Revision as of 08:46, 26 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 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)

Too bad the article's so short, but at least now I know what it's called. Thanks, Alansplodge! — Kpalion 17:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Town criers are a phenomenon that has survived untile recent times. The criers have a distinctive way of declamation and emphasis. See the opening of the classic Spanish film La Colmena for a depiction from Spain in the 30's. There's also the bullhorn. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Talmudic meturgeman, (also turgemana, amora), seems to sometimes have had a role in amplifying his master's speech. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:43, 26 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)

Checking the book's entry in the US Library of Congress online catalogue might have links to other works by this translator, after which I'd suggest contacting her publisher(s). Notable translators do have Misplaced Pages pages. Deborahjay (talk) 06:14, 25 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))

Pick any religious tradition you can think of. Read the Misplaced Pages articles about that religious tradition. The articles in that topic area will always indicate the historical origins and historical evolution/development of that religious tradition. --Jayron32 00:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that someone might mix it with religious education… I understand. Thanks Jayron32. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 13:55, 25 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)

• It depends on how you define religion. But animism is universal, and still exhibited by people kicking inanimate objects. Science took a very long time to develop and is a high intellectual achievement that needs to be taught and is not natural to us, hence all our psychological biases. Even Aristotle explained gravity as the desire of rocks and inanimate objects to occupy the center of the universe, which was the core of the earth. Male chimps pound their chests and shake the trees when it rains, apparently believing in a sky god. Elephants show reverence for the remains of their dead.

It's not surprising that primitive societies had ancestor worship and tabus. Shamanism and cultism is universal to pre-Columbian American natives. The Austronesians have their gods and tabus. The Australian Aborigines have their Dreamtime. Everything from shamanism to developed mythologies is typical of the Siberians. The Indo-European gods are well known. Shamanism, ancestor worship and tabu are present in Africa, see, for example, mingi. The only population I can think of that I don't know does have a religion or mythology is the Khoisan, and that is only due to my ignorance. As mentioned above, Eliade is a good source. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We have a not-very-good article San religion, to which both Khoisan religion and Khoikhoi mythology redirect. Deor (talk)

China is notable for having developed the idea of impersonal universal forces fairly early: Heaven in Confucianism, and yin and yang (and many other concepts) in Taoism. Xunzi even defined Heaven as simply "Nature," echoing Spinoza. But in fact this terminology was part of their development as a civilization. The early Shang dynasty Chinese thought of Heaven as a personal tutelary god called Tian. So, it would seem that the existence of "religion" according to the definition you gave came before the creation of the traditional beliefs of China, and that these traditional beliefs actually downplayed what you consider "religion". Shii (tock) 09:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Atheism really requires science. Without either, there's simply no explanation given for many natural phenomena, like the apparent rotation of the Sun around the Earth. On Earth, objects require a force to be continuously applied to keep moving, and they would have expected the same of the Sun, not understanding the frictionless nature of space (nor that the Earth was the object rotating around the Sun). StuRat (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was alluding to with animism. We don't move (in most cases) unless it's voluntary, so we attribute volition to other things that move. Sophisticated philosophical/theological religions seem to require writing be present in the culture, even if, say, Jesus and Mohammed themselves never wrote down their own words. Thanks, Deor, for the link. There are also totem gods. Kamuy, means "bear" and "god" in the Ainu language.

Interestingly gom is Korean for bear, and kami is a Japanese word for divine beings. Japanese and Korean are somewhat distantly related in many accounts, but Ainu is not, so if not coincidence (unlikely) there's some sort of contact phenomenon. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

January 25

Scipione Rota, a Prince of Acherontia

The Castelsilano article claims it was founded by "Scipione Rota, Prince of Acherontia". I can't find any sources for there being a Scipione Rota, a Prince of Acherontia, or anywhere called Acherontia. Acherontia is a genus of moth. There's no ref in the article, and the content was added by an anon. Did this Prince and his Principality exist? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 00:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The corresponding article in the Italian Misplaced Pages has "Cerenzia", which, according to the latter's Italian article, was historically known by many names, including Acherontia. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As for Castelsilano's alleged founder, Scipione Rota of Cerenzia: sources are easily found that show the Rota family was the ruling house of Cerenzia until the early 18th century, when it passed to the Savelli family. I can't read Italian well, and I don't have full access to any of the more reliable-seeming sources, but Misplaced Pages's version seems to be in accordance with other sources. Scipione seems to have later become a monk. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd

In this article it speaks of Giraldus Cambrensis spending a night in 1188 on his journey round Wales with Archbishop Baldwin in a castle at Rhuddlan that was owned by David. If one were to guess, approximately how many people were entertained (i.e. a hand full, few, dozens, hundreds, thousands)?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that the castle Gerald visited was Twthill, Rhuddlan, a modest wooden motte and bailey castle; work on the nearby Rhuddlan Castle, a much grander stone-built affair, didn't start until 1277. I can't imagine that Twthill would have had a great hall capable of seating many more than a hundred, but that's just a guess. Gerald doesn't say much about his stay at Rhuddlan - see The Itinerary through Wales (pp. 128-129) and he also doesn't say much about the size of Archbishop Baldwin of Forde's retinue (Gerald was the official translator) but I suspect it was dozens rather than hundreds, also a guess. Alansplodge (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Great answer = actually that has helped me a lot.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that it was about 60 people (including women and children) = that would fit within your guess. Would the entertainment consist of dancing girls or singers or poets or food or ? Would the entertainment be for other people (i.e. county locals) other than Archbishop Baldwin of Forde's retinue?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Pleased to help. I didn't have much luck with a reference, but see Castle Learning Center - Food and More on the archbishop’s enthronement feast which says; "...a major source of entertainment at a medieval banquet was apt to be culinary in nature, at least in part." Bear in mind that Wales was far from prosperous at the time, so I would guess it was a rather modest affair. Alansplodge (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Jo Indian, Adirondack Mountains

The description for a piece by Eastwood Lane, "Dirge for Jo Indian", reads "Jo Indian was a famous Adirondack Indian who lived and hunted in the vicinity of the mountain bearing his name. Like Chingachgook, Cooper's marvelous embodiment of all that is best in the native North American, Jo Indian met his death in a forest fire." Who was Jo Indian? I found no such mountain, only "Joe Indian Island" in Cranberry Lake. — Sebastian 22:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Mount Jo? (though it was named after Josephine Schofield, apparently, but there's also an "Indian Pass" on the southern foot of Mt Jo, see here ...) ---Sluzzelin talk 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sluʒʒelin, nice to meet you again! The explanation about Josephine makes sense to me, and it's referenced, so I would trust that. I'm actually more interested in the person, since Eastwood Lane describes him as famous; the mountain is just one pointer. — Sebastian 02:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

African Union languages template

What happened to the template that dealt with languages of African Union where the top was working languages and the bottom was national or regional languages and Somali, Swahili and Hausa and others was one of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.253 (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Relationship between relative age of students and their academic performance

In most K–12 education systems, the students within a grade differ in age by up to one year. On average, do the older student perform better academically than their younger classmates?

I found two papers that claim this is indeed the case.

But then I also found this New Yorker article, citing this paper, that the opposite is true, surprisingly enough.

So which group of academics is correct here? WinterWall (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It's unlikely you can come to any reliable conclusion with only 3 papers, only one of them happens to be a review paper (i.e. there are actually a lot more papers). At most, you may be able to decide that one or more of the papers isn't particularly good (but this doesn't mean you can be certain that the others are definitely right even if the research is better, you still only have 2 papers). Anyway these papers seem to be looking at different things. The first 2 seem to be looking at academic performance during the children's schooling years. The other one seems to be looking at IQ at 18, educational attainment, earnings, teenage pregnancy and possibly other things. So it could easily be both findings are largely correct (or for that matter wrong). Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

what if the USA, the EU-Countries, Russia, China and India suddenly disappared?

what would happen, if, some day about now, the United States of America, the 28 member states of the European Union, the Russian Federation, the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of India (all these nations territory defined by the territory they claim to belong to them, irrespective of how other countries think of these claims or actual territorial control. Territorial waters count. Airspace and space within earth gravity well included) would, without any unusual preceding signs or explanation suddenly disappear (disappear in the sense, that there are nosigns anymore, that humans ever existed in these places - no manmade structures, no artifacts, even ressources exploited by humans are back) ? What would be the global ramifications of such an event? How would the part of humanity that would still be there (and their gouvernments) act in such a situation with all of the worlds major powers gone? (of course I'm aware that this premise is rather fantastical, but so is http://en.wikipedia.org/Without_Warning_%28Birmingham_novel%29 ) --134.91.43.42 (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a great question for xkcd What If. I think Randall would also love your exact specifications of the problem. Not that there's anything wrong with asking it here, either. — Sebastian 08:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the thing wrong with asking it here is that it says at the top of the page "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." -- BenRG (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

See also Darwinia (novel)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Judaism

Suppose that you believe the entire Hebrew Bible to be true (like most Christians), but you don't accept the New Testament. You're also not Jewish by ethnicity and haven't formally converted to the religion. What would you be called? Do people like this actually exist? Under Jewish tradition, do these people have to follow the Law (including all 613 mitzvot), or can they just follow the Noahide laws? --Bowlhover (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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