Revision as of 00:43, 15 September 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

September 10

Does anyone here have a subscription to Time Magazine?

If so, would you care to provide me with the full text of this article? I want to see if it can be used for referencing purposes at Hindawi affair. Kurtis 08:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The usual place for such requests is WP:REX. Someone here may be willing to oblige, though. Deor (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I was actually not aware of that page. But the reference desks seem to get more attention than the WikiProject, so I'll leave this thread open for the time being. Kurtis 11:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If Jesus died for our sins...

...why do people go to hell? Google yields nothing authoritative: i'm after the 'official', theological answer, what the Pope (for example) would say if i asked him.

Thanks much for your attention, friendly wikipedians! Dan Hartas (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty standard Christian theology. You have to seek salvation, it's not automatic. Where have you searched so far? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

just several variants on that question, i'm bad at creative googling. i know that answer, but it doesn't satisfy the fallacy i'm trying to get to grips with. a utilitarian (or most people with standard moral sentiments, and a strong stomach), in a world with the Christian God, would surely be justified in killing all newborns immediately after baptism, so that only one person has to suffer the eternal torment of hell, and the rest of the human population gets to live in paradise. i guess the standard answer to that point is: that's essentially what Jesus did, in taking on the sins of the world and suffering for them. i was asking the question because i was wondering how that is squared with people going to hell post-Christ. (asking as an atheist apologist) Dan Hartas (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Christian, but not really interested in being an apologist here. (It's OR anyways.) The basic idea of salvation (along with other ideas from the New Testament) doesn't really support this kind of "utilitarian" viewpoint. This doesn't necessarily indicate a fallacy- it's a point of view explicitly expressed in the NT stories. See the parable of the shepherd (representing God) who leaves his 99 sheep alone to chase after the 1 who ran away. Or the prodigal son, in which the son who ran away is at least temporarily honored more than the faithful son. Staecker (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Official views differ, usually only slightly (but hard-liners would obviously disagree). See Salvation (Christianity). Staecker (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A related discussion is archived at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 August 26#"burning in hell" metaphor.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The key concept here is universal reconciliation, which is believed by some Christians but not others, but far more in the first and the last two centuries of Christianity than in the intervening 16. I don't know if any religious authority has considered this, but it seems like such a change in outlook might be linked with the broad concept of apocatastasis and the lifting of curses. It seems like in recent times, childbirth doesn't need to be painful, nakedness is not shameful, menstruation is optional, work becomes ever more scarce (and perhaps our societies will even come to accept that), even the serpent's sting is no longer so deadly. Why should the Garden of Eden not seem to be drawing near? Wnt (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Menstruation is optional...?" How so? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wnt (talk) 222:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, science marches on! Thanks for that link. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've always considered menstruation a shocking design flaw, so anything science can do to improve on our Maker's basic concepts is welcome. -- Jack of Oz 23:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, remember that the actual religious idea is that the Garden of Eden design was better (though the informal story of menstruation being the curse of Eve is not really a clear part of it). This is really not that different from the scientific notion that there is a "best design" (or set of designs) for an organism filling an ecological niche, which evolution approximates to a limited extent - provided, that is, one sees Eden as a set of archetypes or a prior version of the cosmos rather than as part of the physical past in the mundane physics sense of time. Wnt (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It depends on your understanding of the key concepts of Hell, baptism, afterlife and salvation. For one, baptism requires a conscious decision on the part of the baptised, so infant baptism doesn't count. That practice evolved from Roman pagan dedication rituals. Salvation was made available to humanity because of Christ's death, but it must still be actively attained. There is no such thing as "once saved, always saved", I don't know where people keep getting that from. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"infant baptism doesn't count"? Dan is asking for official doctrine, so obviously infant baptism does count for millions of christians. He even specifically mentioned the Pope, who very much does believe in infant baptism. I invite you to visit google to verify that there is indeed such thing as "once saved always saved", and you might even learn where it came from. These are doctrines which massive numbers of people believe in. Whether these doctrines are true or not is not the point here. Obviously from the question Dan doesn't think any of them are true. Staecker (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It is official doctrine, I just forgot to mention whose it was (Baptists, Adventists, etc.). I'm not saying "once saved always saved" is not part of some doctrine, only that it is not supported by Scripture, but since we're not discussing the veracity of doctrine, I guess that whether it is supported or not would be a moot point. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sweet. Where can I get one of those 'once saved' things, or am I already good since I was baptized already? It'd be nice to have that in my pocket. --Onorem (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning the lake of fire motif with Ammit, as there is apparently/arguably an Egyptian connection to Israelite philosophies. (I should add that the diversity of the ancient Egyptian concept of the soul is worth considering. It's tempting to project modern or foreign interpretations on this (and I'm afraid what little I've read of the topic has done so), but whether it is ancient interpretations of the ba, ka, "heart", shadow, and name of the deceased, or modern conceptions of the unique soul, atman, genome, "memome", the soul of a person washed of evil/suffering in the waters of Lethe, etc., there would seem to be quite a range of ideas to work with. Wnt (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• The simplest answer, with the broadest application to the most branches of Christianity, is that Jesus died for all people who choose to believe in Him and follow his teachings, for any given value of "believe" and "follow". Hell is for those who choose to not believe and follow. All people have the ability to choose to follow and believe, so all people have the option to avoid hell. John 3:16 is probably the most consice statement in the bible to support this view, and most Christian branches hold this as core to their theology, though of course, they may differ on what believing in and following Jesus entails on the individual level, most that I can think of at least conceptually agree with this notion of salvation and hell. --Jayron32 16:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

However, considering that the OP mentioned the pope, it should be noted that the official Roman Catholic position is not that Jesus died for "all people who choose to believe in Him and follow his teachings", but rather that He died for every single human being, including those that reject God. ("There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.", Catechism of the Catholic Church, 605). In light of that position, it is a legitimate question how it would be just to punish people for sins that were already paid for by Jesus on the cross. - Lindert (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's more on the Catholic view of the subject, which may explain some things: ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the Catholic view is not at all in conflict with my statement. Since all people can choose to believe, all people can choose to accept Christ's gift. The statement you presented from the Catholic church confirms exactly that. --Jayron32 09:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Private schools vs. public schools

In this article, it seems that the author concludes, "In short, today's study shows that sending your kid to private school — particularly one run by a holy order like the Jesuits — is still a better way to ensure that he or she will get into college. Just don't expect all education experts to agree." The basis for the line of thinking is that the author presumes that Catholic schools train students to think critically, or students in Catholic schools just happen to be trained to think critically, so they do better on the SAT than public school students. I would like to know what factors may play into the higher SAT scores. Are Catholic parents generally wealthier enough to send their kids to private Catholic schools in the first place and so they could afford private tutoring and other parental involvement for their children? What is the difference between sending a child to a Benedictine school versus a Jesuit school in terms of education? Finally, how many non-Catholic parents would send their children to a Catholic school? Finally, is this talking about public schools as a whole, including poor inner-city public schools and high-functioning suburban public schools (due to being funded by the property taxes of wealthier landowners)? 140.254.226.240 (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not an American, but an Australian teacher here, but I'm sure there are many parallels. Claims such as that in the article are statistical generalisations. Every student has to have relationships with several teachers in a school, dozens of them in most cases. Not everybody gets on with everybody else in the same way. That a school does statistically "better" on one measure does not mean that that school will be best for a particular child on all measures. The major advantages private schools have is that they tend to be chosen by parents who value education highly and that's reflected in the values of the students, and private schools can eliminate a lot of the lower performing kids, by many strategies. This means their results look better, even if teaching practices are no better, and potentially disruptive kids are removed. It ain't simple. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Songwriters whose work is in the public domain (UK)

I'm looking for public domain songs, that I might be able to perform and record without having to worry about royalties. I don't mean traditional songs, they're fairly easy to find. What I'm after are songs in popular genres by identifiable songwriters/composers who died before 1943 (the law in the UK, where I live, is that copyright lasts for the life of the creator(s) plus 70 years), especially where recordings are available as my ability to read music is minimal. Any suggestions? --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• John Philip Sousa
• Zez Confrey
• Reverend Gary Davis
• Blind Boy Fuller
• Elizabeth Cotten
• Etta Baker

Yep, lots of good ragtime stars. 164.107.103.68 (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Links added, although Confrey, Davis, Cotten and James all died well after 1943. Rojomoke (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As did Baker. I was only aware of Sousa as a composer of instrumental music, didn't know about his operettas, so that's something I could look into - although some of them bring up the complication of when his librettists died. Blind Boy Fuller is one of many blues musicians I could investigate. Thanks. Any more with any more? --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I somehow turned Etta Baker into Etta James. Rojomoke (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not the easiest approach, but you could look through pages like 1943#Deaths and skim the descriptions of the people listed. Katie R (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan? --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

German Togoland

The Germans made Togo into a colony/protectorate in 1884 until 1914. But how did the Germans treat the local Togolese? What facilities did the Germans build for them? Were there rights respected? --Coompararevsky (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Here's a good writeup: Germany's Treatment Of Native Peoples — A Dark Colonial Record. That's from 1940, when Germany wasn't too popular in some parts of the world. --jpgordon 00:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And a more modern look: Togo: German Colonial Rule. --jpgordon 00:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In another German colony in Africa, German Southwest Africa now Namibia, there was the Herero and Namaqua Genocide in 1904-7 which is fairly well documented. Alansplodge (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Deer in Wales

The white-tailed deer is very popular in Texas (USA). What species of deer are most popular in Wales? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Numbers are hard to come by but Wales has Red deer, Fallow deer, Roe deer, Sika deer and Muntjac Deer. See also Annex 1 of Wild Deer managemnt in Wales from the Forestry Commission. Nanonic (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Which ones have the bigest antlers?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You can tell by the size of their shoes. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Deer species in Wales confirms that fallow deer are the most numerous. Red deer (originally native, but now only a few small populations of escapees from deer parks) are the largest animals and can have impressively large antlers. Red deer are now farmed for venison in Wales. Alansplodge (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Wales has the smallest population of wild deer in UK". Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. You are a deerling darling!--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Copeland Gang

Does anyone have any information on the "foot adze" that were used in building the scaffolding that hung the Copeland Gang? The famous Southern Outlaws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.50.88 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Foot and adze seem to have nothing in common, unless one is contemplating chopping off one's own or others' feet with a Stone Age edging implement. -- Jack of Oz 21:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

How about Adze#Foot adze. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Or this? (See the third paragraph, last sentence.) Bielle (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both. -- Jack of Oz 02:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

September 11

Defense against rape accusations in India

The defense lawyer in the 2012 Dehli gang rape case said that his defendants were not guilty because the victims deserved what happened to them for being unmarried and out late together. Is this an actual legal defense? I would expect such an argument to be blocked, a lawyer making it to be thrown off the case, and probably to be disbarred, if he made the argument in the US. I know in the past in the US a woman's dress or behavior was used to argue consent, and that no rape happened. But the lawyer here is not declaring consent-he's supposedly saying they deserved the rape and beating. Is this an alowable defense, and is there a theory that names it? μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"alowable defense" is not a recognized concept in most common law, to my knowledge. There are common motifs that defense attorneys use, such as "circumstantial evidence", but there's rarely a codification of those distinctions in the actual law. The most relevant example I can think of to your question is the question of marital rape, which was widely said to be "not a crime" until the change in the law. That "not a crime" statement is true under old school common law, but whether or not that held true under a multitude of jurisdictions in post civil war America (Britain had similarly abandoned most of these old black letter common law rules too), I think that's a phd worthy topic. I haven't ever read any legal scholarship on that point. My instinct is that you're viewing a lawyer's obligation for a defense as some example of the absurdity of common law adversarial legal systems. I have serious doubts that your premise is correct. I seriously doubt that Indian law has some categorical exception to rape based on a woman's dress. If they did, and we can cite it, please point it out. It will certainly be a major topic until it's fixed. I highly doubt that's the case. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not "my premise", I am asking a question, not making an argument. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Contributory negligence is an obvious article to link, as is Victim blaming, which references the case in question. Where the former is argued, though, there is not usually any attempt to argue the total blamelessness of the perpetrator, but only to offer mitigation. Your example of "the victim deserved it" goes one step further than than "the victim didn't take reasonable precautions to avoid it" by arguing that the perpetrator is merely the automatic instrument of the victim's self-inflicted injury, rather like the sea in the case of a person who drowned during a drunken swim. I haven't found any references to this as a successful defence strategy in modern times or to a technical term for it, although I wouldn't be surprised to do so somewhere along the line. -Karenjc 08:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In the UK at least, the issues are raised in a slightly different way and are worth clarifying. A legal defence is something you bring after all the elements of a crime have already been proven - which is normally a risky strategy because you accept the elements are there. So for example if I kill someone in self-defence, I accept that I shot them intending to do grievous bodily harm and did in fact kill them, but that I have the defence of self-defence. There is no such defence known to English law involving a woman's dress or behavior, or as go on to say, desert. There's a very specific list of defences and none come close to covering this situation where the victim is not believed to be about to commit a crime (as in self defence). To cover the point about consent, it is not a defence, but rather the lack of reasonable belief in consent is an element of most sexual crimes (those involving victims capable of consenting). The standard under English law used to be honest belief in consent but the standard was changed largely to avoid spurious reasons for believing in consent such as dress (also the appearance to potential victims coming forward to police that they mattered). So as you can hopefully see at no stage is there the possibility of desert featuring nor has there been for a long time. The closest I can think of is vigilantism, but that's long been illegal in the UK. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Often this sort of thing gets misreported. Take the Italian "jeans" case — what the Court of Cassation said was that it is difficult to remove such jeans by force, so it's evidence that the accuser cooperated. You might not think that's a very strong evidentiary argument, and maybe you're right — but what they absolutely did not say was that she must have been a loose woman for wearing such tight jeans, and that's the interpretation that got publicly presented. --Trovatore (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Also worth noting that those statements by the lawyer were not made in court, but in media interviews. Deciding whether he was just trying to gain public "sympathy" for his clients, notoriety for himself, or expressing his true thoughts would be speculative on my part. Abecedare (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth noting that the name of the lawyer said to have made the statement in our article is stated in this article to no longer be representing anyone in the case and was potentially only ever representing one of the accused anyway. The same source suggests the lawyers have been publicling sniping at each other (not exactly uncommon in this sort of thing thoroughout the world AFAIK) and also seems to provide more detail on their defences and also near the end further explaination for what that earlier lawyer was saying (which was not that they raped and killed her but it was her own fault so they don't deserve to be punished). From what I read, one of the basic aspects of the defence has been that most of confessions were coerced also generally mentioned in other sources . Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if this was actually made in court rather than to the press. But an American judge would have no problem removing the lawyer for his statements to the press. Again, what strikes me here is that the comments don't deny there was a rape. They justify the rape. If those familiar with Indian jurisprudence can say this sort of hyperbole (if you can call it that) is common I can accept that. What I am wondering is, are the lawyer's statements in this case to be expected under some common concept like, say, honor killing, or is this an unusual tactic? μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, can you find us a quote of what was actually said? The question about your "premise", above, is that frankly most of us don't believe the lawyer ever said this. He might have said something that someone took to mean what you say, but that's a different matter. --Trovatore (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's in our article:

Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur and Pawan Gupta denied the charges. On 10 January, their lawyer, Manohar Lal Sharma, said in a media interview that the victims are responsible for the assault because they should not have been using public transportation and, as an unmarried couple, they should not have been on the streets at night. He went on to say: "Until today I have not seen a single incident or example of rape with a respected lady. Even an underworld don would not like to touch a girl with respect." He also called the male victim "wholly responsible" for the incident because he "failed in his duty to protect the woman".

and has been widely reported in the press where I first read of it. How did this become about me? μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? I never said it was about you. No one else did either.

I don't see anything in the quote that claims the rape was justified. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending what the lawyer said; it was not a good thing to say under the circumstances, but it doesn't say it was OK or that it wasn't rape. (I have since looked up some of the links presented, and it doesn't appear that the lawyer claims that there was no rape; he says his (former?) client didn't do it.)

The only thing I can see there that might lead you to present the quote as saying the rape was justified was the line about the companion being "wholly responsible", but the only way that would imply justification is if you think of responsibility as some sort of a pie that can be divided up, and the pieces have to total 100%, never more and never less (well, at least never more). It's a big logical leap to assume the lawyer meant it that way. --Trovatore (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing your opinion of my opinion. The question stands, and answers like Nil's that the lawyer is not or no longer involved in the case are much more enlightening. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about your opinion. In your question, you said the lawyer said "his defendants were not guilty because the victims deserved what happened to them". But no, in fact, he did not say that, or at least if he did, it has not been reported in the quotes given. --Trovatore (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That's very interesting Trovatore. Of course you are denying the truth of a direct quote I never made, as I was using indirect speech that was accurate enough for the context. I am still not interested in discussing this further, but I will let you know the next time I have a nit that needs picking. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

But it is not a nit, and it was not accurate enough for the context. You attributed to him a claim that he never made, and the claim you attributed was central to the question you asked. --Trovatore (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

But did you actually read what the lawyer said in the ref I provided? It includes a bunch of conspiracy theories and frankly wacky stuff, as well some degree of what can be considered victim blaming, but as Trovatore and I have said, it seems clear he isn't saying she was raped but it's her fault. In fact he denies a rape even happened (or murder, since he thinks she's still alive a murder is inherently impossible). I didn't look that well at the other lawyers who were still involved in the case said (only two of the three commented in the source I provided) but from what I did see while they may have said some controversial stuff, I don't think anyone is saying she was raped by my client but he shouldn't be punished because it's her fault. Whatever other dodgy stuff they may have said, it seems clear the basic defence is a denial of any allegations of rape against their clients (at most some rough treatment or fighting), whether that's because they allege she wasn't raped or allege someone else did it and their client didn't assist or was otherwise involved in a way which would make them guilty. In other words, whatever else was said and however that may have been treated, the basic defence is one that, at least from my understanding, is a valid one in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• In the meantime, I have indeed discovered the cultural concept Eve teasing, which is based on the notion that an unchaperoned woman is fair game for sexual predation. That seems to be exactly the idea which the "lawyer" was relying on in his statement. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What sentence could William Ruto face?

At the International Criminal Court? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiplimo Kenya (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

According to this document: "If the judges find Ruto and/or Sang guilty, the court can sentence them to a length of time in prison and/or order property taken in order to pay reparations to victims. Ruto and Sang will not receive the death penalty if found guilty, as that is prohibited under ICC rules. If they are found not guilty, they will go free and will retain the presumption of innocence." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Links:William Ruto, Joshua Sang, Henry Kosgey, 2007–08 Kenyan crisis. -- ToE 12:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

..and, more specifically, International Criminal Court investigation in Kenya. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Imperial Roman Army Picture Error

In the Imperial Roman Army section there is an error in one of the pictures. The picture is the typical Roman Soldier that is pictured from all directions. The error is that the strap on the shield in the picture is vertical while straps on Roman's shields are horizontal. if you could please change this minute detail it would be much appreciated by a hard-core Roman history fan Chaimek (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about / ? The problem is, these pictures are based on an autoCAD file that we may not have. The author Strikerg13 hasn't been active for a year - you can try e-mailing him, maybe he still gets Wiki emails. Wnt (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Model is from an Autodesk 3DS Max file from Rome Total War mod called Roma Surrectum II. The "author" probably didn't get permission to use the model from its creator.
Sleigh (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Misplaced Pages Media Copyright Questions to look into the copyright question. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For the curious, surrectum means "rises", not what it looks like it means... MChesterMC (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Some discussion on how Roman shields were held is here. Apparently only one rectangular example has ever been found. Alansplodge (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Things could be worse. According to some "film flubs" sources, a Roman guard at the crucifixion in the movie King of Kings was seen wearing a wrist watch in his scene. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And that famous cameo by John Wayne in The Greatest Story Ever Told, where, at the same crucifixion, he says solemnly "Truly this was the Son o' Gahd". I'm sure I caught him adding "pilgrim" at the end, but the official quote doesn't have that word. -- Jack of Oz 20:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Great. I'm now getting a mental picture of Wayne doing his famous ambling walk - in a Roman soldier's outfit. It could be worse, though - they could have used Marvin the Martian. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember where I read this, possibly a book called simply "Movie Anecdotes" or something, but apparently after Wayne said the line, the director told him "give it more awe". So the next take, he said "Awww, truly this man was the son of God". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

What now for Thompson and De Blasio campaigning?

So the NY Democratic Mayoral Primary is on a knife-edge. With 98% of votes counted De Blasio has 40.2%, enough to avoid a runoff. But there are still the 2% to count from absentee ballots, and they could quite believably push De Blasio to 39.9%, thus triggering a second election in 3 weeks time against Bill Thompson.

Here's my question: The absentee ballots won't be entirely counted (according to the media) for days, maybe until next week. What do the candidates do until then? If De Blasio falls to 39.9% then he and Thompson can hardly afford to miss the first third of the campaign not doing anything. But if it doesn't then De Blasio won't want to waste resources fighting Democrats when he could save them up fight Lhota with. And Thompson will (presumably) endorse and assist De Blasio to win the general election if he's the party nominee, so he may not want to slam him for a week. What is the usual course of events? Do the campaigns pause? 86.163.125.91 (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what they'll actually do, but this would seem to be a wonderful opportunity for them to invent the concept of, dare I say it, positive campaigning! (We don't have an article about it, unlike negative campaigning, so presumably it hasn't been invented yet.) Duoduoduo (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

human guinea pigs

Is Nazi Germany the last time non-consenting human beings were used for medical experiments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the US did a lot of this too. Look at Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the whole set of unethical human experimentation in the United States. I doubt they're alone. The UK had some similar issues with chemical weapons trials from Porton Down and Nancekuke, where servicemen 'volunteered' for trials, but without knowledge of just what they were being exposed to. At least one died at the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying the US did "a lot" of this is a bit of an exaggeration. These links at google give lists of such experiments, some associated with the Soviet Union, but they may not be reliable. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Many countries carried out small scale experiments of dubious morality. However the USA also had a number of large-scale epidemiological studies, looking at disease spread in populations, radiological and bacterial contamination. They carried out large dispersal experiments over populated areas - and of course those around the Nevada and Micronesia test sites. I know of no other country (possibly the UK nuke tests in Australia) that carried out any similar experiments on a comparable scale. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

See also Human subject research and Human experimentation in North Korea. -Karenjc 15:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

See blood substitute. Nobody wants to be the victim of cheap reformulated expired blood products (actually, I doubt it'd really be cheaper, just more proprietary...) so virtually any experiment done with them involves non-consenting subjects, and ensuing fatalities. Wnt (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot depends on how you define consenting. "Approximately 235,000 DoD military and civilian personnel participated in U.S. atmospheric nuclear tests that were conducted primarily in Nevada and the Pacific Ocean between 1945 and 1962", according to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the idea of informed consent has matured a lot over the years. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hindi literature

My history textbook says that while Urdu, Tamil, Bengali and Marathi print culture had developed eary, Hindi printing began seriously only from the 1870s. Why was this so? --Yashowardhani (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Down to the Mutiny of 1857, most of the potential patrons of literature in the core "Hindustani"-speaking areas would have been Muslims, who favored a Perso-Arabic influenced version of the language written in Arabic script, i.e. Urdu. The major non-English language of Indian nationalism in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century seems to have been "Sanskritized Bengali" (see Vande Mataram, Jana Gana Mana etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't get one word of what you said. Can you please elaborate? --Yashowardhani (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If I elaborated beyond what I know or can reasonably deduce, then I'd be making stuff up. However, the ordinary common spoken village language of north central India at that time (sometimes referred to as "Hindustani") was neutral as between Urdu and Hindi. When spoken Hindustani was developed into a literary language by means of borrowing Persian and Arabic words, and written in the Arabic alphabet, it became Urdu; when spoken Hindustani was developed into a literary language by means of borrowing Sanskrit words, and written in the Devanagari alphabet, it became Hindi... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Now I get it. Thanks! --Yashowardhani (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

How much money goes into the Roman Catholic Church every year?

Seeing that the Roman Catholic Church have so many parishes and hospitals and monasteries and academic institutions scattered abroad, how much money would go into the Roman Catholic Church each year? In terms of spendings, does it spend money on philanthropic causes, and if so, how much does it spend and to where does it spend? 164.107.214.48 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is some information for the RCC in America specifically; not worldwide, but it does give some information as to American catholicism --Jayron32 16:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Some partial info at Peter's Pence#The revived Roman Catholic custom... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Grandchildren of Henry VIII - supposed daughters of his son Henry FitzRoy

The articles about Henry VIII of England and Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset, claim that the latter "left two illegitimate daughters". The claim is sourced to page 255 of Sir Geoffrey Elton's book called Reform and Reformation: England, 1509-1558. I've found the book on Google Books, but I cannot access the 255th page. What exactly does it say? I have a hard time believing that so little would be known about the only grandchildren of Henry VIII, who would have had some claim to the throne during the reign of their childless half-aunt (who, by the way, would have been younger than them). Surtsicna (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I now see the information was first added by Grandiose on 19 March 2013, replacing the statement that Richmond died childless. I hope he'll respond to this ping :) Surtsicna (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the book available to me. It's certainly possible that I got confused, since Henry VIII himself left two (somewhat retrospectively) illegitimate daughters, so I'm sorry I can't be of more help verifying or correcting this. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It does seem strange for a 17-year-old, though obviously not impossible. (Curiously, there is a reference to "two illegitmate daughters" in this biography of FitzRoy, although in reference to his maternal greatgrandfather, Sir Hugh Peshall. Source of confusion or just a coincidence of wording?) You can request a pdf of the missing page at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request; they did that for me recently.184.147.119.141 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The passage in the Elton book reads: "Henry in fact at this point had three illegitimate children—Henry duke of Richmond, Mary and Elizabeth. It was widely thought that he would leave the throne to the first, but the boy died in late June, leaving only two bastardized offspring, both girls". Elton does not cite a source. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry on FitzRoy mentions nothing about them.--Britannicus (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I defend my right to be confused from that (!), but I think if they aren't mentioned elsewhere, the two bastardized offspring are Mary and Elizabeth. Thanks Britannicus. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha, yes it is convoluted. I thought the two daughters was referring to FitzRoy as well, not Henry!--Britannicus (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The confusion is justified, of course. I've corrected the articles. Thank you all! Surtsicna (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Russian Beauharnais

Why weren't the children of Maximilian de Beauharnais, 3rd Duke of Leuchtenberg raised in their father's religion? A similar Russianization occurred with the descendants of Duke George of Oldenburg (who also died when his children were young) but they retained their Lutheran faith except for one granddaughter who married a Russian grand duke.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Are the references in Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia (1819–1876) enough? (Belyakova, Zoia. Grand Duchess Maria Nikolayevna and her palace in St Peterburg. Ego Pubushers, ISBN 5-8276-0011-3 and Radzinsky, Edvard. Alexander II, The Last Great Tsar. Free Press, 2005, ISBN 0-7432-7332-X.) As I read the article, these books used to source two reasons: Because religion was a condition of his marriage and because the children were brought up in Russia, in the care of their maternal uncle Tsar Alexander II. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Who saw Christian art?

I have heard several times that the decoration in Medieval churches served as a Poor Man's Bible. Illiterates (i.e., most of the people) could find images of the people and stories that priests talked about. However, when visiting Gothic or Romanesque sites, I have difficulties to appreciate a lot of the art. It is too small or too far for me to see. I am remembering in special the windows of the Sainte Chapelle in Paris. I don't have a perfect sight but we count on electrical lighting while Medievals had to rely on candles and sunlight, and Medieval masses did not have optical corrections (while natural selection would have removed the worst sighted).

So my questions are:

• Did Medieval people actually see their Christian art?
• How was it applied? Did preachers during Mass point to specific depictions or did the faithful learn who was who elsewhere?

--Error (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea that they could somehow learn Christian messages from images is pretty silly. You don't need images to tell a story. You can just...tell the story. The images add next to nothing. What they do is create a sense of majesty, power, spectacle and glory. They are a portal into a "magical" world of beauty and sophistication. The interpretation of the images gives the viewer an emotional connection between the experience and the ideas they convey. Of course that was one of the Protestant criticisms of Catholic use of images, especially as visual deception became more powerful during the Renaissance (see the work of the Correggio or Cortona). Did medieval people see the art? Yes, of course, but not as clearly as we do. Did the preachers point out images? Yes, they did, and there is evidence from sermons that they did. But it was not a major feature of preaching. Most likely the laity learned the meaning of images from local priests. Paul B (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Electric lighting doesn't add anything to a Gothic cathedral during the day. Sainte-Chapelle is quite bright inside, as is Notre Dame. Does Notre Dame even have any lights on during the day? I can't remember, but the similar cathedral in Nantes doesn't need any, sunlight is perfectly sufficient. That's what all the windows are for! Some of the art is too far away, but remember that when these churches were built, people could go up to the higher floors and up to the top of the towers. Usually you can't walk up there anymore because it's unsafe (unless it has been restored to make it safe, like Notre Dame). There is also art on the exterior of these churches - Gothic cathedrals typically have art above the main doorway, depicting Judgement Day. Also, you may have trouble appreciating or understanding the art because we are mostly unfamiliar with it now. If that was the normal way that you learned about the Bible, the images would be more familiar to you. Note that even modern Catholic churches have a lot of art, such as depictions of the Stations of the Cross. People still learn that way, if they go to church. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

People in those days also were typically illiterate, as well as being more "into" the church. Certainly the illustrations reinforced the biblical lessons. Some say that they were in some sense a "library" for the illiterate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The Great East Window at York Minster has illustrations of Bible stories on glass panels about 3 feet square and it's the size of a tennis court standing on its end, starting about 10 feet off the ground. Some panels have "speech bubbles" of Gothic writing on little scrolls coming from the characters mouths. There is no way that they can be read from the ground, even with binoculars. I'm fairly certain that they were intended for God to read, because humans couldn't. Alansplodge (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You really can't read the "story" of most medieval images unless you know what they are suppossed to mean already. You need someone to tell you that they mean something. And of course, you don't then need the image to lean the meaning - because you have been told it. The images were not in any true sense a "library" for the illiterate. You have to be able to read yourself to use a library, whether it is visual literacy or or textual literacy we mean. The meaning was pointed out by priests, thus reinforcing their role as intermediaries between the laity and the divine and building into the space itself the Catholic idea of the role of the church - represented by both the building and the priests. Paul B (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Images can act as mnemonics, helping the illiterate parishioner to remember the story they'd been told. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Last time I was in the Sainte Chapelle it was cloudy, but I doubt that even in full sunlight I could distinguish the figures at the top.

Did really people walk in high places? I am remembering now that Hagia Sophia has an ample upper floor but in most Western churches the upper halls are limited to the choir (?) opposite of the apse

--Error (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the Poor Man's Bible article that is already linked, along with Gothic art and Gothic architecture, and the sources listed in those articles (this is a pretty well-documented subject) give a good idea of how this kind of art was used. Maybe it seems unbelievable that they were used to teach people...but nevertheless, that's what happened. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I was doing a cycle tour of the (very Catholic) German Münsterland this summer, and for the first time noticed that many of the churches had illustrations of the Stations of the Cross along the side walls. I can easily imagine that these serve very much to fix the story and the interpretation of the events in the mind of someone who regularly is exposed to them in the context of a service that references them. It's quite a striking illustration, and it breaks the story into individual highlights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the Middle Ages, but today Catholics in the Holy Week services form a small procession in the church following the priest with the cross, stopping at each of the Stations. At each one, the relevant text is said and people pray. So actually this Via Crucis is a good example of learning the faith by doing, and stations are usually at a comfortable height. Thanks for reminding me. --Error (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As to the "library" idea, here is an older but possibly useful link: ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

September 12

National Flower of Germany?

Hello, what is the national flower of Germany? Seems like a strange question from a German, but several English-language sources (mostly botanical Q&A books and notably the EB) claim, that it's the cornflower. This flower was used as symbol in the 19th century, and later sparingly by nationalistic circles pre-WWII. However, i haven't come across any official or semi-official usage of this flower in modern-day Germany - it's simply out of use on a national level. Is a national symbol, that is not widely used by anyone, still a national symbol? Could someone point me to an academic or official political statement about the actual situation in Germany? GermanJoe (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave the academic reference to others, but I did try searching the official government site. The cornflower is mentioned only once, in a picture caption. Floral emblem claims oak is a second possibility, but again the only references on the government site are to oaks in general in other contexts (and no hits for Eichenlaub). (Though it is on the Euro). See also Nationales Symbol. Possible that there's no official status at all? That's what's said in this (nonacademic) book ("Germany does not have a national flower, but if it had one, the cornflower might be it...") 184.147.120.88 (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"EB"? Care to clarify? Dismas| 23:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica? -- Jack of Oz 02:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my laziness :), yes I meant the Encyclopedia. Thanks for the information 184.147.120.88 - i agree, it's likely there is no "official" status. That makes it very difficult to counter English sources, when they boldly claim otherwise. GermanJoe (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I recommend starting from the assumption that a state does not have a national flower, tree, fruit, bird or small furry animal, and look for an official proclamation. Devisers of fact and quiz books love to have items to fill up their neat tables, and I suspect they're not above inventing the odd item. --ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The cornflower is in fact the ethnic symbol of the German-American community. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Our cornflower article says it is one of the national flowers of Germany and cites Compendium of Symbolic and Ritual Plants in Europe: Herbs, which sounds RS. John M Baker (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not just about formal proclamations, Colin. It's possible for something to be widely considered a national symbol without it having been officially declared to be so. For example, millions of people around the world would regard the kangaroo and the koala as symbolising Australia, but they've never been formally proclaimed as such, even though the kangaroo (and the emu) are on our coat of arms. On the other hand, the Golden Wattle and the Opal have been formally promulgated as our National Floral Emblem and our National Gemstone respectively (see National symbols of Australia). -- Jack of Oz 02:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but in Germany the cornflower is neither legally recognized nor popular - living in Germany i would know. @John M Baker, thanks for the book info. Unfortunately Google books doesn't show the relevant pages, but i'll keep looking. GermanJoe (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@John M Baker, the book source was cited erronously (it had past tense for this information). Found and added the correct information after some more digging - thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

After reading a couple of German sources on this subject the following picture emerges: Before 1875 cornflowers were considered nice flowers. Then the king of Prussia and emperor of the newly-formed German Empire Wilhelm I told the story that he liked cornflowers very much, for they reminded him of his dear late mother. The story spread into the newspapers and magazines and when Wilhelm I and his consort celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary in 1876, all Berliners wore cornflowers. The cornflower thus became a symbol for Prussia (not for Germany!), for fidelity to the emperor Wilhelm I and for sympathy with emperor Wilhelm I. Subsequently the cornflower was used by German national organizations inside and especially outside Germany and thus could be considered a symbol of Germany after 1876. This ended more or less with the end of the monarchy in 1918 or the end of Prussia in 1945 and has no more meaning right now. Only learned or instructed people or national organizations would nowadays know of this episode. And now try to tell this to readers who find English language sources telling "the cornflower is the national flower of Germany" like the dated Encyclopaedia Britannica version does. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Names that used to be considered stereotypical for black Americans

I recall reading a text some time back from the first half of the twentieth century that mentioned the different names that were popular to give to babies among black and white Americans. I was interested at how the names listed as "black names" didn't have the same connotations for me as they evidently did for the author; "Sam" is the only one I remember. What are some other names that used to be used primarily by black Americans but no longer carry strong racial connotations? --superioridad 09:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of names which had strongly black connotations in the 19th century United States ("Cuffee", "Pompey" etc.) but aren't much used today... AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A more recent one might be "Amos", which was a stereotypical name when Amos 'n' Andy was popular, but not so much today, with actors like John Amos not ashamed of the name. (I don't think "Andy" had the same problem, at the time, since it was quite a common name among whites.) StuRat (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried googling to find more examples of African American names but most of the sites were either useless or overtly racist. I doubt anyone seriously does any academic research on this type of thing today. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a good bet that names like Denzel and Shaniqua are primarily assigned to black kids, while names like Winthorpe are probably more often assigned to whites. I know there are sites that list popular names, and it wouldn't surprising if there is a racial or ethnic breakdown. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Census data from 1940 and before is available, and from 1850 on there have been questions that ask the name and race of each person in the household. The data exists, and I would be surprised if no one has made an online tool for breaking down popular names by race for those years. There's probably a way to tease the information out of Wolfram Alpha, but I haven't had luck with my first few queries. Katie R (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

In looking at this, be careful to avoid being misled by inaccurate stereotypes. For example, Rastus has a long-standing reputation as a stereotypical black name, but was never particularly used as such. John M Baker (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Erastus, though, is a perfectly legitimate name, and I suspect a number of blacks had that name at one time. Once it became a stereotype, they stopped using it. Just like nobody in their right mind names their kid "Elmer" nowadays. I recall when it seemed like about half the black MLB players were called "Willie". Not many nowadays, but whether that's because of stereotyping or if it simply fell out of favor, I couldn't say. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

While there have been blacks named Rastus or Erastus, of course, there were never very many (e.g., there were only four blacks/mulattos named "Rastus" in 1870, and that is not a lot). The only well-known real-life Rastus I know of was Rastus Ransom, a prominent New York lawyer in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I presume he was white; none of the contemporary references to him mention his race, which was a pretty good indicator of whiteness at the time. John M Baker (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The first thing that came to mind from this subject heading was the common practice, echoed and somewhat transformed in the novels of William Faulkner, of giving slaves and other black people Roman first names (praenomina) - Lucius, Marcus, Titus, Quintus, and the like - and (sometimes Anglicized) family names such as Pompey, Horatio, or Cornelius, with the occasional cognomen of someone super-famous (e.g. Cicero or Augustus or Marius) mixed in from time to time. Later on (do I have a timeframe? I don't. Read Faulkner :-Þ) this came to be seen as the unbelievably patronizing tradition that it was, though I've heard of at least one Lucretia (perhaps spelled differently) very recently. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I presume this is why Cassius Clay became Muhammad Ali. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's why Muhammad Ali was originally named Cassius Clay, but also partially in honour of his father Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr., and indirectly after an earlier Cassius Marcellus Clay, the abolitionist. His name change to Ali was all about his new religion. -- Jack of Oz 20:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I seem to recall Ali saying it was a "slave name". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I recall that someone pointed out the irony that had been lost on him: he had originally been named after an abolitionist, but then named himself after a slave owner. D'oh! 71.79.40.46 (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Google advanced book search for "Negro names" for the years 1901-1950 shows a great many books and articles analyzing popular names used up until then, but strangely none of the references provide more than snippets of information. Somehow copying the Google results makes formatting it here difficult, so I apologize for the unwanted "outdenting." There was "Some Curious Negro Names books.google.com/books?id=LvCqnQEACAAJ

Arthur Palmer Hudson - 1938 - ‎No preview" All the "No preview" and "snippet results make me wonder if Google Books decided to hide the results. There is "In Freedom's Birthplace: A Study of the Boston Negroes. ... - Page 25 books.google.com/books?id=nswiAQAAIAAJ John Daniels - 1914 - ‎Snippet view - ‎1 'This census is interesting also as shedding light on the derivation of Negro names and revealing them in process of formation. Many are Biblically inspired, as, for instance, "Adam" Rowe, "Joel" Harding, "Luke "Taylor, and "Samson" Brown.'" This is to be distinguished from 1930's White American humor articles about how funny some of the names were, citing unproven given names such as "Neuralgia." H.L. Mencken said that most of the funny "Negro names" were invented by whites., as in "Supplement II The American Language - Page 511books.google.com/books?id=NBUmGZ1SCNQC H.L. Mencken - 1948 - ‎Snippet view 'The last two are from Some Curious Negro Names, before cited, p. 188. 12 Georgia's Health, Sept., 1942, p. 3. 13 The last two are from a list compiled by the Atlanta police and discussed in Names, Raleigh (N. C.) News-Observer, Aug.. ' " See "Bookmen's Holiday: Notes and Studies Written and Gathered in ... books.google.com/books?id=BxtFAAAAMAAJ Deoch Fulton - 1943 - ‎Snippet view - 'The students who have investigated Negro names in a really scientific spirit have found them few and far between, and whenever a particularly luscious specimen is reported it usually turns out to be at second or third hand. When Dr. Urban T.'" The above were from the first half of the 20th century. In recent times white writers have pointed out names like where a variant pronunciation of some common white name has been put down phonetically or where it is just a creative spelling pronounced the same as the common spelling. Some names are inventive and unique African-sounding names. Edison (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are names like Trayvon and Towanda so popular? (Though I'm no more understanding of how weird white names like "Chloe" caught on) I suppose the strangest thing in American naming is typically that many of the names were from the New Testament but seem to have suffered a loss of popularity - John, Matthew, Luke and so forth. Wnt (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Chloe is a pretty old name. There was a 1934 film called Chloe, Love Is Calling You, and its theme song was popular enough that Spike Jones did a parody of the song. Baseball Bugs 05:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Evangelical School of Smyrna

I am researching my great uncle, George Weber - - he reputedly taught French at the Evangelical School in Smyrna for 40 years. I'm certain that he is the person seated second to the left, front row in your published photo of "Evangelical School Teachers and Graduates, 1978". Do you have any idea of where you obtained that photo? I would very like to get in touch with the person who delivered that photo.

Thanks very much,

Dennis Woodward — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.177.63.25 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you go to Evangelical School of Smyrna and click on the photo, you can see what information we have on it, like so In this case, we got it from here . SemanticMantis (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

September 13

Slander

Slander is a crime. If someone spreads a slander to a third party, but tells that third party to deny the slander, is the third party guilty of any crime if they refuse to reveal that a slander was made known to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In many jurisdictions, slander is a tort, not a crime. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In most jurisdictions, the third party would have no obligation to reveal what had been said to them. Only if the so called "slander" is actually true and is about some other crime that has been committed, would the third party have an obligation to reveal what had been said...(this is not legal advice, please consult a lawyer!) There may be some jurisdictions where the law is more "totalitarian". Dbfirs 13:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Various countries have greatly differing legal systems, so the legal opinions supplied by Nelson Ricardo and Dbfirs are unlikely to apply everywhere. Common law, Civil law and Sharia law are three examples of different traditions, and a given government might have specific case law or judicial rulings. Even though the question might be a purely theoretical one, it should be noted that Misplaced Pages does not provide legal advice. Edison (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I stated a fact, not an opinion. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

... and I didn't intend to provide a legal opinion (I'm not a lawyer, so I've added a disclaimer to my second sentence.) I hadn't considered the possibility that the OP (possibly from Harrogate, North Yorkshire), had voluntarily submitted himself to Sharia law. Dbfirs 07:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

All the respondents so far are on the right track. The definition of what slander is, and what legal remedies there are for it, are likely to vary widely around the world. Even if we were allowed to give legal advice, there's not enough information in the OP's question to be able to give an answer, other than "talk to a lawyer". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ricardo is correct it is usually a tort. There is, or has been the notion of criminal defamation. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

None of you have answered the crux of the question (btw, slander/libel is still actually a crime in some jurisdictions) which is "is the third party guilty of any crime if they refuse to reveal that a slander was made known", which of course begs the question, to whom are they refusing to reveal. That would be the actual question here. Shadowjams (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Under English law, there's no legal duty to report a crime (or a civil wrong, such as defamation). However, the victim of the defamation could subpoena the publishee of the slander to testify that they received it, who could then be liable for contempt of court or perjury if they failed to cooperate. Tevildo (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out just what the OP is asking. So some guy comes up to me and says, "Joe Celebrity is cheating on his wife, but don't repeat this and don't tell anybody I told you." Is that the scenario the OP is describing? Or something different? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They're asking, if we take the words they wrote literally, "is the third party guilty of any crime if they refuse to reveal that a slander was made known to them". We don't know who the nebulous party that they're refusing to reveal to is though. If it's just some guy on the street I would assume the answer is no. If it's the government the answer becomes a lot more complicated. In what process, in what form, in what jurisdiction, etc. Shadowjams (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

How would that third party know, at the time, whether a bit of gossip was actually a slander and not the truth? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Oldest spitfire pilot and 'still living'

Warrant Officer Leslie 'Tiny' Gibson DFM born 13/05/1914 now living in Tiverton Devon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusfaye (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Marcus. I'm guessing that you're suggesting we should note this somewhere. But unless WO Gibson meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for notability for other reasons (which are not about how brave he may have been, but solely whether independent reliable published sources have written substantially about him), then becoming "the oldest surviving X" is never a sufficient notability for an article. It is possible that somewhere there is a "List of oldest YYY" articles in which he might fit, but I rather doubt it. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You asked about your father-in-law here back in June and received some advice. I'm not sure we can add much more. If you're suggesting an article about him, a Google search suggests that there may indeed be insufficient material about Mr. Gibson published in reliable sources to meet the inclusion criteria. - Karenjc 18:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A church that doesn't preach the gospel?

What does it mean when a Christian describes a church "that doesn't preach the gospel"? What characteristics need to be there in order to be qualified as a "church that doesn't preach the gospel"? 164.107.103.35 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The phrasing implies that somehow they don't support the Bible, which seems kind of contradictory. Can you find an example? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is Christian jargon for something. "doesn't preach the gospel" Google search. By the way, why do you assume that the phrase implies that so-and-so does not support the Bible? Could it be that the New Testament Gospel accounts of the Christian Bible are supposed to hold the gospel and a church that doesn't preach the gospel somehow lacks the gospels in their bible version? 164.107.103.35 (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a slight against whatever church they don't like; evangelicals typically describe the Catholic church that way. Hang around long enough here and you'll probably see PlasmaPhysics describe some denomination like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the meaning is supposed to be subjective. That is, no standard meaning. I am told that it means, from a Presbyterian Church in America perspective, that some churches do not encourage its members or parents encouraging their children to repent and be saved. Instead of being constantly reminded that they are sinful and in need of a savior, a church that does not preach the gospel would mean a church that "strays away from Christ's message" about repentance and salvation. Instead of relying on oneself, the Christian should rely on God. Thanks for trying. 164.107.103.35 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have answered your own question, could you at least put "resolved" at the top of this? If you still have a question, could you please state it politely and clearly? IBE (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Would Unitarian Universalism qualify for the OP? --Jayron32 03:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The phrase is subjective and as such, different people mean different things when they use it. I've been hearing it more and more among conservative evangelicals in reference to "Megachurches" (and their related televangelists) where the sermons are seen as more entertainment or, at best, something akin to motivational speaking, feel-good, self-help babble no different than you'd hear on PBS (admittedly with a few, albeit rather "neutral", bible verses mentioned). A related disparaging term is The Feel Good Gospel referencing the de-emphasizing of the the results of sin and the responsibilities of the Forgiven, commonly called "watering down" the Gospel.--William Thweatt 07:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally, when Church A sees Church B as a non-gospel-preaching church, the meaning is as follows: Church A believes that the Bible is divine revelation in every sense of the term, and Church B's view of the Bible or interpretation of the Bible is substantially different to the point that Church A believes that Church B's members can't be saved (i.e. have God's favor, live spiritually with God after death, and eventually be resurrected for non-ending life with God) because some critical portion of the Bible's message is being omitted. Exceptions surely exist, but it's normally not a slight or a slur; Church A says that Church B is so badly in error from God's teachings that God will reject them — it's typically a statement that flows rather logically if you accept Church A's premises. Of course, a wide range of things might be the reason for A's argument. Perhaps they say that B is preaching a heretical view of God himself (for example, Protestants often say this about the LDS, who preach a Godhead of three different beings), or perhaps they say that B has rejected the Bible's ultimate authority, or perhaps they say that B is preaching a wrong (i.e. useless, God-angering, etc.) method of being saved (this is the primary issue when Protestants say this about Catholics), or perhaps they say that B's not preaching that people need to be saved (this is the primary issue when used against megachurches/televangelists), or perhaps they say any of tons of other things, but the specific examples I've mentioned are generally the most common. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

September 14

Search NYTimes Best seller list by author or title

I really tried, but can't discover a way to search the NYTimes Best Sellers List(s) by author or title. For example, when was the book Random Acts of Senseless Violence, Jack Womack, or The Systems View of Life by Capra, on the list (and at what position). There should be a searchable index, but where? Thanks if you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.75.76 (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It is indirect, but you can get definite results from google. Search the term:

author name site:http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/

at google with either the author's name or the title substituted for author name. You will get a list at google of links to pages at the NYT best seller page listing the author you chose. For example:

michael crichton site:http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/

μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Counties in Australia

Until reading Lands administrative divisions of Australia, I had no clue that counties had ever been declared in Australia. I note that many LGAs are known as Shires; do we know why no states chose to use the term "County" for a class of LGAs? Nyttend (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Plank length

If one had an oak plank board that was 2 by 12 and weighted 100 pounds how long would it be (estimate)?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

See Specific Gravity Weights Of Materials from READE.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

See Planck length. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

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