Revision as of 21:05, 28 March 2013

• 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

March 23

where did they find gold in ancient times

where was the best place that people found gold (gold mines and things like this) in thousands of years ago? I mean which places had the MOST gold mining not just a little gold here and there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by There goes the internet (talk • contribs) 07:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

See Gold_mining#History. --PlanetEditor (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I look at that already. it just says this place had some gold and this place had some gold and we found some remains of gold mine here and there. I want to know which places had A LOT of gold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by There goes the internet (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere had a LOT of gold. That's why it was so sought-after. --ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, for places that historically had lots of gold, I would suggest looking to Egypt/Nubia, Las Médulas, Roșia Montană, Mali Empire, Inca, and Aztec Empire. 69.157.30.181 (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

i wish i had some gold :-(--There goes the internet (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You do, on the contacts for the components of your PC. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

List of countries by gold production is a modern list, but it should give some ideas as to what parts of the world gold is found in. The gold, after all, was still there in ancient times. If the OP can indicate for what purpose they want to know the information, or for what parts of the world, we may be able to provide more tailored and useful responses. --Jayron32 01:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a little info at this webpage, , and a lot more in Google Books if you search around. If I understand right, in very ancient times most gold was acquired by placer mining (ie, gold panning, sluicing, etc—not really "mining" as such), and so was done in streams where gold washed down from deposits upstream. Apparently there is some evidence of near-surface veins being worked in a few places. That page I linked points out that we don't really know much about exactly where ancient civilizations got gold from. It might be easier to determine what places had little gold instead of which had some. It seems that Mesopotamia was rather poor in "indigenous" gold. On the other hand, some places are known for having been sources of gold, such as Nubia. According to this book, , ancient India had gold "in abundance", but was poor in silver. This page, gives some general info on ancient gold sources, specifically the "Upper Nile near the Red Sea and in the Nubian Desert area", "possibly in Yemen and southern Africa", Arabia (the Mahd adh Dhahab being an area specifically known as an ancient source). Mesoamerican and Inca gold is "believed to have come from Colombia", but not exclusively. There's a Gold Museum in Colombia with lots of pre-Columbia pieces. It seems northeastern Colombia was, and is a major gold source. The "Cauca Belt" comes up in searches (Valle del Cauca department mentions gold history). I tried to find some maps of this stuff but couldn't in a quick search. You'd think there would be some. In short, for major gold sources "thousands of years ago", it looks like good bets include the Nubia region (perhaps reaching into Ethiopia, a gold producing country), Arabia (specially western Arabia areas like Hejaz and Yemen), possibly areas near the other side of the Red Sea (today's Eritrea and Sudan), and "India" (probably many places in India, a known site is the Kolar Gold Fields). Placer gold was likely found in widespread places in smaller amounts. Pfly (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

the gold standard and real wage growth

my teacher said that the reason why there has been no wage growth in the united states is that we went off THE GOLD STANDARD and we print to much money. what are some arguments AGAINST this view. in other words, are there some ppl who thing this would have happened if we stayed on the gold standaed. this is not homework btw i just want to know what the other side of the argument is. also, how can we restore real wage growth in the United States becuase i would like to make some more money in 10 yrs then i make now (assuming i dont get a better job or things like this).--There goes the internet (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

he said back in the olden days wages grew faster then inflation.--There goes the internet (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

So you are studying at the same time as working Good for you but if you really want to make a go of it you should invest some time in figuring how to search for things yourself. What work have you done to find an answer for your homework besides asking here? Dmcq (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

i said this wasnt homework and i dont appreciate being called a liar. it was a class discussion, and i was just thinking about what he said during the discussion.--There goes the internet (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Being offended by what some random person on the internet says is irrational. Also what you say is evidence not truth as far as I am concerned, I try and assume the best in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy but that does not include assuming everything someone says is true. In this case I have advised you whilst assuming are attending a class and wish to learn. If a question arises during a class then you should treat it as an opportunity for learning rather than just reaching to the internet for some instant answer. Particularly if you have chosen to go and study at the same time as working. You could also have asked during class. Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

My class has over 9999 ppl in it, if you dont want to help me you don't have to. i dont see what the big deal is.--There goes the internet (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I did try to help you. Dmcq (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

See fiat currency, Bretton-Woods Agreement, Triffin dilemma, and Nixon Shock for the history of (and reasons for) the USA's last departure from the gold standard. Tevildo (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

See also Churchill's Gold Standard Mistake (yes - that Churchill - he was rubbish at economics). Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

First your premise is incorrect, there has been real wage growth, just not for the bottom 80% of Americans, for the richest Americans, wage growth has been the greatest ever seen. Wage growth is normally tied to productivity, if a worker can create twice as much in the same time, or create twice as much using the same amount of raw material, his wages will double minus the cost of whatever it was that made him more productive (education, new technology, increased capital, etc). Productivity has been increasing over the last few decades, though the wages paid to workers is not increasing mostly due to the rich owners demanding all the profit from the increase in productivity and the workers just accepting this. If you want to see higher real wages in the future then become more productive and demand your fair share or your labour's value. 69.157.30.181 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

we should get together and seize the property of the boozwazeeee. it is the fault of greedy 1 percenter, that is what i will tell my teacher, but i think he will laugh at me. he doesnt think much of marx and socialism and things like this.--There goes the internet (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that all the threads started by this OP be closed as trolling/pre-teen nonsense. 69.157.30.181 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

maybe u should be closed.--There goes the internet (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The question admits a reasonable interpretation: does the gold standard was better for employees? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

During most of the 19th century, economies with gold-backed currencies showed a long-term overall deflationary trend, partially counteracted at irregular intervals by major gold finds. This state of affairs could be considered good for workers if it inhibited currency instabilities and runaway inflation, but also bad for workers insofar as deflation was creditor-friendly and debtor-unfriendly. In the United States at the end of the 19th century, many farmers and workers (especially in western states) were strongly in favor of supplementing gold with silver ("bimetallism") -- see William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech... AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah! i remember this from my history class. there was like this period for like 20-30 years where there was a whole slew of candidates who ran on silver-related platform. that was like the most boring and repetitive part of the whole history book. i'm glad it's over.--There goes the internet (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it's incredibly boring for you, but in late 19th century America, it was just about the only politically-realistic way to argue for non-long-term-deflationary non-creditor-friendly monetary policies, so it was of vital interest to many. It was one of the few ways of trying to smooth some of the harsh edges of unrestrained "robber baron" capitalism that was not widely perceived to be politically radical. Of course, owners of silver mines favored bimetallism for different reasons... AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And the reason why increased productivity is not reflected in increased wages is globalization, and, in particular, China. Anyone who doesn't accept low wages can just be replaced by a Chinese worker (with a few exceptions). StuRat (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, all this depends on how you calculate buying power. Yes, a dollar today buys less gold than a dollar 100 years ago. But it buys a hell of a lot more cellular service, or computing power, or antiretroviral drugs, or antibiotics, or high-precision watches, or air travel, or free online encyclopedias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

but i bet if those things were around in the olden days i could have bought more of them.--There goes the internet (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

At least computing power (in the form of Human computers) and air travel were available in principle, but much more expensive than today, especially relative to income. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

First British powered flight

I thought I'd have a go at our stub article for Stanley Spencer, who designed and built the first British airship in 1902. I'm having trouble establishing a date for the first flight. Many sources, such as this one go for 22 September 1902, with a 3 hour flight from Crystal Palace, London. However, the New York Times says 20 September and the The Nevada Daily Mail says 19 Sep. The Reading Eagle (apparently Reading, Pennsylvania) reports a trial on 11 July which broke a propeller blade and was eventually flown without the engine. The Manawatu Times in New Zealand reported that Spencer's wife flew the airship at Crystal Palace on 14 July, with or without the engine isn't clear. So does anyone have a reliable date for the first flight? Alansplodge (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the primary sources quoted can be reconciled - a first unpowered flight from Ranelagh to Ongar on the 11th, a flight (presumably powered) by Mrs Specner within the grounds of "Baystal" Palace on the 13th (presumably - 14th July 1903 was a Tuesday, and I think "13" for "14" is more likely than "Tuesday" for "Monday"), and a powered flight from Crystal Palace to Eastcote on the 19th. Note that the Nevada Daily Mail and New York Times articles seem to be based on the same copy, and the Daily Mail says "today" with a dateline of the 19th, while the Times says "yesterday" with a dateline of the 20th. Tevildo (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I mis-read the dates. The Reading Eagle report is for 1903 (not 1902), so we have two flights for 1902 - Mrs Spencer (Crystal Palace only) on Monday 14th July, Mr Spencer (Crystal Palace to Eastcote) on Saturday 19th July, and one flight for 1903 (Saturday 11th July), unpowered, from Ranelagh to Ongar. Tevildo (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I misread the "Reading Eagle" date too. Spencer built a second, larger airship in 1903 called "Number 2", so it must have been that one. I'm a bit puzzled as to why he would let his wife make the first flight - perhaps she had a good insurance policy! Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "scratch monkey" comes to mind... Tevildo (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Or guinea pig. -- Jack of Oz 21:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

So is she the first woman to pilot a powered aircraft? Alansplodge (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, based on the above. The books say that it was Aida de Acosta (27 June 1903), but it seems that Mrs Spencer beat her by nearly a year. Assuming the Crystal Palace flight was under power, which the article doesn't actually say. Tevildo (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The plot thickens. The article does imply powered flight; "navigated around" and "under perfect control" doesn't sound like the sort of thing that is possible in a drifting balloon. Can anyone find a better source than a provincial newspaper from New Zealand? Alansplodge (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's one from a provincial American newspaper (second column, second from bottom), which cites the "London News" (the Illustrated London News?) (Note advert for "Ironbrew", as well - should we tell A G Barr's lawyers)? I'll see what else I can find. Tevildo (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

More information on Mrs Spencer's history, and a cite (the W G Grace / Conan Doyle copy) to "Motoring Illustrated". It's out there somewhere! Tevildo (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think a trip to Beaulieu is indicated. We have a definite publication and date, and they should have a copy of the magazine. Expect a definite answer some time next week! Tevildo (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I wait with bated breath (whatever that is). Many thanks everybody. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

With your breath held, as in "abated". μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I probably won't be taking that literally then. Alansplodge (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, the "Motoring Illustrated" article is in the can - I'll do some proper writing-up tomorrow. It's dated 2nd August 1902, and says that Mrs Spencer flew the airship "recently" (presumably 14th July). However, although she was at the controls, she was accompanied by her husband. Ms de Acosta doesn't lose her position as the first _solo_ female aviator (aviatrix?), but Mrs Spencer seems to have been the first woman to fly a powered aircraft. Tevildo (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Article text is available at User:Tevildo/MotoringIllustrated. Reading it again, it looks like she _did_ acheive the first solo flight, after all. Photos from article to follow shortly. Tevildo (talk)

Photos have been uploaded. Over to you! Tevildo (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks; that's marvellous. I can't believe that a milestone like that has escaped everybody's notice. I'll do my best to put it right. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the UN anti-Israel?

Torture

A few years back, I remember reading a news story about a girl who lead a protest in China, or maybe some other country. She was arrested, and police tortured her by pumping cold water up her vagina every day. She died a month later. Does anyone know what story this is? Unfortunately, when I try to Google it, I find few actual news sites. Thanks. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You could start your search at Category:Torture victims (there are subcategories by nationality as well) and see if there is a Misplaced Pages article about her. --Jayron32 20:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

i am in one problem.

office of infirmarer

In our article on John of Wallingford (writer) it says John "serviced the office of infirmarer". What is this office and what is an infirmarer ?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

An infirmarer is a monk who looks after the infirmary of a monestary. Tevildo (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

O.K., now I get it. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Cartoon Posh & Becks

A few years ago, a cartoon appeared in one of the British papers of Victoria and David Beckham on the balcony at Buckingham Palace , could you please tell me who the cartoonist was and in what paper it appeared. I have tried searching on line with no luck. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.131.240 (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it this in the Guardian? 184.147.116.201 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Posh & Becks ARE a cartoon already surely.

Secular arguments against same-sex marriage

I could not find an article that described secular arguments against same-sex marriage such as the common procreation argument. Is this type of material not suitable for Misplaced Pages? Should it be added? Where? Same-sex marriage is already quite large. --beefyt (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably nowhere. Misplaced Pages is not the place to make arguments, it's the place to write encyclopedia articles. --Jayron32 01:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

But if an argument on a topic has been aired in reliable sources, it may merit a mention in an article about the topic. --ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've very frequently seen economic arguments used, i.e. that extending marriage increases cost of Social Security and other benefits. While I do not condone bigotry, there is good reason to question why society should disburse its benefits based solely on who is registered as having sex. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're implicitly raising some of the constitutional issues which the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide. Equal protection under the law, full faith and credit, etc. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are, of course, arguments against marriage, not arguments against same-sex marriage. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We only write about notable topics. I don't think the distinction between secular and non-secular arguments against same-sex marriage is a particularly meaningful one. Pretty much all the arguments are religiously motivated, but most of them are presented in a secular way (particularly when presenting them in US courts, since US courts aren't allowed to make decisions based on openly religious arguments). Therefore, there is no separate topic to have an article on. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

So if the topic is notable, it should be arguments against same-sex marriage? --beefyt (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Some other articles about specific arguments:

• Christological argument
• Arguments for and against drug prohibition
• Ethical arguments regarding torture
• Political arguments of gun politics in the United States

--beefyt (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a litany of articles on the subject, starting with the article on same sex marriage, and including List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States, List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States, and others. The links you provide above probably could be comfortably merged into some other articles. For instance, we have a dozen versions of gun politics articles. Splitting up topics into scarcely different headings dilutes the effort on any one article and creates divides where either POV issues or accuracy issues can fester, let alone the duplicated effort. There's other stuff but that's not a good reason to add to the problem. If you want a concise set of arguments on that point, try to improve on what's already there, or alternatively, if you must branch something out, do so in a broad rather than narrow way. That is, keep the topics broad, and only split them off into narrower ones if the original grows too large. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Is it best to leave things as they are? Or would it be better to move all the material to a single article? Currently several articles have much to say on the topic and only differ by some perspective, e.g., families, economics. Much of the current material is redundant. When I started, I was hoping to find a snapshot of the current debate, at least as it pertains to the United States. Instead I found bits and pieces spread out in multiple articles. It seems to me like a prime candidate for a new article. The same-sex marriage article (136K) is already turning into a very long list so I worry about adding any more to it. --beefyt (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sumerian aristocracy

Does Sumer have landlords? Also, do the landlords live in the central city? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 23:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Not now. Assyriously though, according to "God and King in Sumeria", "the temples owned vast tracts of land, profiting as landlords from the rents paid to them by farmers." The later Assyrians had landlord-tenant laws, and "the landlord of a pub is written as lú" by the Akkadians. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul Revere;s actual words regarding the British regulars being out (on the night of his famous ride.

I would like confirmation of what I was told by a Massachusets Park ranger, to wit, that Revere actually called out on his unfinished ride that "The Regulars are out!" This distinction would give credence to the notion that we Americans still kept somewhat in mind that we were (technically) British and/or perhaps distinguished between the British "Regulars" and other British forces. Along the same line, I would like to know when we Americans spoke with an accent that distinguished our speech from British accents. This would most likely be sometime after 1812 and the impressment of American seamen by British naval forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.6.54 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

According to our article (Paul Revere), what he said was "The Regulars are coming out." Tevildo (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This article says that the American accent hasn't changed much since that time - it's the British pronunciations that've changed. Around 1776, lower-class Brits and lower-class Americans (ie most people) spoke pretty much the same, but with time more and more Brits adopted the different, upper-class accent. There's more discussion of this here. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a very silly article. American accents have changed in some respects, British accents in others. Unless you think Scots, Welsh, Irish and northern English sound 'American', the fact that rhotic accents were then more common in southern England does not mean that they sounded 'American' either. Henry 14:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of the Colonist considered themselves British for a very long time... arguably many did up til around the time of Independence. They considered themselves "American" too, but that doesn't have the same meaning it does now in their context. Shadowjams (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Observation: it's surprising how much it varies in the U.S. Near the coastline in the East, there are lots of people who don't seem to pronounce "r" in anything. But go a few hundred miles inland and you'll find something very different, even pockets of people who still pronounce "warsh" with an r, something 'rhotic' speakers don't even do. Wnt (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There has always been a lot of variation in English accents. There was almost certainly even more variation among English accents (by which I mean the accents of England) 200 or 300 years ago than there is now. English accents have tended to become more similar since the early 20th century due mainly to radio and television but also to greater labor mobility and the effects of the world wars in moving people around and exposing them to different accents. In effect, the speech of London has increasingly dominated English speech, though areas outside Southeast England maintain (decreasingly) distinct regional variants. The same process has happened in the United States, with General American, a Midwestern-derived variety, gaining ground against regional variants. The American colonies were settled by people from different parts of England, as well as lots of people from what is now Northern Ireland and smaller numbers from Scotland, Wales, and the rest of Ireland. Some American colonies were mainly settled by people from a particular part of the British Isles and hence had similar accents to those parts of the British Isles. For example, eastern New England was settled mainly by people from East Anglia, where non-rhotic speech probably predated the arrival of the Puritans in the 1630s. As a result, eastern New Englanders probably already had an early precursor of the Boston and Maine accents at the time of the Revolution. Coastal parts of the South may have adopted the speech of upper middle class London, which was probably also non-rhotic by the 18th century. By contrast, the interior of New England and most other American colonies were settled mainly by people from the West Country of England and by people from what is now Northern Ireland speaking Ulster Scots dialects. The result was a hybrid accent combining elements of West Country speech and Ulster Scots that later evolved toward General American. Now, the people of New England had been separated from their East Anglian cousins for some six generations by the time of the Revolution, so it is likely that they would have sounded odd to each other, but more similar to each other than to other English speakers. A speaker of a rhotic variety of English might not have been able to distinguish an eastern New Englander from an East Anglian or a Tidewater Virginian planter from a well-to-do Londoner. On the other hand, the hybrid West Country-Ulster accent of the American interior might well have been distinctive even by the late 18th-century. Here is a source supporting much of the above. Marco polo (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

March 24

Veritas Forum and Campus Crusade for Christ

Does the Veritas Forum just host dialogues between Christians and nonreligious people, or is the Forum more focused on religion in general and irreligion in general? I saw this flyer yesterday about "What is the meaning of life?" hosted by Veritas Forum. At first glance of the flyer, it looks like a forum between two professors. One is a professor in mathematics, and the other is a professor in philosophy. They don't really give their religious status. And about the Campus Crusade for Christ: is the main goal of the organization just trying to convert everybody on the planet to Christianity, or is the main goal of the organization trying to help people "connect with Jesus" while maintaining one's own cultural/religious heritage as long as one's native culture/religion does not interfere with basic Christian beliefs? If the latter case, then can a devout Jewish or Muslim person "connect with Jesus"? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The main goal of the Campus Crusade is to convert you to a particular brand of evangelical Protestant Christianity. A Muslim, Jew, and even certain types of Christians (particularly Catholics) can absolutely not "connect with Jesus" in any sense meaningful to the CCC. When I was younger and had more free time to spend on being an asshole, I could spend many hours arguing with the CCC from a Catholic perspective, just for amusement. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you describe yourself as an "asshole"? Why did you do that made you an "asshole"? How long ago was then? Why did you stop being an "asshole"? If you have more free time, then would you continue being an "asshole"? Can a person become a Christian of the lowest common denominator? Which Christian church/denomination accepts everybody as full membership? Can a person become affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church but has mixed theology? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I was being facetious, but basically at my university the CCC liked to have "interviews" with the people in charge of the other student clubs, and I was in charge of Quiz Bowl for several years, so I was "interviewed" several times. And it was never an interview so much as an occasion for them to proselytize. I kept agreeing to talk to them just so I could annoy them and waste their time. I'm sorry I have no references except for personal experience and opinion, but Campus Crusade for Christ is the worst. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The most recent Veritas Forum at Penn hosted a debate between a Christian professor and an Atheist. It was cosponsored by the religious groups at Penn and the Penn Secular Society. Unfortunately, Videos aren't up yet, so I can't give you an example. Ryan Vesey 01:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The upcoming Veritas Forum is between a Ohio State University professor in philosophy and some professor in mathematics. Little is known about their spiritual status. It is hosted in the Ohio Union and is sponsored by Christian Intervarsity groups on campus and the Secular Student Alliance. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

See Veritas Forum and Cru (Christian organization) for our articles on the subject, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Large unfinished structure which began before 15thcentury

looking for Large unfinished structure which began before 15th century. Nave in Siena is one such but i was looking for others. would appreciate help49.206.53.229 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)vsmurthy

Málaga Cathedral would come close; started in 1482, south tower remains unfinished to this day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but that is in 15th century 49.206.53.229 (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)vsmurthy

Interesting question... I was about to point you to Roslyn Chapel... but that was started in the 15th Century as well. Blueboar (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

By just typing "14th century unfinished" into Google, I found the unfinished "Facciatone" (nave extension) of the Duomo Nuovo in Siena. From our article; "A second massive addition of the main body of the cathedral was planned in 1339. It would have more than doubled the size of the structure by means of an entirely new nave and two aisles ranged perpendicular to the existing nave and centred on the high altar... Construction was halted by the Black Death in 1348. Basic errors in the construction were already evident by then, however, and the work was never resumed." Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There are several at this link. There are probably some more that were begun in ancient times but never completed to their original plan, but have remains surviving. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for completeness, the Misplaced Pages article Unfinished building could use some expansion. :) 184.147.116.201 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I located the answer Narbonne Cathedral (Cathédrale Saint-Just-et-Saint-Pasteur de Narbonne) is a former cathedral, and national monument of France, located in the town of Narbonne. It is dedicated to Saints Justus and Pastor. It was the seat of the Archbishop of Narbonne until the Archbishopric was merged into the Diocese of Carcassonne under the Concordat of 1801. (The title, however, passed to the Archbishop of Toulouse.) The church was declared a basilica minor in 1886. The building, begun in 1272, is noted for being unfinished. http://en.wikipedia.org/Narbonne_Cathedral 49.206.53.229 (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)vsmurthy

Which companies are the main manufacturers of computers for Western military aircraft?

Question asked by Willy turner (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and BAE Systems if memory serves. Probably Airbus for some. Check out the pages for the F-22 Raptor and the Eurofighter for a few more names. 81.159.249.142 (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Avionics computers might be a start. Dmcq (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean manufacturers of the hardware that flies aboard the aircraft, the avionics (in flight) software, the hardware or software used in the aircraft design and manufacturing process, or something else? Astronaut (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

In-flight hardware and software needs to be to various MIL-STDs or whatever standards apply for the manufacturer in their country. As a result it is often built in-house (ie. made by the aircraft manufacturer themselves). However, some components are sourced from commercial suppliers (for example, according to this press release, Eurotech supply Intel Atom-based hardware for military applications). Design and manufacturing software (the field I used to work in) is a mixture of in-house development and commercially available packages, and will use commercially available Unix and PC hardware. Astronaut (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

United Torah Judaism pro-settlement or oppose

Does United Torah Judaism support settlements in West Bank or not?--Donmust90 (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Did you read our article? "UTJ has no opinion on the issue of increasing settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories." --140.180.249.152 (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the various factions of UTJ disagree strongly on the matter, hence the unified neutral stance. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 20:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked that because two West Bank settlements gave the party the most votes than any other according these two websites: ] which says in Hebrew, Matityahu and ] about Beitar Illit.--Donmust90 (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Population along highway routes

I need to calculate the number of people who live within 100 miles of a U.S. Interstate (100 miles on either side of the Interstate). Is there some way to overlay census data on a state map of the interstate in order to get at least a rough estimate of how many people reside within a 200-mile wide corridor, 100-miles on either side of the highway?

Thank you for any suggestions you have about where to look for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbelldc (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The software that does these kinds of calculations easily is a Geographical Information System, for example ArcGIS. There are some free packages available. You would need to be able to download the Census data and "boundary data" in a format that the GIS can read, as well as a compatible map of the highways. Someone might have already done it, or be able to do it for you. A university department of geography could do it but would normally charge. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you intend to go down this road (sorry) you can find census data shapefiles here and shapefiles for the highway system here. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Map of fat Interstates.svg

It might be easier to estimate the population who live further than 100 miles from an interstate. Looking at Google Maps and using straight-line distances, there don't seem to be many gaps - maybe a small corner of Maine, a thin strip along the Canadian border in the great plains, the upper penninsula of Michigan, a couple of spots in the Rockies, the bottom end of the Florida keys, maybe a few other places, all of which have quite low populations. Astronaut (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the OP might want the numbers for particular interstates, rather than all interstates. I agree it is going to be pretty much the entire population if you look at all interstates combined. --Tango (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added the illustration to the right (derived from File:Map of current Interstates.svg. The white areas are more than ~100 miles from an interstate. Astronaut (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional question: are you just looking for people inside the U.S., or do you also want to know how many people in Mexico and Canada live within 100 miles of a U.S. Interstate? Also, don't forget that Alaska and Hawaii also have interstate highways (the map provided by the previous poster only shows continental U.S.). See Interstate_Highways_in_Alaska and Interstate_H-1. RudolfRed (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Judging by the map above, the great majority of exceptions live in the Rio Grande Valley, which has a population of about 1.1 million people. Every other part has very low population density, as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation in value of early money

Say you live in a primitive society where nobody's ever heard of money, but there is a division of labor and a barter economy. Your job is to hunt with bows and arrows. When your bows and arrows are worn out and you need new ones, you barter some of the meat you produce to your neighbor whose jobs is to make bows and arrows.

Then people arrive from across the sea and start offering for barter commodities unavailable in your country in exchange for commoditites unavailable in theirs. But in their country, they buy and sell things for money, which consists of silver coins. Over time some people in your country become willing to accept silver coins as payment from the people across the sea because they know they can use them later to buy other things from those people. After this practice is established, people in your country start selling other commodities to their neighbors for silver coins, since that money is in effect backed by commodities that can be bought from the people from across the sea. As the number of people willing to accept silver coins as payment expands, the number of goods offered for sale for silver coins rapidly increases without any correspondingly rapid increase in the supply of silver coins. Hence prices go down. Realizing that prices will continue to go down over the next couple of years as the trend spreads further, some people start hoarding coins in order to be able to buy much larger quantities of goods with them a year or two from now than they can today. This further limits the supply of coins used in trade and thus further drives down prices, and thus more people are impressed by the increasing value of money, and become willing to accept it in payment. At some point the custom of using money to buy and sell things rather than barter spreads as far as it can spread throughout your country and then prices stop their general downward trend.

• Is this historically accurate as a description of what has happened when money was introduced for the first time in societies formerly using barter?
• How much is known and how much unknown about the histories of such episodes?
• Has anyone studied this sort of thing quantitatively in any detail?
• Somewhere I saw a Misplaced Pages article saying money wasn't generally used in Rome until about 200 BC, whereas in Greece it had been used centuries earlier. Did any Roman writers describe this sort of thing?

Michael Hardy (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you'd get any such effect. The value of the silver coins would be limited by what it could buy from the foreigners who introduced it. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's _initially_ limited in that way, nonetheless its utility as a means of making trade far more efficient than by barter alone would give it some value beyond that.

But you, see a big problem with your answer and this comment of mine is the word "would". I'm asking what has happened, not what _would_ happen. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I suspect the opposite is true. As the silver coins become more desirable among your compatriots, the value of your labour, your meat, or whatever you produce becomes relatively less. What's more, seeing the increased desirability of the coins, the foreigners start demanding more for the same number of coins. This is known as inflation. Astronaut (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If the value of your meat, your labor, etc., becomes _less_ relative to the coins, that means the value of the coins becomes relatively _more_, which is exactly what I was saying. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is History of money the article you were thinking of? It seems well-referenced with a number of books you might want to pursue. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver coins aren't backed by commodities that can be bought from the people from across the sea but by their silver value. Silver coins can be melted down and made into jewelery.
Sleigh (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

@Sleigh: That would be true only among people who have uses for silver other than as a medium of exchange. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

When the Romans traded for spices from ancient India, the Indians would only accept gold in exchange. The Romans bought the spices with Roman gold coins which the Indians melted down for jewelery.
Sleigh (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The one example of sustained trading contact between people who used money and people who didn't is the maritime fur trade era of the Pacific Northwest coast, circa 1780-1840. I don't think coins were ever used in that trade for at least two major reasons. First, the indigenous people didn't see them as valuable within their existence culture. They were interested in things that traditionally indicated high status, such as pieces and sheets of copper, and things of obvious use, like kettles, steel knives, and of course firearms. Over time as fur bearing animals were depleted clothing became an important item of trade. The value of all traded items fluctuated wildly over the course of even a single trading season, and the indigenous people were shrewd traders. It's hard to imagine they would believe a coin trade at one value would be worth the same value at a later time. The second major reason coins weren't much used, if at all, was because the fur trade was almost always part of a larger trade system that involved China. For most of the period China was unwilling to accept anything other than silver and furs. These trading ships visited the Northwest Coast full of silver coins, but not for use on the coast. It was far more important to save them for China. In short, you could get a lot more for silver in China than you could on the Northwest Coast. Pfly (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

PS, however, in my example, furs did become a trade item valued more than their worth as simply furs and trade among indigenous peoples boomed. Interior peoples who did not have direct contact with the trading ships traded beaver fur with coastal people, in exchange for the trade goods brought by the ships. And yes, there was a dramatic decline in the value of beaver fur on the coast, to the point where trading ships took loses for years on end, "dumping" their trade goods for any price. This was in part because the trade goods were not worth anything to them after they left the coast and cargo space could be more valuably filled with Chinese goods later. It was also done in part to undersell other ship merchants, as they were all in competition with one another. There was also lots of hording by indigenous people of the more valuable sea otter pelts. Over time, even over the course of a single trading season, sea otter pelts increased in value, which led to hording. Not a few merchant captains knew a particular village was hording furs and took them by force. Pfly (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Firearms were cheap but serpentine was very expensive.
Sleigh (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

March 25

Argo (2012)

How accurate is the film Argo (2012)?

I remember the press coverage when the incident occurred. It was reported that the six American diplomats were given fake Canadian diplomatic passports, so that the could leave Iran when Canada severed diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980.

The movie Argo, which appeared last year, shows them masquerading as Canadian film-makers in Iran to make a movie called Argo. In the film, they are given fake Canadian passports, but those are not diplomatic passports.

At the time, the press reported that Canada had cut off its diplomatic relations with Iran. I remember an Iranian official quoted on TV in 1980 commenting on this. The movie doesn't even hint at an end to diplomatic relations between Canada and Iran. Why is that not mentioned? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Our article has a section on historical inaccuracies. In all likelihood the only reason is artistic decisions on the part of the script writers and director. It makes a better story that way. Rojomoke (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As it says there the film was more important to Affleck than the reputation of some Brits or Kiwis or any other incidental facts. At least that's my interpretation of "I struggled with this long and hard, because it casts Britain and New Zealand in a way that is not totally fair. But I was setting up a situation where you needed to get a sense that these six people had nowhere else to go. It does not mean to diminish anyone". Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If the Canadians had not broken off diplomatic ties with Iran at that time, the Iranians might have stormed the Canadian embassy there the way they did the American embassy. I think the news story about the rescue of those six American diplomats didn't break until all Canadian diplomatic personnel had left Iran. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time Hollywood has diminished or completely forgotten another country's involvment in historical films supposedly based on fact; see U-571 (film)#Controversies regarding content for example. Astronaut (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This review gives Argo an A- for entertainment and a C for historical accuracy. —Kevin Myers 00:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The historical inaccuracy that really bugged me was that the fast food soft drink cups in one scene were too large for 1979. ;-) —Kevin Myers 01:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Making friends with the voices

I once read an article, linked from Arts & Letters Daily, that discussed a therapeutic response to hearing voices by making friends with them (I think this was how it was described). I would like to read the article again, but Google has proved surprisingly unhelpful. Does anyone know of this article and can give me the link? 67.164.156.42 (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like this. (Note that A & L Daily features archive pages. I merely went to the 2012 archive and searched the page for "voices". It helps that I also read that article when the link was on the A & L Daily main page.) Deor (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's it—thanks much. For some reason I was unable to find any archives so didn't think they had any. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The article mentions Romme and Escher who popularized this approach and their book . During some volunteer work, I heard that this has become a classic and found it well worth reading for more information and to understand the issues and effectiveness of this therapy. --Aspro (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Then how do you make these "friends" go away? Maybe by trying to hit them up for money? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is an innocent human breaking the law if they want to be guilty

Is it illegal for an innocent but suicidal human to plea guilty on a murder trial if they want the state to kill them? 220.239.37.244 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Lying in court is regarded as perjury and is a serious offence in most or all jurisdictions. If someone's mental state is so poor that they are unable to argue coherently on their own behalf, or if they argue positively against their own interests, then they should be regarded as "unfit to plead", or similar, depending on jurisdiction. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Lying _under oath_ is perjury, but a guilty plea is not normally under oath. I wouldn't be surprised if it would be considered fraud. But I don't know for sure. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A false guilty plea being considered perjury would be the most ridiculous catch-22 in the universe. It's well known that many people take plea deals to avoid being convicted of more serious crimes, even if they did not commit them. Imagine being later exonerated, only to be sent back to jail for perjury. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Pleading guilty to a crime you know someone else has committed is "Perverting the course of justice" in the UK. See Vicky Pryce. Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that may well depend on jurisdiction. In Germany, lying in court is punishable, and lying under oath is a felony and carries even stiffer penalties. However, there is an exception for the defendant in a criminal trial, who cannot be put under oath, and is allowed to lie. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What about the privilege aaginst self-incrimination? By the way, it's strange that that exact phrase redirects to an article about US constitutional law, surely it should redirect to Self-incrimination. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In what context are you asking about the privilege against self-incrimination? Ryan Vesey 19:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

On second thought it is not relevant to the question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In the UK we have an offence "Wasting police time", which is another option for dealing with people who claim to have committed a crime but haven't. Sometimes you get people coming forwards to confess to a popular murder but they haven't. Maybe the most obvious example of that is Wearside Jack, whose identity has never really been proven and so was never charged. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Except that the article you linked says it was and he was!

What perhaps has not been fully spelled out to the OP above is that someone falsely confessing to a crime does not only harm themself: they may also impede the capture of the real perpetrator, who may go on to commit other crimes that might otherwise have been prevented. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I missed that, despite reading the linked article! Not having a good day here, I do apologise.--TammyMoet (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Roman Catholic and Protestant churches differences

How can you tell that the church you are inside of is a Roman Catholic or Protestant? By the structure or exterior? is there a website that shows photos of Roman Catholic churches and Protestant churches of different nations like Protestant churches in Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, and Norway and Roman Catholic churches in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal and other churches of different architecture style?--Donmust90 (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Age is part of the equation. Churches built before about 1517 in Germany, and 1534 in England, for example, at least started out their existence as Catholic. The Eastern Rite Catholic churches are identifiable from the exterior by their onion-shaped domes. Bielle (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) If there are statues inside, it's almost certainly a Roman Catholic church. Catholic churches are often more elaborately decorated, Protestant churches are frequently plainer, but keep in mind that due to changing demographics, some Catholic churches are used by protestants, or vice versa. The name of a church is often a hint too: if the name includes the word 'saint' (or the local equivalent), chances are it's a Catholic church. - Lindert (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

See also Church architecture and Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. And in response to Lindert's comment about the use of "saint" in a church's name: the Anglican church recognizes saints, and many, if not most, of its churches are named for saints. Even the United Church, Canada's largest Protestant denomination, has dozens, if not hundreds of churches named for saints. Bielle (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed quite a number of the well known churches in NZ are named after saints and not Roman Catholic. St. Paul's Church, Auckland for example. Or the St Matthew's, Auckland known for it's billboards which are controversial among Anglicans let alone Roman Catholics. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Point taken about the Anglican and other Protestant churches named for saints, however the OP specifically asked about continental Europe (Excepting Iceland), and none of these examples are located there, nor is Anglicanism big in those countries. - Lindert (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually the OP's first comment which was what these replies most related to seemed to be fairly general. The later question about photos and architecture did only include examples from Europe, but the OP didn't given any clear indication they were only interested in churches from that region and in fact said 'different nations' and 'other churches of different architecture style'. Considering the OP's history, it's particularly difficult to conclude they only intended to cover that region. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. - Lindert (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a wide selection of exterior and interior images of churhces from around the world in our architecture of cathedrals and great churches article. I don't think there are distinct Protestant and Roman Catholic styles - national styles and period influences are much more dominant. And, as has been pointed out already, older churches were built before there was a distinction anyway. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Once you get inside, kneelers are often a giveaway. Historically, at least, Catholics kneeled during portions of service, and as such had kneelers for (minimal) comfort. Protestants, depending on denomination, don't kneel, so wouldn't have kneelers. Also, if the pews have individual communion cup holders, then it's probably a Protestant church. Catholics almost uniformly use a communal communion wine chalice, so don't typically have provisions for individual communion cups. (Though Protestant churches also often use communal chalices.) If there is a prominently featured statue or image of the Virgin Mary, it's likely Catholic, as they venerate her, where as many Protestant denominations don't. A crucifix, rather than a plain cross, is also a good indication of a Catholic church, though, again, some protestant denominations also use it. Another indications is looking at the terminology used in signage (at least in English speaking areas). A Catholic church will list it's services as Masses, whereas a Protestant church might use the term "service" instead (as they might not consider them to be masses). The officiant in a Catholic church will likely be titled "Father X", and be referred to as a priest (unless you happen to get someone higher in the hierarchy, where they may be a monsignor, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, etc.), whereas if the terms/titles pastor, vicar, presbyter, minister, reverend, etc. are used, it's probably a Protestant church. None of these is entirely diagnostic - some Protestant denominations have many of the same outward appearances as Catholics, differing mostly in spiritual/theological issues. -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Very much not diagnostic - many Anglican churhces have kneelers, and some have lady chapels with statues of the Virgin Mary. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You only have to look at Liverpool Cathedral (Anglican) and the Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral (Catholic) to see that architecture hardly plays a role. One looks like a cathedral and the other looks like the Apollo Moon Landers. Both have statues inside, and both have crosses and crucifixes. Both have a gift shop and cafe. Both are opposite universities, and both are on the same street. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Anglicanism is a rather special case as it bridges the Catholic / Protestant divide. Some Anglicans on the High Church wing consider themselves to be Catholics, and you would struggle to tell their services apart from their Roman equivalent. Those in the Low Church side are definite about their Protestant heritage, and have much in common with the Methodists. Those in the middle, sometimes called the "Broad Church", are not really comfortable with either label. To add to the confusion, many English churches and cathedrals were built as Roman Catholic churches and were taken over at the Reformation. Anglicans being traditionally minded folk, have tended to build their new churches in imitation of the medieval ex-Catholic churches that they are familiar with; Liverpool Cathedral (completed 1978) and the Washington National Cathedral (not yet completed), are prime examples. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would look around and find someone to ask. Preferably someone wearing a clerical collar but anyone would do. Of course if the person wearing the collar is female then it is probably a Protestant church. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Certainly" would be a better word than "probably". Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the collar you can check for horns and a tail. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't really being 100% serious, but the answers were along the lines of you can tell by looking at... Followed by no you can't. As to it certainly being a Protestant church if you see a woman in a clerical collar. Not so. I don't think that the Catholic Church has banned women ministers of other religions from paying a visit. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are in a Protestant church, only a very few denominations will have people wandering around wearing clerical collars. RNealK (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, Roman Catholic churches might have a sign outside which says which (arch)diocese they are part of as well as information such as the time of mass, etc. Astronaut (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In the UK the same buildings have served as Catholic and Protestant churches at different times in history, so its especially difficult to use architecture as a diagnostic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's mentioned that Catholic churches always have a photo of the current Pope in the vestibule, while no other churches ever do. That's a dead giveaway. -- Jack of Oz 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it probably would be, but I have never seen a picture of the pope hanging in an American Catholic church. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? Is that the experience of other Americans here? -- Jack of Oz 22:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been to a number of Catholic churches and I can only recall seeing the Pope in the vestibule once, but I've never been on the lookout. Ryan Vesey 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

When I saw Jack's comment I asked a couple American Catholics I know to be reliable and was met with an odd look from each at the suggest one would find the pope's picture hanging anywhere open to the public, one of whom then said you could tell Protestant churches because someone had usually stolen Christ's body off the crucifix. I suspect the difference may have to do with the head of state being the head of the state church in the Commonwealth, whereas in America he's a Muslim. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

See pages 4 and 5 here, -- Jack of Oz 05:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You might be interested in the Church of Ireland, an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion, which describes itself as "both Protestant and Catholic". In fact, most of the Anglican churches could be described as Catholic; just not Roman Catholic. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just to add a perspective to the discussion, the idea that Christianity can be neatly divided into merely three categories (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant) is quite wrong, even if it is common to think of it that way. Perhaps a better breakdown would be as follows (this follows a North American perspective, but I suspect similar divisions could apply worldwide):
  • Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, and others)
  • (Roman) Catholic
  • Original or mainline Protestant (Luthern and Calvinist strains like Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc.)
  • Anglicanism (classifying Anglicanism as either Catholic or Protestant is problematic, and will vary depending on which specific definitions you use. Some Anglicans see themselves as Catholics (just not Roman Catholics), some see themselves as Protestants, and some see themselves as representing a "middle way" between Catholicism and Protestantism, using elements of both. There IS no universal answer for all of the "Anglican Communion" so it is best to consider it a category on its own)
  • Evangelicals (Sometimes classified as protestant, but most Evangelical groups developed 2-3 centuries after the Reformation, which makes it hard to classify them as being Protestant. The two main U.S. groups of this type are the Methodists and the Baptists, but the Methodists have a foot in this camp and one in the Anglican camp as well. Pentecostal groups could also be placed here.)
  • Other older divisions which predate most of the above schisms, including various Oriental Orthodox groups, Chalcedonians, Nestorians, and others like that.
  • Other newer divisions which postdate most of the above groups, or which do not derive from any of the above traditions, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc.
• That's probably the most comprehensive breakdown I can come up with, but there's likely many other perspectives. Just know that the "Orthodox-Catholic-Protestant" division is quite inaccurate and does not accurately represent a large number of Christian denominations correctly. --Jayron32 01:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think that definition of Evangelical works. Look at the membership of the National Association of Evangelicals which has Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, Baptist, Fundamentalist, Brethren members as well as whatever Vineyard and Salvation Army would be classed as. Rmhermen (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • See Evangelicalism which provides a better definition, which overtly states the timing of the Evangelical movement and how it separated itself from earlier movements. Certainly, there are influences in both directions, and Evangelicalism affected earlier movements, and visa-versa, but the Evangelical tradition represents a distinct break with early non-Evangelical protestant groups. As with many of these distinctions, there are NOT hard-and-fast bright line, "you have to be one or the other but not both" categorizations. However, there is a broad categorigal distinction between churches that follow a "mainline Protestant" theology and history, dating from Luther and Calvin in the 1500s, versus the later Evangelical groups which date from Wesley and the 1700s. There are, of course, Lutherans and Presbyterians and Reformed, etc. which have adopted aspects of Evangelicalism within their church, representing as sort of hybrid of the two, but the existance of such groups does not make the distinction between Evangelicalism and mainline Protestantism irrelevant. The fact that we can identify groups that adopt aspects of both merely accentuates the fact that there are two concepts that can be so hybridized. --Jayron32 04:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

@ Jack, above: Oh, yes, I certainly don't doubt that there are Catholic churches with picture of their bishop and the pope in the vestibule. It's just taht I have never seen or noticed such a thing. (Haven't seen it in a movie or on the Simpsons either, which makes me think it's not so diagnostic a phenomenon.)

Recently my sister who lives near Boston was visiting my parents in New Jersey at the same time I was there, and since my eldest nephew is studying for First Communion (we adults are all either lapsed or atheist, including his parents, me and mine) I offered to take him to mass in the church I grew up attending. On either side of the crucifix at the head of the altar and above the tabernacle had been hung a widescreen TV, one at Jesus' right hand and the other at his left. The priest seemed to think this was a great improvement. The effect was morally and aesthetically repulsive. When he mentioned them during the sermon (they must be new) I felt like screaming "Are they named Dismas and Gestus?" (Is there a piñata filled with 30 silver coins hanging in the rectory?)

But no, no picture of the pope anywhere to be seen. μηδείς (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've never visited your fair country, and I take you at your word. But I can honestly say that I have never been inside a Catholic church in Australia that did NOT have a photo of the pope. I went to Catholic schools until I was about 13, and I clearly remember a discussion one day where this very subject arose. Our teacher told us the papal photo was a sure fire way of telling the Catholic churches from the others, and I have to report that all of my own experience has confirmed this. I have an eye for strange detail, and if I ever went inside a church I knew was a Catholic church, and it didn't have a picture of the pope, it would be the first thing I'd notice. But I have yet to have such an experience. That's me. -- Jack of Oz 11:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

And I neither doubt you at all nor deny that having a picture of the Pope in the lobby is pretty telling--it's just not a matter of doctrine or anything I have ever noticed, (I would expect there's a picture of the Bishop and Pope in the rectory of the church I just mentioned above, which is a separate building I was only ever in for my sister's funeral arrangements.) Totally off-the-wall OR here, but I do suspect that part of the difference lies in the fact that Catholics are not oppressed in the US, form a plurality of religious affiliations, and simply don't feel like they need to declare themselves. To repeat what I said half tongue-in-cheek above, if you ask a Catholic he's likely to tell you you can tell a protestant church by the lack of Jesus on the cross, not the lack of the pope in the vestibule. μηδείς (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Moshav inhabited by different groups

How many moshavims are inhabited by Kurdish Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Moroccan Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Algerian Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Tunisian Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Persian Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Iraqi Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Bukharan (Uzbek and Tajik separately) Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Afghani Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Syrian Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Bahraini Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Saudi Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Yemenite Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Emirati Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Egyptian Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Libyan Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Kuwaiti Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Omani Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Qatari Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Jordanian Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Turkish Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Mountain (Azeri) Jews?--Donmust90 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Well, here is a list of moshavim. The article for Avital moshav says it was "founded ... by immigrants from Iran, Turkey and Kurdistan" and has a population 472. The population figure is referenced by a file from the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Perhaps they have other files for other moshavim, and maybe they have a breakdown by origin, or at least a record of Israeli and non-Israeli residents. Astronaut (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, DonMust, moshavim is the plural of moshav in Hebrew. In English, you could either use moshavim or probably moshavs, but moshavims is odd. (There is a precedent in cherubims in the KJV, but information about other languages was not so available in 1611). --ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Most moshavim (and kibbutzim for that matter) were founded a long time ago and their original founding families, even if once uniform of origin, will have been much diluted since by people from other backgrounds marrying in or joining. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Short story

What was the title of, and who wrote the short story where a systemic computer failure dealt the death penalty for a parking ticket? Rich Farmbrough, 18:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

That happened during part of the "ARM" phase of Larry Niven's future history, but not as a result of a computer error (instead due to an insatiable demand for organs to transplant to prolong life); it said something like "traffic violation" instead of "parking ticket" (as far as I remember)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a shot in the dark, and I don't have any specific examples, but this sounds kinda like something that would appear in a work by either Philip K. Dick or William Gibson. --Jayron32 03:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a parking ticket, but a computer error, sort of: Computers don't argue by Gordon R. Dickson, telling the story of a man trying to convince computers that they made an error. Sjö (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fairies, who are princesses?

There are princesses, and there are fairies. I'm looking for princesses who are also fairies. The only examples like it I can think of are Titania and Mab, but those are both queens, not princesses. Any help? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried typing "fairy princess" into the search box? It brings up a few results. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked the category Category:Mythological fairy royalty for you (presumably not to be confused with real-life fairy royalty). Of the figures listed there, Aibell is female but not specifically referred to as a queen. The same can be said for Belphoebe, although she's apparently an allegorical Queen Elizabeth. All other females there are listed as queens. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

has anybody purposefully simultaneously been the leader of two different religious movements under two different names?

Has anybody purposefully been the simultaneous leader of two different religious movements under two different names/identities?

I was reflecting on the different interpretations different denominations have for the meaning of the same historical person, and might call that same historical person under different names. So I was wondering whether any such person has ever been aware of this possibility in their own lifetime and actively and simultaneously under two different names led two different movements? I realize this might be somewhat modern due to more modern forms of communication but I'm curious if there's any record at any time. Fgtpwd34 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not quite the answer, but the Duke of Edinburgh was revered in the Prince Philip Movement at the same time as his wife was head of the Church of England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Another not-quite-the-answer, but maybe getting closer: James VI and I was head of the Church of England as James I, and head of the Church of Scotland as James VI. This situation has never been repeated in the UK; the first of James's successors to have had a different number of name-sharing predecessors in the two countries is Elizabeth II, but she is officially 'the Second' in both countries. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

His grandson James II and VII would disagree with you. Valiantis (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh pants. Yes, you're right. I knew as I was writing that that it was wrong, but I couldn't for the life of me think who the other one was. What a numpty. Thanks for putting me right. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"Numpty", eh? I'm afraid I may have to report you for incivility, depending on what I find when I look that term up. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The King of Scotland definitely wasn't the head of the Church of Scotland; he wasn't even particularly fond of them (or them of him), as you'll see if you read accounts of the relationship between the General Assembly and the Crown. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

After James, Mary II matched neatly in both England and Scotland, but her husband William of Orange was William III of England & II of Scotland. A century of matching numbers followed, then William IV of the United Kingdom was the first to use the "of the United Kingdom" style with a number that only matched England. In the twentieth century, Edward VII, Edward VIII and Elizabeth II all did the same. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Haile Selassie visited Jamaica and gave reasonable encouragement to his Rastafarian devotees, whilst at the same time being a significant lay figure in the Ethiopian Orthodox church himself. I'll be surprised if you can find a stronger example. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

March 26

US states: crime rate vs. incarceration rate

Does anyone know where I might find a breakdown of crime rate vs. incarceration rate for various US states over time? - Jmabel | Talk 01:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You'd probably find the relevant tables at Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics or in the sources for those tables.Smallman12q (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure the raw statistics are there, but I'm frankly not interested in taking tons of time to crunch them. What I'm hoping for (and it may not exist) is state-by-state charts graphing for each state over roughly the last 40 years incarceration rates vs. crime rates. My guess is that there is far more correlation of crime rates across states than of incarceration rates vs. crime rates in any given state, and that incarceration rates approach being an uncorrelated variable. Someone must have crunched these numbers; I'm just wondering as a non-expert layman. It's not something I want to put a lot of time into, just something I'd like to see if someone has done it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bach, Mozart, Beethoven

Are there any books which tell the biography and "shortly" describes the work of these and other German masters of music. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Try the young adults section of your local library, there are lots of books like that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(ECx2)Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven weren't young adults all of their lives, PG. I'd suggest the music section of the library. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if you were making a joke, but the reason the "young adult" section was suggested is that books written for young adults are likely to be more concise and less detailed than those written for older adults, and, of course, the library section called "young adults" consists of books written for young adults, rather than books written about them.- Nunh-huh 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was actually a joke, but thinking about it now, I have never seen a 'young adults' section in a library. An 'adult' in the UK is defined as someone aged 18 or over. When does one stop being a young adult? In my local library, there are two main areas: one for adults (12 years and over) and one for children (under 12). All books for teenagers are mixed in with the books meant for adults. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Young-adult fiction implies maybe never. Rmhermen (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Groves Dictionary of Music has such articles. It's a multi-volume work and a library may have a copy. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

For major composers such as the ones the OP asked about, that esteemed publication well and truly fails the "shortly" test. -- Jack of Oz 11:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

AS I am from India libraries do not usually have books relating to Western Classical Music but instead have books catering to Hindustani Classical Music. And I am not searching for any Encyclopedia of Music but only short biographies of the best composers like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and maybe a "few" others. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Random pick from Amazon: The Lives Of The Great Composers by Harold C. Schonberg - covers 40 or so Western classical composers from Monteverdi to Messiaen, each biography is 10-20 pages. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this is me being obtuse, but I still don't get whether you want more or less detail than our articles provide. Or do you need the works on paper? Henry 15:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Simple English Misplaced Pages articles on the composers are shorter than Misplaced Pages's articles. You could start with List of classical music composers by era. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Music (2002 edition, by Alison Lantham) has good short biographies of these composers. I believe the content can be previewed at www.oxfordmusiconline.com, if you don't have subscriber access through a library. This is the location of the article on Johann Sebastian Bach, this for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Beethoven. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What, no full name for poor old Ludwig van? How irreverent! -- Jack of Oz 20:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Our articles on these men are quite good. Does Solomon want more information than they provide? If so he'll not want a juvenile book. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Outlawed international postal services

According to the Israel Postal Company, there is no reciprocal postal service between Israel and the following 16 countries: Abu Dhabi, Algeria, Bahrain, Dubai, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. How might I find out whether any of these countries proscribe other countries besides Israel? --Deborahjay (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Although the Universal Postal Union isn't what it once was, they might be a good source, if you shot them an email.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

England and Wales Employment law written as from mate to mate

I have a bit of time on my hands and was thinking of doing a bit of reading on English Employement law. I could read the actual laws, from the government websites, but that is a horrible read. I could read a University law school manual/textbook or some government text expalining "your rights", but it doesn't make for as nice a reading time as what I am hoping for.

Are you guys aware of any books or websites that explain law in a manner that is a lot more like if a friend was explaning it to me and how the industrial- (or are they called employment- ?) courts operate? An explanation that would be using straight English words, no non-sense, no latin concepts or rubbish like this. I don't mind if it is properly referenced, as long as it is in the margin and doesn't interfere with the reading. Jurisdiction is England and Wales employment law. --Lgriot (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The ACAS website, while it's not quite written in matey language, is nevertheless written in Plain English and you should be able to find what you're looking for. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am hoping that there is more advanced information somewhere, I didn't find what I read on ACAS web-site very helpful, it is full of very obvious stuff, like "you can't discriminate" and "you should have a written contract". I was more interested in how borderline cases are handled by the courts, what the courts think about cases where "it is not clear that it was discrimination, and lack of promotion was due to lack of competence, not due to discrimination". How do court define competence to agree with an employer on tricky cases like this? Or an other example, what defines your compensation, if you had a "bonus" for 3 years, is your employer allowed not to give you one on the fourth year? What do the courts think of that? If anyone came accross this sort of advanced discussions, I'd be very interested. --Lgriot (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case you may find this site useful. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tammy, this looks promissing. --Lgriot (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Jacksonville and Buffalo, USA ethnic groups

Is there a website where it shows how many Arabs, Bangladeshis, Africans and other ethnic groups live in Buffalo and Jacksonville, individually and separately? Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

I think we went over this before, you can use www.census.gov to do this. Instructions were left on how to do that to find the exact information you want. Gimme a second and I'll search for that prior discussion and see if I can find it for you. And when I do, please make a note of it/write it down/bookmark it... --Jayron32 15:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion here gives instructions on how to use the "factfinder" section of the census.gov website. If you play around with the various functions, you should be able to answer your exact questions. If you have specific questions on how to use that service, let us know, and I'll play around with it and see if I can figure out how to do what you need it to do. But try it out yourself first, it is quite a powerful tool, and it generally can answer any of these questions you often have about ethnicity and various U.S. locales. --Jayron32 15:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Slavery in ancient Greece

I read through the article Slavery in ancient Greece, but one thing left me puzzled. Were the slaves mostly male, or female, or equally of both genders? There is a section that says in famous epics, slaves were mostly female - men were either ransomed or killed on the spot. But from the sections about how slavery in ancient Greece really worked, I couldn't fathom out favouring either gender. All I could find out was that men were favoured for combat and dangerous work and women were favoured for domestic work. JIP | Talk 19:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a specific source to point you to for this, but keep in mind that accounts from antiquity are frequently distorted by exaggeration. I took a class in college where we read accounts of Mesopotamian kings boasting about how they utterly destroyed the property and people of their enemies, when in reality much of both were probably assimilated instead. To some extent, this is true about modern warfare as well. You don't just destroy a building when you could use it for your own purposes. And in the ancient world, the distinction between physical property and people, taken as slaves, doesn't much matter. If anything, I would guess that the slaves tended to be more male. If one city-state defeated another at a point in between, there would be many (male) soldiers to be taken as slaves, whereas obtaining significant numbers of female slaves probably meant going to another city-state and conquering. Statistics are naturally hard to come by when it comes to such eras, but I hope some of these general observations are helpful. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So one city-state defeating another in combat would yield lots of male slaves, but one would have to go to conquer yet another city-state to get female slaves? What's the logic behind that? Why would one city-state yield male slaves and another female slaves? JIP | Talk 18:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What BDD meant was that defeating another city-state in a pitched battle would get you exclusively male slaves, whereas to get female slaves, you'd have to actually besiege the other city-state. But I concur with JIP -- in ancient times, sieges were more common than pitched battles (back then, armies were so small -- even a large army would be no bigger than a modern division or corps -- and the front they held was so narrow due to lack of firearms, that they could often avoid pitched battles simply by maneuvering around each other), and furthermore, when a city was taken after a siege, it was standard operating procedure to sell all the women into slavery but kill all the men on the spot (precisely to DISCOURAGE sieges, and to encourage pitched battles instead). So with that in mind, the slaves would tend to be more female. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hajj outside Mecca?

I'm copy editing an article Madina Mosque (in India), which indicates it was constructed with soil from Mecca so poor Muslims could complete the hajj there. This doesn't really count as a full hajj, does it? Is this permitted only if a Muslim can't make the real pilgrimage to Mecca? --BDD (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's not to Mecca, then it would be a ziyara, not a hajj. Some stricter Muslims are highly opposed to practices which would seem to elevate any other sites to a level of Islamic significance comparable to Mecca or Medina, but I have no idea what traditional views were in British India... AnonMoos (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

India: A Sacred Geography (written by a Westerner) says that it is common in India for holy sites to be linked to more famous holy sites and to receive sanctity by association - so, for example, there are many river sources called "Mouth of the Ganga" even though they are the source of another river. Sometimes this is done by bringing Ganga water there, sometimes the Ganga is just said to flow symbolically in that place. So bringing soil from Mecca to another place and thereby making that place holy by association fits very well into the Indian pilgrimage tradition. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking communion at different churches?

I understand that an individual can't participate in communion of a different church, but what happens if that individual decides to actually become a member of that church in order to participate in communion? Can an individual choose a random neighborhood church, become a member of that church, become baptized at that church and partake in communion, and then jump to another neighborhood church, become baptized in that church, become a member of that church and partake in communion of that church? Would the church membership of the person only be whatever that person is last affiliated with? In other words, the previous church memberships don't count, because the most recent church membership disqualifies the individual from church membership of the previous churches? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, there. Your initial assumption (the first sentence) isn't right, at least not in all cases. See Eucharist#Open and closed communion for details. Some churches will allow only their members, some allow all Christians, and some allow anyone, at least in practice. The individual you refer to probably wouldn't have to go through such trouble. Just about every church I've ever been to has allowed everyone to participate in communion, in practice. Caveat: I've never been to a Catholic church, and don't recall the process at the Orthodox church I briefly attended. --BDD (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"Most churches in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States, also practice their own form of open communion, provided those who receive are baptized and believe in the Real Presence." How strong does the belief have to be? How does an individual prove that he/she believe in it? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've never seen a church challenge the beliefs or credentials of someone taking communion. I suppose it's a bit of an honor system. I'm trying to imagine communion in a church that restricts the practice to Christians, or to its own members, where, say, someone in a Sikh turban tries to participate. The most appropriate response would probably be a member of the clergy discreetly pulling that individual aside and clarifying the church's practice. Since doing anything, really, risks offending the person, I can't imagine such practices would be very common. --BDD (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Would it be correct to say that the Christian denominations are mutually exclusive? In other words, an individual may be a member of one or the other, but not both? A Christian may participate in communion in a different church, of which he is not a member, but is still not considered affiliated with that particular church unless he gives up his beliefs and interpretative traditions from his own church in exchange for beliefs and interpretative traditions at the new church? In other words, an individual cannot be Lutheran, Anglican, and Roman Catholic at the same time? If that is the case, then would it make sense that when Christians perform evangelism and missionary work, they are really trying to convert the non-Christian to their own denomination of Christianity, expecting that the unbaptized would become baptized in their church? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your first assumption is incorrect for many churches. The Methodist Church does not require membership or baptism in order for someone to take communion. It would be perfectly acceptable, from a Methodist's perspective, for a Catholic to take communion at a Methodist church; however, most Catholics choose not to for their own reasons. When I, as a Methodist, go to a Catholic church, I am not allowed to take communion. In regards to a portion of the second part of your question, I am unaware of whether Baptists require you to be a member in order to take communion, but I can tell you that they require you to be baptised as a Baptist in order to become a member. Someone raised Methodist, who still follows its beliefs, would refuse to be baptised a second time as a Baptist (assuming they had been baptised as a child) because Methodists believe you can only be baptised once. Ryan Vesey 23:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Baptist churches practice open communion. Any believer is allowed to partake if they wish. --Jayron32 01:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Wine and bread or water and bread? Individual cups or the same communion cup? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you are specifically asking about baptist churches, it appears that grape juice is used in the majority some of the comments related to that article imply that they use individual cups. Ryan Vesey 02:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What? Christians are divided on what to use during the Eucharist? I suppose this may be why some people identify themselves as members of a particular denomination rather than "Christian". The term "Christian" to them is too vague or broad to be meaningful, especially if a given society is predominantly Christian. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct, Catholic churches give a wafer and wine from a single cup, many Catholics participate in communion without taking the wine. Methodist churches tend to use leavened bread and they use grape juice (The Free Methodist Church goes as far as banning its adherents from ever drinking alcohol). In the majority of instances, I've seen the church use individual cups, but on some occassions the bread will be dipped into the grape juice so they are both taken together. Many churches, particularly nondenominational ones, will serve both grape juice and wine in their communion. Ryan Vesey 03:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That being said, while most Christians identify with a denomination, they usually identify themselves as Christian over their denomination. This is even true with many Catholics. Also, in regards to your question above about missionary work, it isn't really that simple. The majority of evangelism is performed with the ultimate goal of bringing new adherents to the "Christian Church". Evangelists tend to have their own beliefs and will witness with that slant, but will be happy with a conversion to any denomination of Christianity. Still, there are numerous conversion attempts, even within Christianity. Interdenominational marriages usually result in some type of arguments over which denomination the children should be raised in. Catholic Churches require a couple to agree to raise their children in the Catholic faith (not the general Christian faith) in order to be married in that church. Ryan Vesey 03:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What happens if an individual just falls in love with the worship service and Bible studies, becoming inspired by the spiritual wisdom and deciding to follow Jesus Christ? Does that still count as successful evangelism, even if there is no professional evangelist present? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Conversion doesn't require anyone present. It's a private matter between you and God. --Jayron32 03:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, the only "professional evangelists" who have any stake in the process of the conversion are the Peter Popoff's of the world. Ryan Vesey 03:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The only communion I ever took in a Baptist church was grape juice dispensed in individual cups, along with a wafer. Several years ago I attended a Requiem Mass at a Catholic Church, where the Eucharist was dispensed as the Host only (which I think is somewhat common). I've never been baptized, confirmed, or anything else in a Catholic Church, so I'm fairly certain my taking the communion was technically not allowed, though I didn't know for certain at the time. No one checked my credentials or asked for my papers. Evanh2008  03:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, to clarify on that "not allowed", the Catholic Church (like the Orthodox Churches) takes Communion very seriously, and considers it to be the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ himself. They believe that receiving it "unworthily" is not only disrespectful to God, but also dangerous to your own soul. Catholics who receive Communion are not only supposed to have been prepared and educated about it before their first time (hence the deal with "first Holy Communion"), but are also supposed to make sure that they are not in a state of sin before receiving (through the use of acts of contrition and the Sacrament of Reconciliation), and to fast for at least an hour. It's not so much that you were "not allowed" (as you noticed, nobody stopped you), but that doing so is disrespectful to God and dangerous to yourself (both, of course, from a Catholic point of view). As neither a Catholic nor Orthodox Christian, there is simply no way (from a Catholic point of view) you could properly prepare yourself to receive, and you didn't even know you needed to. Of course, if you "accidentally" received (as it were) out of ignorance, that's no sin on your part from a Catholic perspective. But it's still a sad thing to happen. 86.164.59.34 (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is all my personal experience but I believe it exemplifies the situation well. I was baptised as an infant into the Church of England, but was never confirmed. Technically I shouldn't receive Holy Communion in a C of E church because of this, but I do. Nobody has ever checked. However, I was baptised as an adult in an Evangelical church. In the Pentecostal churches I've taken communion in, it has taken the form of a small glass of Ribena and a cube of white bread. I wouldn't dream of taking Mass in a Roman Catholic church. When I worked in a hospice, the Chaplaincy held communion services which I used to attend and Holy Communion was given to anyone who wanted it. The only people who used to decline were Roman Catholics or other members of sects, it seemed that most people who went to the weekly service went in for the full deal. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating in part what others have said above:

• Most churches regard one another's baptisms as valid, and regard it as unnecessary and ineffective to rebaptise people. The exceptions to this are that (i) Baptist churches tend to require 'believers' baptism', and will rebaptise someone who has only previously received infant baptism; other churches recognise the Baptists' baptisms as valid, even if they dispute the Baptists' characterisation of infant baptism as invalid; (ii) there are a small number of so-called 'Jesus only' churches who do not baptise in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Their baptisms are not regarded as valid by most other churches, who use the Trinitarian formula, along with the use of water, as the sine qua non of baptism.
• Some churches have additional qualifications for admission to communion. In the Roman Catholic church, this is simply 'first Commuunion', which has no sacramental difference from other communion. In many Anglican churches, the sacrament of Confirmation used to be required, but some have now moved to match Roman Catholic practice.
• Some churches are in defined states of open communion with one another. For example, the wider Catholic church composed of the Roman Catholic church, the Greek Catholic churches, the Maronite Catholic church and so on; the Anglican Communion; and the Porvoo Communion, which links the Church of England with about a dozen Protestant churches in the Baltic region, such as the Church of Sweden. These are not necessarily transitive - the Church of England's participation in the Anglican Communion and the Porvoo Communion does not automatically put the Anglican Church in Australia in communion with the Church of Sweden. These relationships go beyond the sacrament of Communion; they often entail mutual recognition of clergy and bishops, so that Swedish bishops co-consecrate Anglican ones, and a Welsh bishop was able to become head of the Church of England.
• The existence of formal intercommunion does not inhibit individual churches or congregations from operating open altar policies, although church policy may - as, for example, in the case of the Catholic Mass. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• As a side remark, the Catholic church does technically respect the baptisms of other churches. But converts like my elderly Grandfather who had been baptized as a Lutheran as a baby are given provisional baptisms since there may not be access to the records or a way to guarantee the first baptism was actually properly done. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

March 27

Australian aboriginal poetry hoax

Hey everyone - I remember reading about this on Misplaced Pages, but now I can find no trace of it here or anywhere else online. The gist of it was that someone in Australia presented some poetry as being the newly-discovered work of a homeless aboriginal woman or something like that, while it was actually just quasi-gibberish he had thrown together. It was massively acclaimed, but then he either confessed or was found out and everyone was angry and embarrassed. The article went into some depth about how its acceptance was due to the Australian art establishment's longing to find a critically-beloved "native voice," and I even vaguely remember one of the lines from one of the poems being something along the lines of "The tax collector came today to make an assessment, but he missed my many friends and acquaintances." But everything I search is coming up blank and I'm starting to think I might just be crazy. And no, it isn't Ern Malley, Wanda Koolmatrie or Eddie Burrup. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. This rings no bells with me at all, I'm afraid, Elmer. The closest thing I've found, and it's not a great fit, is Oodgeroo Noonuccal. I quote from our article:

• This first book of poetry was extraordinarily successful, selling out in several editions, and setting Oodgeroo well on the way to be Australia’s highest-selling poet alongside C. J. Dennis. Critics’ responses, however, were mixed, with some questioning whether Oodgeroo, as an Aboriginal person, could really have written it herself. Others were disturbed by the activism of the poems, and found that they were "propaganda" rather than what they considered to be real poetry.

Then there's this:

• Initially, critics responded harshly to her poetry, claiming it was amateurish or not verse at all. It did not conform to accepted forms of verse. Critics also did not like the Aboriginal voice that came through in the poetry, and claimed her verse to be inauthentic as Aboriginal poetry, because true Aboriginal poetry came from their oral traditions, that is, any European influence invalidates Aboriginality.

There are 163 of Oodgeroo's poems here, searchable by keyword. I found 2 hits for "tax", but nothing like what you said. You may have better luck searching yourself.

If it's not her, you're crazy. :) -- Jack of Oz 06:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I dual-license modified versions of software under GPLv3 under GPL and a copyfree license?

Anyone modifying that modified version must still license it under the GPL, because that derivative work contains original code, which is licensed under GPL. It may be a break of the wording of the license, but not of the spirit of the license. Therefore if the copyright holder sues me for licensing it (my modifications) under both BSD and GPL rather than only under GPL, he/she is a copyright abuser. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't provide legal advice but without getting in to the legal aspect, the spirit of a GPL or copyleft license is usually that people taking advantage of the licence are expected to follow the licencing terms including the copyleft requirement. The GPL of course comes from FSF who's intentions with their licence (i.e. spirit) is well known and often made clear by them. If you try to re-licence the content without following the copyleft requirement or getting permission of all copyright holders, you are the one who is seemingly not following the spirit of the licence. Furthermore, the vast majority of people who support or use BSD licences are not going to want such improperly licenced content so there's also no point making such a licencing claim. Other then to waste the time of people who took you at your word who will have to throw out any of their work (whether proprietary or made freely available) derived from your content once they find out. And possibly annoy people who's copyrighted work (copyrighted to be copylefted) you are trying to mis-use. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• So it's okay to violate what the license explicitly states as long as you don't violate its spirit -- what a fun idea! Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You'd be best to read the various guidance the GNU or whoever administers the various licenses (it's hard for me to keep straight sometimes) , short of asking a lawyer for help. Don't think you can hide behind the "spirit" of the law to do something you expressly agreed to not do. Shadowjams (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Kaʻieʻie Waho Channel

Is it physically possible to swim the whole length of the Kaʻieʻie Waho Channel, separating Kauai and Oahu, alone without getting out of the water? There was a six people relay team that did this but no one has yet swam it on their own.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently an Australian named Penny Palfrey has tried it a couple of times, but failed because she ran into Portuguese man-o-war -- so presumably it is possible in theory. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. The thing is, "is it possible?" doesn't lend itself to a firm "no" answer in many cases (firm "yes" answers are pretty obvious). The swim in question has not been completed with reliable verification (probably someone somewhere has claimed to have completed it). It's beyond the scope of many people's abilities. But its length (72 miles) is comparable to the record for the longest solo unassisted ocean swim of 70 miles. Given that, I would conclude that it's certainly physically possible, and it's probably practically possible, but that no objective answer can exist unless and until someone does it. — Lomn 16:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Shas involvement in Rabin's death

Dewey Beard

Dear Wiki,

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/Dewey_Beard

Question: Who wrote this article and would they be willing to make contact?

Reason: My grandfather was a personal friend of Dewey’s and, I being the youngest in my family only met him twice. I would like more people to know about him and have information and a means to bring it about, but would appreciate a more educated opinion. I am making lame attempts to do so now, and this author has accomplished more than I in my lifetime, I can help him or he could help me if the interruption and inconvenience would not be too great. Most gracious thanks. I have a copy of The Indian interviews of Eli S. Ricker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmans2001 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The article talk page is the best place for this sort of question. If you have material from a reliable source that you'd like to add to the article (and it sounds as though you do), feel free to add it yourself, with appropriate references. See WP:CITE on the procedure for adding references to the article. Tevildo (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles don't really have authors. Anybody can contribute to an article, and most have multiple authors, sometimes even hundreds of authors. In the case of this article, though, based on the article's history, most of it seems to have been written by 7mike5000, whom you can contact through his linked user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you can't. That editor has been blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks, with talk page access disabled. Looie496 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Manchu

Did Emperor Guangxu, Puyi or Empress Dowager Cixi know how to speak Manchu? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"Studies of Manchu-language use at court, for example, almost all conclude that the loss of Manchu as the first language of the rulers and the conquest elite implies their absorption into Chinese culture.... Nineteenth-century Qing rulers seem to have been more comfortable using Chinese" Rawski, Evelyn Sakakida. The last emperors: A social history of Qing imperial institutions. Univ of California Press, 2001. p.4 "the veritable record of the Guang-xu Emperor, which was the last veritable record in the Qing Dynasty and only used Chinese)" Yoshida, Jun, and 吉田純. "On Intellect and Intelligence in Qing China: Languages, Education and Philology." (1990). p.52 198.151.130.153 (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The source I am recalling may have been Nicholas Poppe's Mongolian Language Handbook or Introduction to Altaic linguistics neither of which I have in front of me, but I remember reading the Manchu dynasty lost native fluency in Manchu within about a century of coming to rule. Sorru I don't have an exact reference and I wouldn't swear to that in court, but it's certainly not too far off. You can get his works by interlibrary loan. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

More I think on it, this book by Ramsey may have been the source. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

From what I remember of Puyi's autobiography, while Manchu education was still compulsory for princes, all that he could fluently say were short ceremonial phrases, such as used when greeting ministers and guests. I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe this was in the early chapters, as he was describing life in the palace. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Banks in occupied Europe

During the German occupation in World War 2, did the occupied countries (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.) keep their own banks? Or were they taken over by the German Reichsbank? I've tried to find this info in Alan Bullock's treatise on Hitler vs. Stalin, but there's no specific answer in it to this question. Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

National commercial banks were kept, but the Germans introduced a new policy to strengthen the "Germanic element." That actually meant that Polish without German heritage, for example, wouldn't get their savings from their Polish saving bank, in contrary to ethnic Germans living in Poland. In Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg, on the other hand, the policy was less extreme, since nationals of these countries only had to recognize their "Germanic" element and commit to the German cause to still be allowed to perform financial transactions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Also check , p. 53, available in Google books, for the fate of the central banks, which had to cooperate with the German monetary policy. Any similarity with the present situation in Europe is mere coincidence. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! So, in western Europe under the German occupation, people had to sign a loyalty oath to the Nazi regime in order to be able to access their own accounts, right? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

March 28

Canadians supporting and contributing Bangladesh Liberation War

Were there any Canadians who gave support Bangladesh's Liberation War, contributed to the Liberation War and spoke out against genocide on Hindus during the Liberation War?--Donmust90 (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Jesus's Resurrection

How do Christians reconcile Jesus's resurrection with the geological doctrine of uniformitarianism, the idea that influenced Charles Darwin on his famous theory? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would you expect any deeper reconciliation than "it's a miracle" aka "God can break the laws of nature"? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you read the article on uniformitarianism, it actually says that "uniformitarianism is an assumption..."; therefore, it is an assumption. Personally, I find the assumption very plausible. The statement that "God can break the laws of nature" assumes that the laws of nature are temporarily broken during Jesus's resurrection. However, the thing is, the Bible is not a science textbook or a history textbook. The New Testament is a collection of writings recording the gospels and the letters. There must be some explanation as to why the authors wrote that Jesus "resurrected" or thought that Jesus rose from the dead. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in uniformitarianism says that resurrection cannot happen. The fact that the Grand Canyon was carved over millions of years does not, in itself, mean that Jesus could not have been resurrected. Furthermore, uniformitarianism was modified long ago to incorporate new geological knowledge. In particular, we know that many processes that heavily influenced Earth's history were catastrophic by any definition of the word. In the Late Heavy Bombardment, Earth was bombarded with solar system debris. One of the impacts was so powerful that its ejecta formed the Moon. As recently as 65 million years ago, an asteroid hit what is now Mexico, killing off 75% of Earth's species in the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event--the same one that killed the dinosaurs. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It could simply be that Jesus survived his crucifixion -- which is unlikely but possible. (It could even be the case that getting stabbed in the side saved his life, by allowing accumulated fluid in his lungs to drain out and thus allowing him to continue breathing.) FWiW 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It could also be possible that the entire story is a legend. I still don't see how any of this has to do with uniformitarianism, or for that matter, any part of geology. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Anybody got some links to Christian perspectives on the resurrection and how Christians actually interpret the event instead of basing on speculations?65.24.105.132 (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You have still not pointed out a single connection between uniformitarianism and resurrection. Why would any Christians write about it if there's nothing to write about? What you're doing is similar to asking what your shoe size has to do with Sun's solar activity. If there's no imaginable connection, why would any scientists write about it? --140.180.254.209 (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There have been attempts to explain the Jesus story with naturalistic assumptions. Either the assumption is "he wasn't really dead" (see e.g. Jesus in India (book), The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail), to "it wasn't really Jesus, who was crucified, just a lookalike" to "it's just an invented story, like many other resurrection stories from middle eastern mythology". None of these is compatible with even moderately lax interpretations of Christian belief, where the death and resurrection of Jesus are the central element of the religion (modern English translation of the Nicene Creed have "he suffered death and was buried"). Ultra-liberal Christians can live with some of these interpretations, of course (and the original Greek version of the creed, as I understand, makes no explicit reference to death, only to crucifixion and suffering). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Therefore, the straightforward answer to the OP's question is "They don't reconcile it, they accept it." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

They accept the resurrection, by definition. Their attitude to the geological doctrine of uniformitarianism could include (a) total acceptance, (b) total rejection, (c) something in between, (d) indifference and (e) ignorance. -- Jack of Oz 11:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

...where many hold several of these attitudes at the same time, sometimes even including (a) and (b). See Compartmentalization (psychology). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Compartmentalization is one theory. Another is the acknowledgment by believers that just because we don't understand something doesn't make it false. (The trap avowed atheists typically fall into.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't understand something, being a believer is no better than being a denier. You're confusing scientific skepticism with pseudoskepticism. A scientific skeptic places the burden of proof on the claimant: if you don't have evidence for your claim, others should not believe you until you do. It is not necessarily wrong, although experience shows that pseudoscientific claims of this kind have almost always been wrong. A pseudoskeptic unwittingly places the burden of proof on himself, by declaring that a claim is false. Of course, the principle of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence applies. If you claim to have a flying reindeer, I can be 99.99999% confident that you don't, even if I've never seen your reindeer and have no idea what evidence you have. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There are like a billion Christians, so that's a poor comparison. The atheist attitude is, "I've never experienced faith, therefore faith is false." Hardly a scientific conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That is not the predominant atheist attitude. Even if it was, it's no better or worse than "I've experienced faith, therefore what I believe is true". Most atheists would argue that faith is not a good way of finding out about the world because 1) the universe does not bend to an individual's beliefs, 2) religious faiths contradict each other and cannot be all correct, 3) no religious claim about the world has ever been confirmed, and plenty have been falsified, and 4) it is inconsistent to believe in X but not Y, if neither has any supporting evidence. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The question is based on a total and utter lack of understanding of the other's viewpoint; like a Christian who, upon hearing his friend is an atheist, says, "So, you do realize you're going to hell?" There would have been no attempt or desire by his followers or believers to speculate on some (pseudo-)scientific explanation like the restorative powers of Redbull, hibernating mitochondria, or the ability to fix anything with WD40 and duct tape. That sort of "explanation" would be as beside the point as would asking for the molecular weight of Hamlet's soliloquy. μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The OP's premise is indeed flawed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A question about John Sturart Mill's first book

John Stuart Mills was born in 1806, but he had published a book in 1822 according to the "Major publications" section. That means that he was 15-16 years old when he wrote a book. I want to ask if it was really published around 1822. If it is true, then he is one of the youngest philosophy writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 06:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Evanh2008  06:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Grotius published his first book at the age of 16 (although this was a translation rather than an original work), and Kripke's first published paper was written at the age of 17. Mill is probably the youngest published philosopher (for any reasonable definition of "philosophy"). Tevildo (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Our article notes that Mill was a child prodigy, who had read Aesop and Herodotus in Greek at the age of eight, and Plato in Latin at ten. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Japan, OJ, and Judge Ito

What, if anything, did the Japanese media (or populace) make of Japanese-American judge Lance Ito's involvement in the OJ Simpson trial? I don't want speculation, just info, thanks. Thedoorhinge (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

OJ Simpson was not very well-known outside of America before the trial - I myself, as a Brit living in Japan, only heard of him from my American colleagues when they were talking about the trial (a year or so after it was over) - so there was not much coverage of the trial in Japan or most other countries. Lance Ito does not even have a Japanese Misplaced Pages page. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

B.G. FONTANA

I am trying to find some information about a 19th Century Americam composer named B.G. Fontana.

Dispite numerous internet searches I been unable to find anything.

If you think you could assist I would be pleased to hear from you.

Kind Regards

Barry Hines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryhi2013 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There's G B Fontana, a seventeenth-century Italian composer - I assume it's not him? Tevildo (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

GB is the only one I know of. Where did you hear or read about BG? -- Jack of Oz 20:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Lineage of Prophets of Islam

Is there a website that shows a family tree or lineage chart that shows how the prophets between Abraham and Muhammad peace be upon them are related to each other thus making Abraham the father of prophets and Muhammad (PBUH) the descendant of Abraham?--Donmust90 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Is Muhammed's descending from Abraham a standard claim of Islam? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As with all things theological and deep-historical there is controversy. One vague genealogy I have seen basically just goes Abraham -> Ishmael -> Kedar -> the Quraysh tribe -> Muhummad. Others trace Muhumaad more specifically from Adnan. But we're talking hundreds of generations here. Whether any of this has any relationship to actual historical fact is of course controversial and hard to establish. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hundreds of generations seems a bit of an exaggeration. Ibn Ishaq counted only 30 generations between Abraham and Muhammad (9 from Abraham to Adnan). Admittedly, this is historically quite implausible. This website gives five suggested genealogies, the longest of which is 62 generations in total. This still requires rather long generations (c. 40 years) however, if any credence is to be be given to Jewish accounts. - Lindert (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely if you believe the biblical or quaranical accounts of Abraham, you'll believe that he was an ancestor of Muhammad; anyone who lived approximately 2000 years before an event (in this case, the birth of Muhammad) either has no descendents or is the ancestor of millions of people, and someone in the ancient world with numerous children would be the ancestor of virtually everyone in the region. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

True, but historically this was not really deemed important, only a straight male line constituted one's ancestry, in which case only one person living in Abraham's time would qualify. - Lindert (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

True. Most gay male lines die out pretty quickly.  :) -- Jack of Oz 20:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm responding to Bugs' first statement. Abraham is spoken of as the ancestor of the Arabs via Ishmael, and Muhammad (obviously) is believed to have been an Arab; besides that, I was meaning that anyone who believes that Abraham existed (in a manner identical or akin to what the Bible or the Quran describe) and had descendents must believe that he is the ancestor of most of the Middle East, simply by statistics. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Jesus, they made the point of Mary being of the House of David, in order to keep the prophecy intact. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That's actually not quite accurate. There are two contradictory genealogies of Jesus, one in Luke and one in Matthew, and both clearly state the decent from David as being through Joseph. Luke states that Jesus was the son (it is was supposed) Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat... That is, Mary is never mentioned. In the Matthew genealogy, it works the other way, starting from the past and working forwards, and the Matthew genalogy ends with "...Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus" so Mary is mentioned, but the text clearly draws the line from David down to Joseph by noting Joseph's father and then that man's father. The discrepancies between the two genealogies cannot be explained or dealt with by the text of the Bible itself. The notion that one of these genealogies is of Mary and not of Joseph is one way to resolve the discrepancy, but that notion is NOT apparent from the text itself and is merely one of several later traditions to resolve the discrepancy. Genealogy of Jesus covers this. --Jayron32 18:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That inadvertently raises another question, the one so often raised here about Jesus: Is there any evidence, outside religious writings, that Abraham actually existed? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Never seen a discussion of the subject, but I would presume not; I can't imagine the existence of any contemporary evidence for the actions, names, family members, etc. of nomadic pastoralists so far back. I don't know the quaranical account, but it would seem that the biblical account puts him as living away from literate societies except as an insignificant younger man in Mesopotamia and as a very short-term visitor in Egypt; neither one would be likely to attract appearances in written records. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) No, I think scholars of all persuasions are in agreement that the Torah is the oldest source we have for Abraham. The name "Abarama" is however attested in contemporary cuneiform tablets, though there is no indication that these refer to the Biblical Abram/Abraham (source). - Lindert (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to get into some serious genealogy, we have exquisite documentation of the family of Frodo, son of Drogo, son of Fosco, son of Largo, son of Balbo, father of Mungo, father of Bungo, father of Bilbo Baggins, peace be upon him. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Tecon

Hello!

I'd like help, if possible...

I was searching (Misplaced Pages) for information on Clint Murchison - connected with John J. McCloy, and others involved in secret intelligence work - and read that he owned a company named TECON, a marine construction company. No further information was provided; i.e., corporate officers, projects the company worked on, etc.

I clicked the link to find out more about TECON, and discovered that all references to the company had been removed from Misplaced Pages's database.

In the past several years, I have found that many (MANY) references to activities and businesses owned by those involved in Intelligence Services have been 'cleaned up' or completely erased.

Have you any suggestions how I may pursue my search?

Gratefully,

Sean Galvin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.221.236.188 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's some information on Tecon Ltd, and here's some info on Clint W Murchison III, the son of Clint Murchison, Jr.. Our article on John J. McCloy doesn't mention any connection with the Murchison family. Our article on the Tecon Corporation was A7'd (no assertion of notability) in 2009. Tevildo (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Arrest warrants new york city

Can an arrest warrant be issued by a judge or magistrate without a grand jury indictment? Who else can issue arrest warrants?200.32.229.203 (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pornographic habits of straight men

Do most straight men prefer to watch lesbian porn or straight porn? Academic research please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.117.58 (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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