts, particularly debts held by consumers. Eliminating burdensome consumer debts would help stimulate demand. While this would raise an objection of moral hazard, moral hazard did not stop governments from bailing out big banks, even though the economic benefits of doing so are not clear. Another objection to debt forgiveness would be that it might cause inflation, though at the moment that might be an attractive antidote to the possibly greater risk of deflation. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

what would a chinese person explain if we could talk?

I'm curious about other cultures, but haven't been to the East, and even if I had I don't know how well I could communicate. If I talked with average people in China or elsewhere in Asia, what would they explain to me about their life that would totally surprise me? (totally different from anything in the west.) I'm particularly interested in life under 'communism' since I think it sucks. what is it like to live under state control like that? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Lots of things can surprise people. It's called culture shock, which can be as mild as being amused by a foreign accent to as severe as hatred and genocide. All governments and government forms in thought and in practice in the world are corruptible, and all governments have their national issues and problems to deal with. Expecting perfection out of a country does not exist in the real world as we know it. Some just have more problems than others. Understanding the history of a country's government is critical to understanding a country's culture. For basic information on culture, you may want to visit CultureGrams. Many libraries may have this resource called CultureGrams, where you learn about different cultures, lifestyles, and habits. Alternatively, you may privately purchase subscription. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You have to understand that China is now communist in name only. In reality, it's more like a right-wing dictatorship, where people with the right contacts in the leadership get rich, and the poor get nothing. You might want to read the book Animal Farm, as that shows how "communism" eventually gives up on helping the poor, and instead is used to enrich a small minority.StuRat (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Stu, but you're just completely wrong. Poverty in China and the rest of the developing world has been plummeting for decades; very quickly. You must be referring to the poor in the developed world, who have been getting nothing, and are on track to lose most of what they have if trends continue. EllenCT (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In China, yes, of course Stu is in error. The rest of the developing world, no, not so much. Poverty plummeting very quickly is hardly the right word for most of Africa, say. China is so big that most of the progress against poverty has been due to its success.John Z (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at our Poverty in China article, which states that over 900 million (more than 2/3) Chinese lived on under $5 a day in 2009. The poor in China just aren't very visible, since most are rural, where reporters rarely go. And Western reporters might not be allowed into those areas. Yes, the average income is rising rapidly, but at the same time inequality is increasing rapidly, leaving the poor in poverty, as a small minority gets rich. I do agree that this is also happening in parts of the developed world, particularly the US. StuRat (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, there is the middle class of skilled professionals, like medical doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, teachers, and lawyers. The standard of living has greatly improved since the late 20th century for many urban Chinese and some rural Chinese. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

EveryCulture.com has useful (if sometimes dated) preparatory reading for travelers. Of course, every rule has exceptions and nobody knows exactly what to expect anywhere. All part of the fun of going to see. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what 'living under state control' means, if it is supposed mean mean something different from what we all do even here in Western democracies. That is what government is for. Policies change, of course, but there is no freedom to act as if you were in an anarchic society. Anyway, what would a Chinese person surprise you about his daily life? It would depend on the person. China is a vast country, with 56 ethnic groups (and 54 languages - not including the Han Chinese dialects), and they all live in different - though similar - ways. You will be more surprised to see that China is very similar to the West. People all have mobile phones, Louis Vuitton bags, and cars. Life is not so different there on this 'alien world' you think of as China. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the average Chinese person has all those things, only the rich, with the possible exception of of cell phones. According to our article (List of countries by vehicles per capita), there are only 188 cars per 1000 people in China. StuRat (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but there are a billion people there. That's a helluva lot of cars. Believe me. I lived there. It's chaos on the roads. As for all the branded goods, of course, we all know many of them are counterfeit. Mobile phones - everyone has them. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct, the population means China can have massive traffic jams and air pollution problems, even though only a small percentage own cars. StuRat (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Stu, when I said chaos, I meant chaos. People don't even bother to check the traffic lights. It is incredibly difficult to cross the road safely as a pedestrian, and even if you do get knocked over, the car won't stop, and you'll just keep getting run over by other cars until you manage to drag yourself back to the pavement. Believe me. I've seen it. This might be because of the old way of pedestrians purposefully jumping in front of bicycles (specifically ones with foreigners riding them) in order to claim compensation. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you live in the UK? Then about life under "communism" and about this kind of "state control", you could talk with some Polish or Baltic people who live in the UK and who remember how life was there before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Akseli9 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, the OP geolocates to Hungary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's life under communism that interests you ask locals in Hungary (if your ip geolocation is correct.) They'd probably tell you similar to what people here in Latvia would tell you. On the whole things were worse, but a lot of things are considered better by people who can remember that time. Pluses: free education, guaranteed employment and free healthcare, though of questionable quality at times. Also the old were, they say, well looked after. Pensions were generous relative to prices and men could retire at 60 and women at 55. Negatives, lack of political freedom isn't the main complaint that comes up. It's usually about the lack of consumer goods, the poor quality of goods and services available and long waiting times for them. A second common gripe is about the lack of ability to travel to the west. A third would be that a lot of the work was mundane and there was little incentive to push ahead as people earned more or less the same, so no challenges in careers. Criticisms of communist party rule would probably be the closest article to what you're asking. Valenciano (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been to China and speak Mandarin Chinese. Most Chinese people are not very concerned about politics and don't much care that they live in an authoritarian society. Their unhappiness with the corruption of their leaders is similar to western dissatisfaction with western politicians. Their daily concerns are much the same as anyone else's, having to do with making a living, personal relationships, and health. The things that would strike you as a visitor, such as the crowding, are things that they take for granted, though even the Chinese are alarmed at the serious air pollution, which is also striking to a visitor. Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:212.96.61.236, I live in China and this is the correct answer. There are differences based on the police state (what you say, what happens when people are angry enough to lie about what you say) but they're almost invisible next to the things the Chinese take for granted but would surprise the hell out of you. They wouldn't think about any of them or know to mention it but over the course of a week or a month things would begin to pile up. In the meantime, just treat them like Americans—working class: very friendly but iffy on physical contact, overworked and looking to try sth new, huge on fried food, progressively louder and less polite the more they like you; upper class: self-conscious and disparaging of all of that but essentially the same—and you're good to go. — LlywelynII 08:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

do we have an article comparing contemporary human cultures?

Hi,

I searched google for "comparison of contemporary human cultures", you know, for a general NPOV article that would compare the 18% here, 15% there, 20% there that make up various parts of contemporary human culture, for the largest differences, similarities, etc.

Do we not have one? There's a bunch of big cultures I know next to nothing about, and I would appreciate an overview of contemporary human society worldwide today. (similarities and differences). It seems the kind of thing we'd have an article on. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we do not have an article comparing contemporary human cultures. Such an article is most likely going to be too broad to cover and is prone to be POV biased. What you want here is to find a blog, editorial, or academic study that talks about a specific aspect of a specific culture. Then, in your mind, you should be able to integrate your knowledge about various cultures, which is the foundation for doing comparative studies. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Website The World Factbook.
Sleigh (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess EveryCulture.com is relevant here, too. Not all in one page (that would be huge), but each has similar specific sections, for quick comparison. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest you google "map of world cultures" which brings up images like this and read the articles on which they are based, like this from Hunter College. A minor quibble, the land to the south of the stars representing NYC and Philadelphia is distorted, and the largely Catholic (among Christians) New Jersey and the more Protestant (among Christians) Delmarva Peninsula are merged. In part this is due to scale limitations. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder why Kaliningrad Oblast is shown as Protestant on that map... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Until 1945, the region was overwhelmingly Lutheran, with a small number of Catholics and Jews" from the article that you linked above; it used to be part of East Prussia. Alansplodge (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

However, the map does not appear to be about 70 years ago, and none of the other east-of-Oder-Neisse-line former Prussian territories are shown as Protestant... P.S. Belarus seems to be shown significantly smaller than its actual size (less than half the area of Poland, which is not the case in reality). AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It does seem odd. Perhaps they couldn't get any modern information on the enclave and reverted to some old data. The area now seems to be predominately atheist (perhaps they thought that Protestant was the closest fit). Alansplodge (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the map is based on older data (the colors) overlain with newer borders. The style of the map data resembles a 1946 Goode's School Atlas I have which made several such maps, including a rather good one fore the languages of Europe including minorities. In any case, this particular map was not given as "the map" but as the sort of thing which the OP might find if he makes a similar search. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Fun Fact? The Azores is the only Catholic place on Earth with Romeiros. They're pretty complicated, for simple folk. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

You can search in Category:Comparisons.—Wavelength (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 20

Golfan/Khalfan tribes in Sudan

Hi, I can find almost no info on the Khalfan and Golfan tribe(s) or ethnic group(s). Are these two spelling for the same group? Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Hawazma are Arabs. The "Golfan" are Ghulfan, one of the Hill Nubian peoples. The Khalfan are said to speak the same "dialect" as the Kadaro, Karko, Dilling, Kasha, Wali Boboi, Habila, Kodor, Ferla, Tabag, Abu Gonouk and Fonda. Most of these I can ID as Hill Nubian peoples. From this, I strongly suspect "Khalfan" is the Arabic rendering of "Golfan", or that "Khalfan" and "Ghulfan" are both Arabic renderings of the same people. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

At a guess, the name could begin with the Arabic "q" letter ق, which has a wide range of pronunciations in spoken vernacular Arabic dialects (that's how the beginning of the name of the former Libyan dictator had so many different spellings)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Were 1950s American colored drinking fountains safe?

Were they safe to drink from? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Safer than drinking from the "white only" ones. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would expect so, at least from bacterial/viral/fungal contamination, since they typically would use the same water supply as the "whites only" fountain. Even if the segregationists wanted to connect them to unsafe water, they lacked a ready supply, and it would be very expensive to add additional plumbing and pumps, just to bring in untreated water. Now, there could have been lead pipes in the "colored" water fountain that they didn't bother to replace after finding out that this can be harmful, but the lead exposure from that would be minor. I suspect that in many cases, the "colored" drinking fountains were former "whites only" fountains, repurposed after a new "whites only" drinking fountain was installed (say with a cooling unit). StuRat (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not being familiar with the usage on this side of the pond, I was puzzled as to why the colour of the fountain made a difference to the safety of the water coming out of it. It wasn't until I re-read Stu's use of the plural "whites" that I realised what was being talked about! Dbfirs 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The British might consider Hyacinth Bucket's demand of the meter-reader that her electricity not pass through any homes of lesser social standing than her own before she received it. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a pic showing that they shared the same water supply: . (I agree that "colored" was a strange word to use, since black, white, and brown are not "colors" but rather neutrals. Yellow and red are, so perhaps "colored" might have better been applied to East Asians and Native Americans.) StuRat (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Colored" was considered relatively polite, compared with some other things. It was also the standard indicator in documents such as city directories: name, followed by (c) if "colored". And it's interesting to look at census records from that era. Under "race", white is white, but black might be black, colored, or Negro. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, like National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. St★lwart 23:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Putting your whole mouth over the spout, as seen here, isn't exactly sanitary. Can catch viruses from other mouths, or just homegrown bacteria. I've seen real people (kids, anyway) do that post-Segregation, so it seems likely some did back then, too. Herpes doesn't discriminate. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, wait, it does. Lives best in humidity, so a bit more dangerous drinking in the South. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as Baseball Bugs notes (tongue-deliciously-in-cheek), Colored fountains were safer to drink from than the White ones -- if you were colored! My attempt to drink from a White one in a Sears in Birmingham, Alabama, on the dare of a pass-for-white cousin who had just done so, was thwarted by a clerk who summoned my shopping grandmother's attention to my not-so-stealthy approach with a politely drawled "Ma'am" and an amused nod in my direction (it was my guilty loitering which must have evoked her suspicion, since the two labelled fountains were side-by-side and she could not have known beforehand which I intended to drink from -- that, and my conversation with what liked like a white girl). I think we all just assumed that the water was the same in both fountains (also in the Colored bathrooms) because it was inconceivable that proprietors would incur the extra expense of separate plumbing and water sourcing. Besides, what would have been the point? The purpose of such segregation, reflective of pervasive and deeply ingrained local culture, was not so much to deprive blacks as to comfort whites (cf., The Help), to whom it probably no more occurred that it was intrinsically humiliating to the other race than people today think restrooms are sex-segregated to humiliate the other gender. We liked going downtown to Sears and seeing "Colored" labels because we could drink and use the restrooms -- especially important when a shopping adult is accompanied by children: most places of business (e.g., restaurants, fuel stations, but excepting government buildings since Plessy v. Ferguson) only had one fountain and one set of men's and women's restrooms which meant, in the American South blacks could not use them at all. From the pov of businesses which could afford to do it, installing "Colored" anything drew in more black customers with green dollars -- no one perceived any political implications of what was an obvious and effective marketing strategy. Structural racism doesn't depend on personal bigotry to pervade inferiority, just compliance with prevalent arrangements. The system, not merely individual attitudes, must be changed to eradicate it: as near as I could detect, that Sears clerk intended no disrespect to me or Grandmother as she enforced racial segregation upon us. FactStraight (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I'd never thought about the economic advantage of installing "colored" facilities. --jpgordon 17:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you recall if the fountains were identical or if the "colored" fountain was inferior ? I get the impression that was often the case, either because the owner wanted to make blacks feel inferior, or because, if they didn't, then Klansmen or other whites might give them a hassle for encouraging blacks to get "uppity" and act "above their station". StuRat (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Could it not also be, as FactStraight sort of hinted at, that because this was an additional expense, and for people who had far fewer choices, they installed inferior facilities because they were cheaper and the target market couldn't do much about it and probably also had lower expectations? And perhaps also the market while providing some financial bonus, was still small enough that those involved didn't feel it worthwhile spending too much money (this is complicated, on the one hand in terms of population size and economic status, they would generally be lower than the white clientale, on the other hand, as said earlier noting FactStraight's point, they had fewer options but I suspect it was rare that the the amount of money they spent came close to the white clientale). Also I presume some of these were retrofitted, which would often mean more difficult or greater expensve achieving the same level of facility. To be clear, I'm not defending the practices in any way, simply suggesting particularly in light of FactStraight's points, in some cases, it may have been they did it mostly based on other financial considerations without intending to send a message (for themselves or for other people, the later of course could also bring in financial considerations). Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I failed to make my point if I left anyone in confusion about this: in my recollection, the facilities were identical. I presume there were exceptions (of course, I never entered a White restroom, where differences in upkeep would have been more likely, although blacks who cleaned or served handcloths in them and those nannying White children -- in other words, workers -- did go in), but I don't recall ever noticing any. If a facility was likely to offer Coloreds the amenity (and most did not) it was presumably a minor marginal cost to keep them in similar states of cleanliness and repair for their customers. But, as you note, there would have been no recourse if the Colored ones were filthy or in poor repair compared to the White ones. Yet the notion that the proprietors (or, for that matter, Klansmen) would have deliberately left them in visibly inferior condition misunderstands the nature of this kind of systemic racism, in my opinion, which was not driven by malice or punitiveness, but by a fundamental system of separating the races because one was understood to be inferior -- not because there was a need to make us feel inferior: do you deliberately give a dog dirty water to drink to remind it that it should not expect what you have? No doubt such behavior occurred, but it misunderstands how racism and segregation worked to imagine such animus as the point of rather than incidental to the system: one doesn't need to prove a point that is widely taken for granted. FactStraight (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• It should be remembered that Jim Crow laws were political, and not necessarily supported by major businesses or common carriers. The privately held railroads fought against segregation of facilities. It was the state governments that enforced these laws. As for the facilities, separate but equal was the law of the land since Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. But that didn't mean that the states north of the Manson-Nixon Line were required to segregate. My father, who grew up in Philadelphia, reports being shocked to see signs of Jim Crow the first time he entered Maryland. From a business standpoint, it simply doesn't make sense to pay for two separate installations when it's cheaper to have the work done at the same time (on a new construction) in bulk, as it were, and hang up signs. Picture on Google (which have a selection bias for egregious looking cases) show plenty of cases where the black fountain has a smaller bowl, but in these pictures the water comes from the same pipes. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 21

Carpet bombing

Not sure if this is the right section but wutevs

If the US were to do a WWII/Vietnam style carpet bombing today, what would they use for it? B-52 planes or something else? Obviously this is speculative so a logical, backed up guess will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactivemutant (talk • contribs)

See List of active United States military aircraft and look for bombers. Interestingly, there are still more B-52s in active service than any other bomber, so it would still be the B-52, not bad for an aircraft still in service since the 1950s. The articles about them (see Boeing B-52 Stratofortress) indicates that the are planned to stay in active service until the the 2040s, which would indicate a 90+ year lifespan. Not too bad. There are other strategic bombers in service, but there are still more B-52s than any other bomber. --Jayron32 02:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I seem to recall that limited carpet bombing was used by the US fairly recently, was it the First Gulf War ? The difference, of course, was that it was used on strictly military targets. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was. This critical article about the Gulf War, U.S. Bombing: The Myth of Surgical Bombing in the Gulf War says; "The use of B-52s and carpet bombing violates Article 51 of Geneva Protocol I which prohibits area bombing. Any bombardment that treats a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located within a city as a single military objective is prohibited". This recent article; The B-52 bomber: Long-standing symbol of US strength (BBC June 2014)"...while the B-52 was once used to conduct "carpet bombing" now it is more likely to carry cruise missiles and Laser Guided Bombs." Alansplodge (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What was the justification for morality in antinomianism?

According to antinomianism, the term refers to the belief that Christians were saved and obeyed the law, even though they did not really have to obey the law. It might be an extreme interpretation of Martin Luther's soteriology. Margaret Atwood said in an interview on Youtube that antinomianism was the belief of some heretical Puritans that God saved them, and thus they could do whatever they wanted. In that sense, is there a sense of morality in antinomianism? What is the justification for morality then? How do you put this doctrine into practice? Please help me visualize this. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to add that I have checked out The A to Z of Lutheranism from my public library, and honestly and surprisingly, it does not mention antinomianism at all! Is this even a Lutheran concept or a Puritan concept? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's appeared in a number of different Christian circles, though I think it's more associated with the early church, certain medieval heresies, and with Puritanism. Probably a bit WP:OR for me to say this (and I'm probably thinking of Kierkegaard more than the Puritans), but an antinomian would probably say that the law is a human imitation of divine grace. That is, the law is only playing at being Christian, just as a child might play at being a doctor, cook, or mother. The child and adult might carry out the same actions, but the child's actions have no real effect (no sickness is healed, no food is prepared, no baby is cared for). Likewise, a person who performs charitable works but does not love others is only playing at being a Christian.

Then there's "Love, and do what thou wilt." Before it was hijacked by Aleister Crowley, that saying was expressed by none other than Augustine of Hippo in an unusually antinomian moment (though I would have to guess is the context is that if one truly loves God and their neighbor, their actions will not violate any law that's worth observing). Ian.thomson (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh. So, that's what it means! I think a deeper meaning may be drawn from this: that sincerity and genuine concern for others are a lot better than affectations and artificiality. I believe that is something everybody, regardless of creed, can understand. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to read some fiction that explores the implications of an extreme antinomianism (along the lines of the Atwood statement you referred to), I highly recommend The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner. Deor (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

People's ability to appreciate it is (in part) a result of increasing disillusion with divine authority following the world wars, and the democratic revolutions/reformations of the 18th through 20th centuries. From a practical perspective, it does imply that any action one can rationalize as being done out of love must be moral, regardless of what it is. This isn't merely like Dietrich Bonhoeffer deciding that pacifism means you have to kill Hitler, it's more along the lines of trying to kill your son because a voice only you here asks you to (it would be an understatement to say that Kierkegaard was rather fond of that topic). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What evidence do/did they have that they had been "saved"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Just yesterday, I found a Theopedia article on antinomianism. Salvation in antinomianism means that a person has faith in Christ, and that faith in Christ guarantees salvation. Hence, taking Martin Luther's sola fide to the extreme. On the Theopedia article, it mentions that many denominations and persons in the past accused other denominations or persons of antinomianism as a serious anathema; and this accusation came to mean that the accused was guilty of being too licentious. The article concluded that even though Anabaptists and Calvinists were accused of being antinomian, their conspicuously austere lifestyle contrasted the kind of licentiousness that would go with being antinomian. However, one must be aware that Theopedia writes from a Protestant perspective, so obviously they may deny the Calvinist and Anabaptist tradition as being antinomian. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't "faith in Christ" encompass obeying His commands? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The antinomian would probably say that by obeying the two commandments, they would naturally follow any truly divine commands, even if they are not following human codification thereof. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not according to historic Protestant doctrine. See Sola fide. Salvation by faith alone explicitly excludes any type of works. Rather, love and obedience are said to be a necessary result of true faith. Hence the saying "we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone". - Lindert (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they only thought they had been "saved". It still goes back to my question: How did they "know"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I never said "knowing" in the epistemological sense, and this topic has never been about that until you brought it up. In Christianity, an antinomian is one who denies the fixed meaning and applicability of moral law and believes that salvation is attained solely through faith and divine grace. Many antinomians, however, believe that Christians will obey moral law despite being free from it. Antinomianism does not say anything about knowing or acquiring knowledge in the epistemologial sense that you are thinking of or whatever epistemological approach that satisfies you. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I get the rather OR impression from what I've seen that the word "antinomian" and its variations is one that has rarely if ever been used by a group itself, but rather a prejorative used against them by others. That being the case, it might be hard to identify what antinomians say about anything, because they might not call themselves that. Having said that, I find quite a few encyclopedias here have articles on the topic, including maybe one of the most highly regarded of the lot early in the list here. But, to answer the question, I would think that those few who really did adhere to real "antinomianism" (if there were any, and not just a lot of people prejudicially accused of it) they would also think that "being saved" was not necessarily the only goal. To paraphrase Jesus, my father's house has many mansions, and some of them aren't mansions, but cramped little outhouses with maybe inadequate ventilation near the heavenly cesspit. Yeah, if you get there, you're "saved," and you ain't in any way really suffering, but you might also think that mebbe you could have done better by earning a few more points in the physical life. And, in general, people who really spend a lot of time thinking about the afterlife do tend to draw distinctions between the various options in heaven and elsewhere, so, even if those who are saved are guaranteed to get through the gate into heaven, there are still places there one might be more or less fond of, and you could work on that. There is also the possibility that, even if you are saved but do something that might carry a serious penalty, and everything did back then, you would still be suffering the penalty. And not living up to your own apparent standards will get you ridiculed and sneered at by others, so someone with a healthy ego would want to appear to be saved for personal ego reasons. Getting into heaven is one thing, consciously swinging from a gibbet for several hours, or suffering the sneering condescension of your neighbours, are entirely different, and the former won't preclude the latter if you do something to earn them. Also, honestly, particularly in the old days, pardon me for maybe being a bit recentist here, most laypeople and others weren't really trained in logic or philosophy, and most of them, at the time, probably wouldn't have been able to answer this question, other than maybe repeating the specific statements of their leaders. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The varying "rewards" of the afterlife implies a works-based faith that goes rather against antinomianism's emphasis that proof of salvation is inward faith, not outward lifestyle (The Encyclopedia of Protestantism connects antinomianism to libertinism), and is more in line with (then) mainstream Calvinism (those who are predestined to be saved are predestined to do good works; as opposed to antinomianism's claim that the works of those who are saved become good regardless of how others perceive them). The bit about being saved and appearing saved is probably the historical dividing line between antinomianism and mainstream Calvinism and Lutheranism: most folks who made such distinctions were (per Enc. of Prot.) called antinomian for doing so.

Outside of the Divine Comedy and those influenced by it, most of the Christian works I've seen that divided the heavens were more focused on the astrological implications than the theological ones (indeed, Dante's heaven is also a crash course in Ptolomaic astrology). Mystical works, such as Meister Eckhart, tended to rend the veils of heaven (some even creating only a perceptual distinction between heaven and hell). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Tracking down a cite to "The Consensus Opinion" artwork

My google-foo has failed me. Hoping the follow might jog someone else's memory.

Within the past couple of years, I caught a lecture on BBC World Service on the topic of judging quality in art. The lecture was given by a well-known contemporary artist whose name I have no hope of remembering. He advanced the thesis that quality was simply the consensus of the people who judged art. He then described creating a bowl (?) on which he inscribed the names of the fifty most active collectors. He called the work "The Consensus Opinion" (or something similar, can't swear to that either). He then related how one of the folks whose name was inscribed thereon noticed the work at a gallery and, on seeing their name, promptly paid the five-figure price to buy the work.

I'd love to be able to use this anecdote in a talk I'm giving, but I do need to get the details right. I'd appreciate any pointers to the lecture, the artist, and/or the work itself.

Thanks,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

My google-foo has returned. The artist (I'm nearly certain) is Grayson Perry, and the link to the BBC Reith lectures is here. This series began on Oct 8, 2013. Thank you all for putting up with a bit of confessional debugging.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Gah, I just spent the last 15 mins tracking this down, and now when I come back you've already found it. The lecture you're talking about is this one (pdf). The anecdote about the pot is on page 7. --Viennese Waltz 10:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Viennese Waltz Ah, damn, sorry about that. Let me know if you need anything that happens to be paywalled (or in the University of California system) and I'll try to return the favor. And nice work tracking that down in fifteen minutes based on the sketchy description I gave—I'm impressed! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Book Reviews, Ex-Inmate In Exile

I am looking for any reviews written about the self-published autobiography, Ex-Inmate In Exile, ISBN 1-55212-227-1.70.17.200.100 (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

An "official" review or just people's opinions? If the latter, this might be worth a read. St★lwart 03:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Henryk Dobrzański - Confirmation in respect of his son

Henryk Dobrzański

Hello, I am hoping someone may be able to assist with the following (I have been redirected to you). With respect to the entry under the heading Death and legacy 'In 1949, Dobrzański's son, Ludwik, emigrated to England and became a property developer. He died in 1990 (December 15), in the town of Bedford'. Is anyone able to provide proof or verification that this is 100% factual please, i.e. was Ludwik indeed Hubal's son? Many Thanks 82.21.214.45 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You'd be better off asking this question at the reference desk, since Editor Assistance is for advice on how to edit the encyclopedia whereas the reference desk is for seeking information about the subjects the encyclopedia covers. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the steer in the right direction TransporterMan. 82.21.214.45 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.214.45 (talk)

This entry in the London Gazette confirms that _a_ Ludwik Dobrzanski lived in Bedford in 1964, and worked as a building contractor. I can't confirm whether or not he's Henryk's son, and 15 years seems like rather a long time between his (purported) immigration and his naturalization. Tevildo (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, I do know the dates to be correct a case of better late than never I guess. Would I need to contact the Polish Misplaced Pages maybe? to establish the father son connection or what would you suggest? 82.21.214.45 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the biographies referenced in the Henryk Dobrzański article should contain the basic facts (such as his son's name and date of birth). Confirmation of Ludwik's death is probably available from one of the many genealogy sites on the internet, so someone with an account on such a site could look it up. See WP:RS for the range of sources that are acceptable. Tevildo (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ludwik Dobzanski is/was my Father, he never spoke of his Father (not to me anyway), so seeing reference to my Father being the son of Hubal has intrigued me and I wish to establish its validity. Someone obviously knows/knew something to put it onto Misplaced Pages? Anything I have read only makes reference to Hubals daughter, born after my Father, (my Father was born in 1922). I will keep looking, thank you for your responses. 82.21.214.45 (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a subscriber to the British genealogy site Genes Reunited, which gives me access to the index of births, marriages and deaths for England and Wales up to 2006. There is a record of a Ludwik Dobrzanski's death in Bedford in the fourth quarter of 1990, with a birth year of 1922. There is also a record of his marriage to Beryl J. Wharton in Bedford in the first quarter of 1952. You should be able to get copies of the marriage and death certificates from Central Bedfordshire Council. Marriage certificates usually include the names of the bride and groom's parents, so that would confirm the name of Ludwik's father. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference in the Brundtland Report

On a scanned page of the Bruntland report , which I Transcribed at Wikisource, there is a reference to a US govt report, dated in that report as 1987. The reference states it was incorporated into a public law. The question is finding the number of the Public law concerned as the actual number appears to have been mangled in the scan or typesetting. For purposes of being able to potentially link the relevant item on Wikisource or more widely , Does anyone here know which Public Law is actually being mentioned? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you repeat the relevant text here ? StuRat (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The right link is wikisource:Page:Brundtland Report.djvu/335. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The text of the reference reads "7/ 'List of Projects with Possible Environmental Issues' transmitted to Congress by U.S. Agency for International Development. 1987, as included in Public Law <illegible text>-?91." ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen"

A quote from Richard J. Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics :

"A distinguished historian has said that one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen."

Does anyone know who the 'distinguished historian' Hofstadter refers to was? Sadly Google isn't much help, as it merely finds quotes from Hofstadter, who was presumably paraphrasing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he himself said it. It's been known to happen. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Somebody named Joe Scarborough? Bus stop (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? Hofstadter got the quote from a one-year-old Joe Scarborough when he wrote his 1964 essay? Astonishing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Perhaps Joe Scarborough was prescient and precocious. Bus stop (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, we don't know whether Scarborough actually claimed to have come up with it, or whether he attributed the quote, and goodreads.com then miss-attributed it. Either way, assuming that Hofstadter actually wrote it first (or at least, before Scarborough) we are no nearer finding out who the distinguished historian was - though Bug's suggestion is I suppose plausible enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Another fairly plausible possibility is that Hofstadter himself didn't know who said it, and it may not have ever even appeared in print. A common source might be a conversation over dinner at a conference or some such. The author may well remember hearing the phrase from a distinguished historian, but could not remember who (perhaps there were several distinguished historians present, perhaps there was wine involved, etc). Not that helpful, but that's the kind of sloppy "attribution" that I hear in casual science discussions (though it wouldn't fly in print). I have uttered similar phrases myself, based on exactly the type of situation I've described :) SemanticMantis (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

L. B. Namier's your man. In his Avenues of History (1952) he wrote, "The crowning attainment of historical study is a historical sense — an intuitive understanding of how things do not happen." --Antiquary (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Antiquary. That would have to be it. Namier seems to have been quoted directly by amongst others, David Aaronovitch in his Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History , with Aaronovitch evidently making the same point that Hofstadter did regarding the lack of historical understanding evident in the conspiracist mindset. A useful point to remember when faced with more of the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 22

FAMOUS PAINTINGS

I am in possession of a painting which depicts a beautiful landscape with no animal forms whatsoever,nor humans. Mountains, trees, a blue brook,and three huts clustered together, blue sky, some white clouds. I tired of searching its origin, it is signed "by young" and under the name two digits "76". I could not find this artist's identity. the thought came as to wether the "76" digits might stand for the year 1876 as I could not find anything covering the 1900's . this painting was under another painting108.94.177.87 (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, without further information, we have no way of knowing whether the digits indicate 1786, 1876, 1976, or something else entirely - and Young is a very common name. Why do you describe the paintings as 'famous'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

When you say that "this painting was under another painting" do you mean that the topmost painting had to be removed to find the painting that you are describing? How do you know that "this painting was under another painting"? Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You could try to photograph the painting, and use TinEye or reverse image search on google. If it really is a famous work, it might have been photographed in the past, and might even be available online. Even if it has not been photographed prior, you could still post it here. Some people can identify periods and artists by style, even for novel paintings. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And some here would be capable of doing the same. You might start by providing some basic details - where did you get it, what painting was "on top" (style, form, media, etc), what type of frame does it have, how was the top painting removed (was the "bottom" one simply a backing in the same frame or were they on the same canvas and the "top" painting was removed) and is there anything on the back by way of merchant's stamps, signatures, codes or numbers, letters or words, or labels. Often, these things are fairly easy to narrow down from there, at least in terms of style, era and nationality. If non-famous, locating an artist might be more difficult. If you genuinely believe it to be worth something and you have the money to find out, many good auction houses can be commissioned to undertake the above research for you. St★lwart 04:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Could it be Harvey Otis Young (American, 1840 - 1901)? Rodolph (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "by" in the signature is rather unusual, and might be useful in identification. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, I suspect that tells us a lot. Well spotted. St★lwart 22:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It might tell us that Young's first two initials were B.Y. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Medicaid expansion in PA without legislative approval?

This article says, that the new Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf does not need legislative approval to expand medicaid. Why doesn't he need it while other states do need a law for this? Is PA the only state were the chief executive can do this? --62.153.225.50 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Harvard in-text citation

If I am referencing multiple single words in a sentence (that come from the same source, but on different pages), do I just put a generic reference at the end? E.g., (Name, date). What do I do if I do the same thing again later in the same paragraph? Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on this! 213.106.130.210 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit: This is for a poem being referenced in an essay. I might have actually discovered the answer. Do I put "(l. 1)", "(l. 2)", etc., at the end of every quote? 213.106.130.210 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Do Muslim converts and Hare Krishna adherents have to choose Arabic and Indian names?

Do they have to choose new names or do these names merely represent ordination? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Hare Krishna movement, but Muslims don't need to have Arabic names. Some converts to Islam do choose a new (usually Arabic) name in order to show their commitment or to symbolize that they are living a new life as a Muslim, but that's purely a matter of personal preference. - Lindert (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Those who become initiated members of ISKCON, the Hare Krishnas, are given names by the guru doing the initiation, but the name chosen is one of the guru's choice, and not necessarily one chosen by the individual themselves. A lot like Western Christian baptism, actually. I know I would never have chosen my own given names (first and middle) if I had had that choice, which is one of the many reasons I claim to be a fictional character created by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The others included a desire for anonymity and a strong tendency toward delusionalism coupled with a really, really weak grasp of objective reality. ;) John Carter (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do I now have the image of John Belushi, dressed in a saffron robe, and saying: "Dorfman... your Hare Krishna name is... Flounder"  :) Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• AFAIK, Shaquille O'Neal is not an Arabic name. . --Jayron32 00:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• You mean like Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) or Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay), right? No, there is no obligation for them to have changed their names - it was a choice. This section of the latter's article provides some context to his conversion and change-of-name. Elijah Muhammad, for example, only ever changed his last name. He retained "Elijah", having been born Elijah Poole, when he joined (and later led) the Nation of Islam. St★lwart 02:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Elijah Muhammad had his last name changed twice. First time to Karriem then to Muhammad. Also there was little need to change his first as it was already a semi-Islamic name, Elijah#Elijah in Islam. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly right; the point was that he was free to change it (or not) the first and the second times. St★lwart 03:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that various non converts don't even use Arabic or Arabic derived names. Some Indonesian names for example and some Bosniak names. (I also wonder what names Western, Central or Northern European Muslims who's ancestors were Muslims for several generations usually have.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What would be the name of both choices?

Imagine USA merge with russia. (could be any country with any country)
Misplaced Pages says there are 193 UN member states on earth. This includes russia and USA. (this info is used to make my question more clear)
This can be done in 2 ways:

1-They decide to merge themselfs. UN has now 192 members states, this excludes russia and USA, but include the now existant country X.

2-USA is merged with russia. UN has now 192 members states, this excludes USA.
1 and 2 are different things that sound the same. WHat is the name for each one of those "happenings"? 201.78.152.131 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Amerika (TV miniseries) depicted a merger, of sorts. Not sure if they mentioned the UN, though. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I posted 2 different things, there if one of both (or an third one I am not thinking about) happened on this amerika tv series you talk about and was called merge I need to know the name of the other.

I don't think there are specific names for the different options you list.(Update, looks like there are some good phrases at least below) I see this as an issue of Sovereignty, and how we construe continuity of identity when parts of a system change (in the sense of Identity_(philosophy)). In your first case, USA and RU cease to exist (i.e. Dissolution_(law)), cease to have sovereignty, and a new sovereignty is formed, with a new identity. In the second case, the sovereignty and identity of RU remains the same. RU has acquired territory, and USA ceases to exist. This is basically a question about the ontology of the UN's member states and sovereignty. There may be extant UN policy on the matter, but I wouldn't bet on it. I'm happy to see we have a decent but short article titled Identity_and_change :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You would be able to see more clearly the choices by looking at 2 areas that were in the distant past countries X and Y, but now are part of country Z (that dont have other areas), or then looking at 2 areas that were in the distant past countries X and Y, but now are part of country X.201.78.152.131 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Timeline of country and capital changes offers some terminology. Examples *"The Republic of Crimea accedes to the Russian Federation." *"The United Kingdom transfers sovereignty of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China." *"The German Democratic Republic merges into the Federal Republic of Germany." Taknaran (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Edit to add a potential example of your situation 1: *"The Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania unite to form the Commonwealth of the Crown of the Polish Kingdom and Grand Duchy of Lithuania."

The types of union are covered in the political union article. Case 1 would be a "incorporating union", whereas case 2 would be an "incorporating annexation". There's also federation/confederation, where the the original states are preserved as sub-jurisdictions with varying degrees of retained sovereignty, as well as a host of sui generis cases. There's also a personal union, where they stay legally separate, but are simply ruled by the same person(s). As a side note, in the business world, the terms are mergers and acquisitions, where mergers are the coming together of two equals, whereas acquisitions are one company taking over another. Another side note is that the UN has already dealt with the reverse case. When the USSR broke up, there were a number of new member states. One issue was that the USSR was a permanent member of the security council, so what happens to that seat now that the USSR is no longer? As things shook out, Russia took over the USSR's spot on the UN security council, and all the other portions of the USSR just became regular member states. As our USSR article notes "The Russian Federation (formerly the Russian SFSR) assumed the Soviet Union's rights and obligations and is recognized as its continued legal personality." In contrast, when Yugoslavia divided, it ended, and none of the component countries continued its legal personality. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So there are some good terms to distinguish these cases, thanks! SemanticMantis (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In the corporate world, this would be the difference between a merger and a takeover. -- Jack of Oz 20:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• If the SciFi author Jerry Pournelle is correct, it will be called: the CoDominium. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Human microphone

I'm surprised that the human microphone was only invented in the late 20th century. How did people address large crowds before modernity? How did the Athenians speak to 6000 other citizens during their assemblies? Did they just scream and hope they don't lose their voice before finishing their speech? --2001:4898:80E0:ED43:0:0:0:2 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Voice projection, not screaming. Actors and singers on stage all knew about this. I guess we've got used to seeing singers with their mouth and half their face covered by a mic, which is a terribly backward step, culturally speaking. That's why I like to watch opera. You can see every word (even if you can't understand a single word). -- Jack of Oz 21:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suspect however, that in those very large crowds, the folks at the back didn't get to hear very much. The scene in Life of Brian where Brian is trying to make sense of the Sermon on the Mount ("Blessed are the cheesemakers?") probably contains a kernel of truth. Alansplodge (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Addressed them in a amphitheatre. Not much difference to a modern opera house were you can here every note -even at the very back.--Aspro (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's true. Otherwise, a fairly recent example of someone addressing crowds without amplification was Bernard Montgomery who liked to finish a formal troop inspection by jumping on the bonnet of his Jeep and calling the men forward for an informal pep-talk. The effect of these speeches is described here. However, a quick look at some archive footage (see General Montgomery Addressing Troops for example) suggests that the crowd of soldiers usually numbered hundreds rather than thousands. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Megaphone#History says they were definitely in use by 1655. I suspect even the ancients knew that they'd get a bit more projection by cupping their hands around their mouths. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

However, they are designed to project the voice farther in one direction, at the cost of reduced volume in other directions. Thus, they don't allow you to reach more people, unless those people are all in one direction from you, instead of all around you. StuRat (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The ancients knew acoustics pretty well. I visited Chichen Itza about a decade or so ago, back when they the let people climb all the way to the top of the Big Pyramid there. The acoustics are pretty impressive. My wife stayed at the bottom, and we could almost carry on a conversation in regular speaking voices, she could hear me from just about anywhere, and I wasn't shouting, and if she stood in the right places, I could hear her: the acoustics were just so that they entire complex was designed to focus sounds from the top of the pyramid to the ground below. It was a pretty impressive thing to do. The Great Ball Court also had similar effects, someone speaking at one end can be heard at the other. These structures obviously were built to allow people to address great crowds. --Jayron32 00:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In the Rome TV series public speakers are shown to make very specific gestures while talking, in a kind of simplified sign language. The gestures are reminiscent of gestures known from Roman sculptures, but I wonder if there is any other historical source suggesting or confirming that Romans actually used a system of gestures that would help listeners understand what a speaker was saying. — Kpalion 10:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Has An Article About Everything! See Chironomia. Alansplodge (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Anecdote alert: I was in a very large cathedral a month ago and got a text message from a friend. My notification ringtone, which is Stephen Fry shouting "Oh, for f**k's sake!", reverberated around the entire cathedral about 20 times. Everyone was looking around, thinking "Where the hell did that come from?" - these buildings we built in a style that helps project a voice. The cathedral in question was built in 1902. They didn't have microphones then. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, they did. The microphone was invented in 1877. However, amplification wasn't invented until 1906. LongHairedFop (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And amplification was poor quality early on, and probably expensive, too, so many would have skipped it. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Biographical information for a translator

This item at English Wikisource Lists a Katherine Miller as as Translator.

It would be nice to provide a biographical stub on Wikisource, but I've been unable to find anything on Google.

At the very least a rough idea of their lifespan and nationality would be appreciated.

The book is a 1919 translation of a work by Romain Rolland. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 23

allegiance obligation

If an author is writing a fictional book about three Asian women becoming naturalized United States citizens, should he/she include the Oath of Allegiance full text?158.222.165.116 (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's fiction. The author can include or exclude whatever he or she likes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If the terms of the oath, or the immigrants' thoughts about it, are significant to the story. —Tamfang (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the OP is asking about copyright. I very much doubt it is copyrighted, but if you want to find out, ask your local government offices. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This obviously isn't legal advice, but if I understand Oath of Allegiance (United States), & correctly, all modern versions of the oath are works of the US federal government (or more correctly officers or employees of the federal government while performing their official duties), and the older versions which may have non US government involvement are too old to be eligible for copyright and the oath would therefore be in the public domain, at least in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As an Australian Citizen, I can say this in public over and over again. I, John Smith., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD! I don't have to worry about violating copyright. I can even publish it in a fictional novel (as long as the character doing the swearing is an Australian Citizen or is becoming one) 172.56.32.205 (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Espousals of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Saint Joseph

In the painting below (of the Espousals of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Saint Joseph), which figure is supposed to represent Saint Joseph? I assume it's the most "obvious" figure in the painting (i.e., the male who is exchanging rings or touching hands with Mary). If that's the case, why would they represent Saint Joseph as such a young "boy"? Isn't it pretty conventional wisdom that he was an "old" (or, at least, "older") man? Saint Joseph is typically (always?) represented as similar to one of the images in his article, here: Saint Joseph. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Betrothal of the Virgin, Fiorentino, 1523

I guess there are a few answers to this. First, I have to agree that the younger individual tocuhing hands with Mary is the obvious, and, really, only, candidate for Joseph in the picture. And just about every artist makes a painting based on several reasons, many of which are actually less than usual. Not knowing the details of the artist himself, but there have been artists who have changed any number of details about their subjects if they made the picture look better as a picture or if it played to the artist's individual strengths. It could well be that, for whatever reason, the artist was intending to make some sort of statement of some sort in this picture, or, maybe, just wanted it to "look better" in some subjective way. Lastly, while it is now today seemed likely by most Christians that Joseph was an older man, at least in part based on miracles and other less than really reliable sources, that is still kind of speculative based on the lack of information in the original sources, and that view has changed a little over time. In short, I can't be sure why he painted what was I think even for the time a rather anomalous or "alternative" Joseph in the painting, but the number of reasons he might have had for doing so are too numerous to count. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, he clearly went with an "alternative" depiction of Saint Joseph. Had this occurred today, in 2015, I could see contemporary artists "pushing the envelope" for the sake of art, and coming up with this representation out of left field. The artist who painted this is Rosso Fiorentino. So, the fact that he was (A) Italian and (B) living in the 1400's and 1500's would have made me believe that he would stick with the conventional view and not create some "odd-ball" alternative image. That is, he would stick with the traditional Catholic (Italian) image. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Joseph's age is never mentioned nor implied by anything at all in the original text of the Bible. Some traditions hold that he was an old man, because certain aspects of the text could be interpreted to mean that he might have died before Jesus started his ministry at age 30. However, there's no reason, really, to assume that, nor is there any reason to assume he may have been young, middle-aged, or old at the time of Jesus's birth. Any painting of Joseph or depiction of him at ANY age is purely speculative, as such there's no reason to say a painting showing Joseph as a young man is any more or less correct than one that shows him as an old man. --Jayron32 20:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, of course, no one "knows" his real age. And any painting is going to be the artist's rendition of his own ideas. That goes without saying. I guess the question can be re-phrased as something along the lines of: given his background (Italian and Catholic) and time frame (1400-1500's), why would he "go against the grain" and go against the traditional views of the time? Maybe that is what I was asking. I have to say, it was quite jarring to see Saint Joseph portrayed as a young teen-ager. So much so, that I couldn't even figure out which person in the painting was Joseph to begin with. And I think most people (even today; never mind, back then) would have that same reaction. After I figured it out, the painting reminded me more of a "Romeo and Juliet" type of situation (i.e., two young teenagers in love). Very odd. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that a picture of two young teenagers, in the prime of their lives, getting married, pretty much implies a hint of sexuality. Which is the exact opposite of what the picture should be offering. I think. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The painting seems to show a young couple getting married. The ages of the bride and groom are not really obvious from the painting, but they could be anywhere from about 16 to 28. It was usual for weddings to involve young couples. If there is an assumption today that Joseph was significantly older than Mary (and I don't think such an assumption ever came up during my religious education), that assumption may not have existed during the Renaissance. The paintings in our article on Saint Joseph show Joseph at a variety of ages. One of the paintings, by Murillo, show both Mary and Joseph roughly in their 30s, some time after their wedding, with the young Jesus. So I don't think that there was a convention that Joseph was much older than Mary. Marco polo (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I disagree. I think it's generally accepted that the conventional view of Joseph was that of not only an older man, but of a much older man. See Saint Joseph#In art. The painting discussed above (with the teenage-appearing Joseph) is an anomaly. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The article you are referencing contains the statement “When Joseph’s rod bloomed, he was identified as her betrothed.” As an ESL speaker, I may not grasp the subtleties expressed, but I regard this as hard evidence that Joseph was not quite the doddering old geezer depicted by the old masters.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

January 24

Is the flag of Saudi Arabia still forbidden to fly half-mast?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/saudi-arabia-succession/saudi-arabias-king-abdullah-given-simple-muslim-burial-n291956

Either this NBC report is flawed, or this law has changed by government decree!

'''tAD''' (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

See Flag of Saudi Arabia, which confirms your suspicions. The text of the report is definitely missing a word before "kingdoms" - I suspect it may be "other". Tevildo (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That seems the most legitimate answer - that other countries will be dipped like in the picture - but why say "kingdoms"? That seems to imply the flags of the US, China et al will not be half mast. Should I just settle that this is a crap source? I used it to write about Abdullah's funeral on the article on him, please remove the reference to flags flying half mast if this can not be relied upon '''tAD''' (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Saudis sometimes use the Emblem of Saudi Arabia in situations where using the flag (with its Islamic creed quotation_ would be considered quasi-sacrilegious, though this probably doesn't have anything to do with flying at half-staff... AnonMoos (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Evolutionary history/Origin of Mythologies

Hello, any articles available providing entitled information(s)? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC))

Cultures / ethnicities which have never developed religion

No doubt it is difficult (if not impossible) to separate prehistoric religions from ideology from philosophy from law, possibly even from early science and art. It may be even more difficult as many (all?) prehistoric cultures have either become extinct or have evolved into more complex systems. Not to mention the lack of written documentation.
Nevertheless, my question is:
Do we know of cultures / ethnicities which have never developed religion? Maybe, religion here may be defined fuzzily as a belief in supernatural entities who are controlling or guiding the universe / the planet / flora and fauna / every single human being. And yes, I am perfectly aware that it it may be questionable - lacking a hard definition of religion - to state unambigously: X (eg Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime) is a religion and not a prescientific theory of cosmology, abiogenesis and societal rules.
Google , as yet, gets me nowhere. If possible a reference (en / de , understandable to a non-anthropologist - would be appreciated). Thank you for your help! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As phrased, it might be possible that some cultures/ethnicities have inherited religion which they did not themselves "develop." Regarding the broader question, whether there were any early groups which did not have what would be called today broadly religious characteristics, I can't myself think of any, partially because so far as I can tell some sort of belief system we might today call broadly "religious" seems to have existed from early on, and thus been inherited by most subsequent culture. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume you are speculating that some proto-religion existed which may have migrated “out of Africa”. And yes, I found some interesting WP articles, eg Prehistoric religion, Anthropology of religion and a few more. Thank you, I will study those references. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Religions ed. Eliade/Jones has rather a long lengthy series of articles dealing with the broad topic of prehistoric religions, I think bigger than our own actually. The overview article can be found here. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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