Revision as of 19:11, 29 January 2016

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 24

Impromptu Masses

The recent major blizzard in the eastern USA stranded lots of people on lots of highways, and numerous news sources are talking about one specific incident: a group of Catholic students, with a priest from the Dakotas as one of the chaperones, wanted to worship together while stuck on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Bedford County, so the students gathered snow to form an altar, and the priest celebrated Mass. Story, if you're interested. Questions:

1. When a priest travels outside the diocese of which his parish is a component, does he normally need permission from the local ordinary to celebrate Mass? And if so, is there an exception for extraordinary circumstances, like this one? Bedford County is in the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, but given the weather and similar issues, I don't imagine them being able to reach Bishop Mark Bartchak just to get special permission for a Mass.
2. Given the number of items (candles, for example) used in a typical Mass, and the absence of ordinary altar materials along the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I'm left wondering about the details. Does canon law make exceptions for "emergency" situations in which the faithful desire a Mass and some of the components are missing? And can the priest consecrate the snow pile as an altar? Altar (Catholicism) mentions the universal use of altars (I don't imagine that anyone's going to compare this priest to Theodore, Bishop of Tyre, celebrating Mass on the hands of his deacons), but I didn't see anything here about temporary altars.

Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick thought. Maybe they are using the word "mass" loosely? Not so much of a "real" mass, as much as it is a priest simply leading them in prayer? Perhaps? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Here you go,a full discussion of it.Basically,yes he can.http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=798119 Hotclaws (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As to the paraphernalia required, see Communion Travel Kit. Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow! I've just found a "value" version in cardboard and plastic for GBP 14.72 (= USD 21.00) with free delivery. Seems to be aimed at the Protestant market though. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, per my informant, a mass has to be celebrated with an altar, as noted above, and an altar requires the presence of at least a third-order relic. First-order relics include body parts, second-order relics are things such as belongings, and third-order relics are "associated" with a saint. See Catholic relic. The source for this comment is my father, who was educated by Jesuits before Vatican II; so take my comment for what it is. But he says most priests carry third-order relics, and one can be assured Vatican II did not make that requirement stricter. Also, what news source is going to enquire whether the priest was carrying a relic? μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Any serial killers, spree killers, or mass murderers that span across generations in a family?

Regarding serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers: are there any examples of such killers that span a generation? In other words, as an example, the father was a serial killer, and the son ended up being one, also. I specify serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers simply to distinguish them from "garden variety" and "everyday" typical murders. I am quite sure there are a lot of parents/children who would fall into that latter category. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're counting those who were never arrested and just called the shots, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush come to mind. Dracula also had a son in 1943. Francis Paul Weaver's father and grandfather were both convicted of double murders, then he was charged with another. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:19, January 24, 2016 (UTC)

Caesar and his adoptive son Augustus? Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan? If you include state crimes, there are many examples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

And indeed, if you include organised crime (and the variant of it sometimes called "business"), there should be many examples. I'm quite sure that the business of the Atlantic slave trade was passed down the family line. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I never thought about organized crime and the Mafia, etc. I am sure they must run across generations of same-family killers. But, I guess that is more of a "business enterprise", rather than a random act of murder (like a Ted Bundy or a Jeffrey Dahmer). I think? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is all very witty (and true) but I doubt this is what the OP is looking for. "More matter, with less art", is likely to be more useful to the OP, if that's your goal. Now this is probably not going to satisfy the OP either, but I'll offer it anyway: Pándy András with his daughter (and incestuous lover) Ágnes. The problem with this case is probably that they were accomplices in one killing spree, not independent killers several years or decades apart. Contact Basemetal here 12:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious BLP violation in referring to our presidents as "serial killers", the definition of a serial killer is pretty specific and narrow. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant to imply they're mass murderers, not serial killers. They technically aren't, so I didn't technically refer to them as such. I'm technically innocent. Besides, BLP is looser about public figures, especially when the claim's already out there. Vincent Bugliosi is 21-0 at prosecuting murders, put Manson away for not technically killing anyone and wrote The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:50, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

Um, they weren't mass murderers either. --Viennese Waltz 14:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this is one of the several cases of people with a liberal agenda trying to push their POV here. Scicurious (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not every liberal considers their president to be a serial killer. Warfare, capital punishment and abortion may be homicides of a sort, but legally they are not murder. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Most importantly, these are almost certainly not the kind of cases the OP was looking for. When about to give a query a clever and entertaining answer think whether it may not also take the whole thread on a tangent and in the end deny the OP answers that would have been of interest to him. Contact Basemetal here 16:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The legendary Sawney Bean was a 17th century Scottish alleged serial killer, whose whole family - wife, children and grandchildren - were said to have participated in mass murder. To be fair, the victims were eaten by the family afterwards, which seems less wasteful somehow. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. After reading the responses, I re-read my original question. And I guess I was not clear. So, to clarify: I am looking for multiple generations of the same family who committed the crimes a generation apart. Not family members who "worked together" on the same crime. For example, something like this: Ted Bundy was a serial killer in 1980; his son became a serial killer in 2000. Stuff like that. Not a father and son -- together -- went out and did serial killings. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ward Weaver Jr. killed two or more victims in multiple locations with almost no time break between murders. Seems to make him a spree killer, by FBI standards. 21 years later, his kid did much the same, just with a longer break between victims. If you need them to be serial killers, I know of no third murder for the latter, but it wouldn't be surprising, given all the times he was caught assaulting and raping girls over the decades. As for his dad, there's a certain vibe of habit one gives off when murdering young hitchhikers, rather than a garden-variety wife, business partner or drug dealer. Just hunches, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, January 24, 2016 (UTC)

As far as Ward Weaver III: the article says that the son only committed that one murder. Were there more? The article says: On February 17, 2014, Weaver's son Francis was arrested and charged with murder. He and three others had allegedly robbed and killed a drug dealer in Canby, Oregon the day prior. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I added that part yesterday, thanks to this thread. Nothing proven in court on him, so far. But Junior is III's dad, not his son. Those are the two I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the answer is that nobody has found one and they're trying to be helpful by mentioning cases that are similar to the one you're looking for. Dismas| 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yury Odnacheva, son of Andrei Chikatilo, was arrested for murder in 2009, but that was only one murder, not 109. There are a few father/son (and mother/son) pairings listed at Category:Criminal duos, but that doesn't satisfy the criterion of separate crimes. Tevildo (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

While violence "breeding" violence (and so to with sexual assault) isn't uncommon, one of the more extreme cases albeit not fitting the OP's requirements seems to be the case of Thomas Soria Sr. et al. Thomas Soria Sr. was molested by his stepbrother at a young age. About 10 years later his stepbrother then went on to sexually assault, torture and murder the stepmother (i.e. Thomas Soria Sr.'s mother) who's body was found by Thomas Soria Sr. A few years later, an uncle of the stepbrother killed 3 and wounded 9 after a minor dispute in a bar. Thomas Soria Sr. has a son who he sexually assaults. He later sexual assaults his son's girlfriends, and even gets his new wife to also have sex wih the son. Eventually he demands the son (now a young adult) bring him a girl and the son promptly obeys bringing him a young girl who someone probably Sr ends up murdering, a murder they both definitely tried to cover up . Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Crazy scenario! I only quickly scanned those links. I will read them more closely later. But who exactly is the Mozingo guy from your third link? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That is the uncle of the step brother. The step brother who murdered Soria Sr's mother. Some sources call him the step-uncle of Soria Sr, but I'm not sure whether they had much relationship even before the mother's murder however it's possible they did. From the surnames, I'm guessing Douglas was the brother of the stepbrother's father/Soria's stepfather. For obvious reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have much relationship after the mother's murder. (But I don't really know, although already an adult, the stepfather was part of Soria Sr's life for quite a while before the murder. So it's possible Soria Sr maintained seem sort of relationship with the stepfather and/or other members of the family after the mother's murder.) Douglas himself killed 3 people but this happened after the stepbrother murdered Soria Sr's mother. The story would probably be a little easier to understand if I used the other names, but I've avoided naming people who are possibly alive even those who are murderers. Both Soria Sr and Douglas are dead, according to official sources from suicide. Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow, what a crazy family tree. Hard to keep track of all the twists and turns. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Several historic dynasties were reputed to kill for political purposes or to get rid of people who annoyed them. Consider the Ceasars as described by Suetonius, sometimes having people killed for various reasons in extrajudicial killings (though maybe the emperor had absolute power). Weren't some of them in a direct descent, or through uncle/nephew/grandson relationship? Consider the ruling dynasty in North Korea. Consider the royal families of Europe in days of old. There seem to be complex genealogical links between rulers, some of whom also had convenient murders done for their benefit . William II of England was killed in a fake "hunting accident" which benefited his younger brother.ThePrinces in the Tower were murdered long after for dynastic reasons. Was the Norman dynasty Henry I of England who had William killed an ancestor of the House of York Richard III of England who likely had the princes killed? Many kings of Scotland were murdered to aid dynastic ambitions of inbred royalty. (Not that I have any complaint against royals inbreeding, as long as they keep it in the family). There have been inns where travelers checked in but did not check out such as the famous cave at Cave-In-Rock, Illinois. The murder and piracy were family affairs and continued for decades, but there might have been replacement of one family by another. The Hatfield–McCoy feud involved uncles killing people and their nephews killing people many years later, so it might qualify. Edison (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In the middle ages, how did they enforce serfdom?

What stopped a serf from moving to another place? Obviously, he would be destitute, but couldn't he just go work to another feudal lord, or go to a monastery? What would prevent an exchange of serfs? If some manor needed a milkmaid and the other a strong peasant, couldn't they come to an agreement, if each of both serfs where at a place where they were not needed? --Scicurious (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Under English law, a villein could exchanged between lords (with both lords' consent). He would be free after living (openly) in London or a royal borough for a year and a day, but his lord could prevent this by force. A villein who went to work for a new lord could be retrieved by his previous lord in the courts, using the writ of neifty (de nativo habendo) against the villein's new lord. Tevildo (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the relevant section (in translation) from Comyns' Digest. Tevildo (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Serfs could be exchanged, but they would be included with the land to which they were attached - for example, if a lord sold a piece of his land to someone else (another lord, or the church), the sale could include the people who lived and worked there. I'm not sure if serfs were ever traded like modern athletes, actually leaving one territory for another, since they were considered to be "tied to the land". And sometimes serfdom couldn't be enforced, for example after the Black Death. See Consequences of the Black Death#Impact on peasants and the Peasants' Revolt in England. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Did serfs even consider leaving? Didn't they stay in the same restricted area their whole lives? Wouldn't anyplace else be terra incognita, strange and somewhat terrifying? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, I think this is really important, and very hard for us moderns to grok. Hard to find refs for this kind of claim though, maybe someone else can help out? SemanticMantis (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to find out what serfs thought about anything, since they typically didn't write things down, and the people who did write things down didn't really care to find out what the serfs thought. I don't think they were that much different from us though. You can imagine travelling to somewhere you've never been, so why couldn't they? They're still human. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but humans with no real knowledge about or experience with the rest of the world and without the resources and safeguards we mostly take for granted. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Most European countries had laws against vagrancy in an effort to stop people wandering about on the offchance that somebody might employ them. Alansplodge (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Serfdom survived among Scottish miners until 1799, so not the Middle Ages, but there are interesting examples here of colliery owners placing newspaper adverts regarding absconded serfs. Warofdreams talk 17:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And their children inherited that state? Contact Basemetal here 18:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The juridical jargon used in related cases shows that it could be made effective when deemed necessary. In various ways, it is also interesting to note how the origins of the statute lay in the necessity for the state to have the taxes properly collected . --Askedonty (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• The serf had no or almost no capital to bring with him, and the lord had no or almost no free land to give him. This is why the monasteries and free cities were so important. The Black death was hugely important in making day labor a liberating factor to otherwise serfs who'd've starved to death prior to the plague. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

January 26

American preference for off-white versus British preference for bright pastel interior painting

My observations may be totally nuts, in which case please tell me. But it seems to me that most American homes I have seen in person, and homes depicted in TV shows that I have seen, have off-white colored walls; while British shows, like Keeping Up Appearances and As Time Goes By have more saturated pastel colors. Is this an accurate perception about which there exists notable commentary? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not accurate. Most houses here are largely off white as well, apart from perhaps one feature wall. The colours you describe would be considered quite old fashioned. Fgf10 (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with Fgf10. Bland off white schemes are certainly prevalent in rented properties, but many owner-occupiers prefer bolder colours. It's difficult to find sources that aren't based on personal opinion or sales pitches, but this article at least attempts to give an overview: "According to George Home, 95% of Brits ‘take risks’ with their interior design schemes, and sales of coloured emulsion paints are up 495% from last year*. These impressive figures show that Britain is certainly ready to make a big, bold statement when it comes to their interiors. This surge in colour and ‘risk taking’ shows, in my opinion, that we’re ready to have more fun with our homes. It also means that bold colour doesn’t always have to be bright — darker, moody tones are fashionable too. Interior stylist Sally Cullen suggests that this rise in popularity ‘can be attributed to a rejection of the “blank canvas” look that has been popular in recent years and a move towards a new trend of customising homes in more colourful ways that truly reflect individual tastes, lifestyles and attitudes....". Without any direct comparisons of paint sales, though, it's difficult to be objective. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Bold colours and pastel colours are quite different things in my mind. Maye this where the disagreement comes from. I assumed the OP (given the references) meant the classic lilacs and light greens etc. I still say those would be considered old fashioned, and these days you would be much more likely to see either (off) white or full on colours. Fgf10 (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said saturated. I simply meant boldly unwhite, such as lilac or sea-green, although I think Elizabeth & Emmet's main room is brick red, IIRC. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your observation of British homes is based on 2 programmes that are both quite old, both of which featured characters that are fuddy-duddy. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I am older and fuddy-duddier than those shows, FYI. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, fashions in interior design tend to change. Did American houses fifty years ago use saturated pastel colors? Dbfirs 15:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In the 1960s-1970s, many interiors were some combination of avocado green, mustard yellow, and burnt orange. You can see those colors dominate in these images here. --Jayron32 17:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those pics. I recognise the yellow and orange flowered wallpaper, but can't remember whose wall in the UK I saw it on. (Not sure that I want to!) Dbfirs 22:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That's funny, Jayron, I forgot that the house my parents bought in the early seventies had wax-dripped wallpaper painted avocado green and had orange rugs. But they were very quickly corrected to off-white. (This may also have to do with the preference for colonials in the Northeast. There was a lawsuit involved when a neighbour a few blocks away painted his house violet.) My impression of British decorating schemes was not limited to the two shows I mentioned, they were only examples. But as I said, judging a foreign country by its TV shows may simply be nuts. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Britain's leading paint manufacturer, Dulux, are currently leading on their website a makeover from grey to erm, grey (sorry, "warm pewter" actually). That said, most people's houses here tend to be a bit more colourful than "off-white" unless you're trying to rent your property to somebody else, in which case, magnolia is almost universal. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And a reference for the magnolia obsession is Colour Psychology: Using Magnolia in Interiors. Alansplodge (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And finally, if you think that we Britons are fond of bright colours, try a trip to Ireland, but take your sunglasses (also here and here). Alansplodge (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Typical lifespan among the monarchs of Castile and the monarchs of Aragon combined who reigned from 1230 and 1162 to 1504

What was the typical lifespan among the monarchs of Castile and the monarchs of Aragon combined who reigned from 1230 and 1162, respectively, to 1504? What was the most common age the majority among them (combined) died at? Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has articles on every monarch of both of those countries. See List of Castilian monarchs and List of Aragonese monarchs. If you then click on the name of each monarch, it will take you to their biography, each of which lists the birth and death dates, where known. See, for example, the first ruler listed at the Kings of Castile, Ferdinand I of León. If you look in the infobox on the right side, near the bottom, it lists his birth date, his death date, and the age at which he died. You can research each monarch that way, and then compile the information to answer your question. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I was actually hoping the Misplaced Pages's reference desk could answer my question. Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If someone were to come by to do so, they would have to do exactly what you would need to do. The information is all in each article, someone just has to compile it. I suppose, someone might get bored and eventually compile it for you, but the likelihood of that happening is low, as (so far) you are the person who is most interested in the information, you are thus the most likely to be willing to put in the effort to compile it from readily available sources. Thus, it would be faster, and take less time and energy, for you to do it yourself. It's right there. The work you're avoiding doing would be what someone else would have to do anyways. Of course, this is not to prevent anyone from doing it. Someone might. If you need the information yourself, however, no one here will prevent you from doing it. --Jayron32 00:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And if you wait for someone else to do it, you're taking the risk that they'll do as good a job of it as you'd like them to. I'm a sloppy worker, easily bored and atrocious at maths. Would you like me to do it? --Dweller (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Eh, it took five minutes, no big deal:

Castile:

Alfonso VII 52

Sancho III 24

Alfonso VIII 58

Henry I 13

Berengaria 66

Ferdinand III 50

Alfonso X 62

Sancho IV 36

Ferdinand IV 26

Alfonso XI 38

Peter 34

Henry II 45

John I 32

Henry III 27

John II 49

Henry IV 49

Isabella I 53

Aragon:

Alfonso II 39

Peter II 35

James I 68

Peter III 46

Alfonso III 26

James II 60

Alfonso IV 36

Peter IV 67

John I 45

Martin 53

Ferdinand I 35

Alfonso V 62

John II 81

Ferdinand II 63

So I guess the "most common age" is roughly "in their 30s" since that's when 8 of them died. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The median is 46, though. —Tamfang (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's why I'm an historian, not a mathematician :) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Great! Now for posterity, we know the lifespan distribution of the monarchs of Castile and the monarchs of Aragon combined who reigned from 1230 and 1162 to 1504, thanks all. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The mode is 49. But I'll refer you back to my earlier disclaimer. --Dweller (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What number of characters becomes "too big" for a novel or TV show?

I was going to post this on the "Entertainment" Help Desk, since my question relates to TV shows and movies. But, it also relates to Literature and books, novels, etc. So I will post it here. Sometimes, a work of art (a TV show, film, novel, etc.) will have a lot of characters, and sometimes only a few characters. When there are a lot of characters (that is, "too many" characters), it is hard for the audience to keep track of things. And it is also harder for the writer to devote time/attention and character development to each character. So, are there any types of studies -- or is there any industry "standard" -- as to what constitutes a good number of characters versus having "too many" (or even "too few", I guess) characters? The conversation came up with regard to the old TV show Head of the Class, where there were about eleven (!) or more "main characters". And also the TV show Eight Is Enough, which had eight kids, plus the other adult characters. These both seem like "too much", and clearly each of the eleven (or eight) characters cannot be developed to any satisfactory degree. Any insights? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It depends on how much of a character's background is relevant for the story. I actually thought 12 Angry Men did a pretty good job in less than 100 minutes depicting 12 distinct characters. - Lindert (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Good example. I haven't seen the film in a long time. Weren't there really only three or four jurors who were main characters? And the other seven or eight were much less significant? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "main". There really was only one main character; The Henry Fonda character. The rest probably got equal screen time and contributions to the script. I haven't done a word count, but I don't know that any of the 11 jurors NOT Henry Fonda had any dominant contributions. But the film does do a good job of developing each of those 11 so they all stand as fairly distinctive. I can picture each one and his key monologue (each has one) in the film, that's the point of the film: each on had some key personal history that made them misjudge the case; as each becomes convinced to change their mind, you find out that personal history. --Jayron32 20:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Insofar as one of them has to be the antagonist, I would say it was #3 (Lee J Cobb). But I agree that it wouldn't really work without (at least) #4, #5, #7, #9 and #10. See Ensemble cast for the relevant article. Tevildo (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It depends. More characters may be OK, as long as they act in groups. For example, on The Brady Bunch, plots frequently worked out to "the boys" against "the girls", or "the parents" against "the kids" (with Alice as a bystander or joining one of the sides). In that case, the viewer didn't need to keep all 9 characters' opinions on an issue straight. Other episodes focused on a single character or two, so again you didn't need to much worry about the rest. In a movie you can have more characters, especially if they are separated in space or time. That is, extra people from a character's childhood, like now dead grandparents, don't cause much confusion. Another example of a film series with multiple characters is Ocean's 11 and all the remakes/sequels. What really gets confusing is if they try to cast a "tall woman with curly red hair", and can't decide who to hire for the role, so hire a dozen of them, and create roles for each. (If you're going to have lots of characters, at least make sure they don't all look alike.) StuRat (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Various 19th-century (and later) epic novels recognise the issue of "too many characters for the reader to keep track of", by including a sort of "who's who" list at the front, showing their connections one to another. War and Peace is the perfect example. It's been a long time since I tried, and failed, to read Les Misérables, but I think a remember the same list there. And anything involving the Roman Empire. -- Jack of Oz 21:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If you mean non-fiction (or maybe "inspired by real life"), then yes, real life has too many characters to keep track of in a work of fiction. Sometimes this is handled by combining the features of similar people into one. Even when going from a book to a movie, this step is sometimes needed to simplify things. For example, the Wizard of Oz film combined the good witches of the North and South. (They didn't combine the wicked witches of the East and West, but since one was killed right off, there was no need to get to know her.) StuRat (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No hard numbers, but here is a guide to deciding if a work may have too many characters, based on primary/secondary status, how important they are, etc. You could apply this scheme to some of the examples here and see if they pass this "test". Here is someone else's opinion on how to assess if a work has too many (or too few) characters . Here's TVtropes' on "Loads and Loads of Characters" . SemanticMantis (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the OP's premise as far as TV goes. Over the course of a season or multiple seasons, there's plenty of time to flesh out the characters. I'm sure fans of Lost didn't get lost (at least not for that reason), nor did viewers of Taxi, Twin Peaks, Battlestar Galactica etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in a series you have enough time to flesh out more characters, but at the risk of confusing people who miss episodes. This may have been solved by view on demand (no link ?), though, so now you don't have to miss any. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You should demand a refund from da Man. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The OPs number's seem off but still there are IMO limits. As I understand it, Game of Thrones (the TV series) has fewer characters than A Song of Ice and Fire (the book series), some are combined or missing entirely. One of the reasons is surely due to the shorter format. (Other factors like not wanting that many actors would also be at play.) However there have definitely been more than 11 with somewhat significant roles. And given that the TV series is still as willing to kill of characters as in the books there will be more. A TV series can definitely fit significantly more than a movie partly why movies from books tend to have even more drastic cuts. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I am the OP. Your comment got me confused. What numbers are "off", in my posting? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you only gave one set of numbers.

The conversation came up with regard to the old TV show Head of the Class, where there were about eleven (!) or more "main characters". And also the TV show Eight Is Enough, which had eight kids, plus the other adult characters. These both seem like "too much", and clearly each of the eleven (or eight) characters cannot be developed to any satisfactory degree.

As I me and several others have mentioned, the idea you can't develop eight or eleven characters to a satisfactory degree or is too many doesn't seem to be supported by many TV shows where this does happen and is fine with the audience. So whatever the limit is, it isn't eight or eleven for a TV series. Admitedly Head of the Class is a 22-24 mins show which makes things more difficult so perhaps 11 was really starting to get to be too many. But it lasted 5 seasons and you didn't really mention short TV shows vs long ones.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, now I see what you mean. I thought you meant that my number of eleven incorrectly described Head of the Class and that my number of eight incorrectly described Eight Is Enough. That is why I got confused. You were saying that my "estimate" of 8 or 11 is "off" as the cut-off point for what might be considered "too many". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a satire of the sitcom phenomena called Too Many Cooks. Not a "real" family show, but does a good job of mirroring them. Aside from the gory part, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, January 27, 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's a real stretch. But due to the shred of relevancy and the importance of the work in question, I'll let it stand :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For my money, too many cooks these days garnish their dishes with finely-shredded irrelevancy. -- Jack of Oz 19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Soap was an earlier comedic take on a soap opera, also with a large cast. StuRat (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've read plenty of books with a list of dramatis personae where the list really wasn't needed. Larry Niven did this with many of his books, such as The Mote in God's Eye, where it certainly wasn't needed. Tolkien did not do this with The Lord of the Rings, although he had his indices. Merry and Pippin are indistibuishable, except that one swears fealty to Theoden of Rohan, the other Denethor of Gondor. My mother has long complained that she has tried to read War and Peace but that the characters all have Russian names! The needs of the story should be the driving factor, and the clarity of characterization depends on the author's skill. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

January 27

"Billers" - what does this mean (in given context)?

Epay (the link is atm a redirect to Euronet Worldwide, but not explained in the article - see also talk page) is an international retailer of assorted prepaid payment products. On their website, they provide a listing of their (propably only US) "billers", including information whether 'billing' will occur the "Same day", the "Next day" or "2-3 day". Well, I do know what a bill is and thus can imagine what a biller is. But given the nature of epay, I fail to understand what those "billers" are. Merchants accepting payment via epay? But then, as mentioned, epay is not a specific payment method, but a retailer of varying payment products. Do those "billers" accept at least one of those epay prepaid products? All of them? Or does it mean something else? --KnightMove (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions on Sources

I have a couple of questions:

• Where can I find the English translation of the South Korean report on the No Gun Ri Massacre?
• What is the best overall source on Iran-Contra? I need to read up on it.

Thanks, GAB 18:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For the Iran-Contra affair, I believe there was a US Congressional investigation, so you might look for that report. StuRat (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In the footnotes to the article that StuRat has linked above, I found EXCERPTS FROM THE TOWER COMMISSION'S REPORT. The full reports of this type of investigation tend to be truly immense documents. No luck with the South Korean report though. According to our article (in the references section), the English language title was "The Report of the Findings on the No Gun Ri Incident" but a Google search using that has drawn a blank. Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! GAB 03:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

January 28

Influence of the Yom Kippur War on the US military

I've been reading Rabinovich's book on the Yom Kippur war and the constant references to tanks fighting other tanks in the deserts of the middle east got me thinking how much that war influenced US military thinking prior to the Gulf War. Are there any sources which would possibly answer this question. I'm thinking in terms of armour and air force doctrine, logistics and so on. Did the US have observers during the Yom Kippur War? Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Try The American Culture of War: A History of US Military Force from World War II to Operation Enduring Freedom by Adrian R. Lewis (p. 294) and History of operations research in the United States Army, V. 3, 1973-1995 (p. 6), and also US Intervention Policy and Army Innovation: From Vietnam to Iraq by Richard Lock-Pullan (p. 61). Probably the most pertinent is Military lessons of the Yom Kippur War: Historical Perspectives by Martin Van Creveld (1975) but you'll have to track down a copy to read it. Alansplodge (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What is this symbol? TTC

This site from TTC shows the info of the streetcar route 501 Queen. Next to the name it says 10 with some green background. Does anybody know what it is? http://www.ttc.ca/Routes/501/Eastbound.jsp Donmust90 (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It means "The route is part of the 10 Minute Network, and operates 10 minutes or better, all day, every day." See the Route Description tab. General Ization 04:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Patriot movement and the 1996 Summer Olympics

   Major events in America which alarm or inspire the patriot movement include the 1992 Ruby Ridge siege, the 1993 Waco siege and the 1996 Summer Olympics.

What major event during the 1996 Summer Olympics is being referenced here? Googling "1996 Summer Olympics Patriot movement" got me nothing useful. Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Presumably Centennial Olympic Park bombing. Fgf10 (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

MPTP

This Times article talks about a poisonous chemical, MPTP, and mentions a dilemma: "...police pondered how to stop the sale of a drug that was not illegal..."

Wouldn't that the fact that MPTP is poisonous, i.e. it causes Parkinson's, make it illegal in this particular context (feeding it to people)? Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That wouldn't be enough to stop people selling it? Eating fertiliser would probably make you ill too, but that wouldn't be enough to stop people selling it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I did mention "in this particular context (feeding it to people)". Selling fertiliser as fertiliser obviously isn't illegal, but selling fertiliser to unsuspecting buyers by pretending it's suitable for human consumption is definitely illegal.Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is not necessarily a crime to sell something just because it could harm you. Sausages apparently give you cancer. Most places have a requirement to label known poisons, and it may well be a crime to sell a known poison without the warning label. But that is usually based on a list and wouldn't apply if something is not classified as a poison by the law, which may well be the case here because it seems to be a recently synthesised chemical the properties of which were not well known. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

When did Arkansaw Territory become Arkansas Territory?

I've been unable in a short search to find out when "Arkansaw" gave way to "Arkansas". The territory was organized as Arkansaw: "... and be called the Arkansaw territory"

But when it was admitted the law read "the Territory of Arkansas".

Was there a formal, legal name change at some point, or was it simply the newer law reflecting overwhelming usage? --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

See Arkansas#cite_note-Arkansas-16. --Jayron32 18:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Jayron's link is to the official naming of the state in 1881, after admission to the Union. See also Arkansas Territory and this document linked from it - the first official use of "Arkansas" rather than "Arkansaw" was in an Act of the US Congress dated April 21, 1820. Tevildo (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Virginity

Please don’t mind about this question…

I was watching CNN, they were discussing about virgin scholarship in South Africa for woman.

• If you were use a condom and have safe sex, even on the first time, whether it was a love, prostitute or fun type one time try out sex, do you lose your virginity?

Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Dbfirs: Sorry D. -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Virginity is a social construct, which has it's own definitions in each culture. There is no universal, agreed-upon definition. You're allowed to read the Misplaced Pages article to learn more about it, however. --Jayron32 19:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I was particularly concerned about this Origin-of-death myth article but the Adam and Eve information been taken off... -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course, virginity is a social construct and it can be defined narrowly or broadly. However, in my opinion, by far the most common definition of a virgin, at least for heterosexuals, is a person who has never engaged in penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse. Engaging or not engaging in other sexual acts and presence or absence of a hymen are secondary to this core definition. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

-- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Iranian's world demolition evolution

1. What are they doing for the world/their country since they are being one of the world's oil and gas producer?
2. Do countries have any sort of legislation indicting contribution to climate changing issue will cost __________ from profit earnings...? For any countries to be honest - I'm actually expecting carbon reducing machines being implement as a result.

Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

On the second point, see Kyoto Protocol and Emissions trading. Iran has ratified the Protocol, but without having set a target for emission reduction. Tevildo (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) For the second question, see Carbon tax. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll read through guys, thanks. -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

January 29

Presidential pardon power in the USA

My understanding is that the presidential pardon power in the USA is absolute and cannot be reviewed (or overturned) by any other branch of government. So, are there no restrictions whatsoever on the president? Can a president pardon himself? (It is understood that the presidential pardon power can only be extended to federal crimes, not state crimes.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I have read Article Two of the United States Constitution and pardon. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Pardon#Federal law seems to comprehensively answer your question, excepting the trivial "can a president pardon himself". The answer to that is "it is literally and totally impossible to answer one way or the other." Since it has never happened, it hasn't been tested in the courts, and thus there is no legal precedence to provide any guidance, as the matter is not explicitly dealt with by statutory or constitutional law (in this case Article Two of the United States Constitution). --Jayron32 03:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it says "except in cases of impeachment", so certainly he/she can't do it once impeachment proceedings have been started. I would assume it also means that if she pardoned herself, it wouldn't stop her from being impeached, even after the pardon, for that offense. --Trovatore (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent point, about the impeachments. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically, she could wipe out the House of Representatives. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

Huh? How so? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess if they were all overseas although the legality of that AFAIK has never been tested. I also suspect it's a violation of international law. And I think it's unlikely it would survive legal challenge if it happens in the US. However we're only talking about the legal side here. You still need to convince someone to do it. For all the criticism of the US military, I'm not convinced it will be easy to find someone to bomb the HoR. (Whether knowingly or by tricking them.) Heck even if they all did happen to be overseas for some reason. While it's possible some low level person wouldn't challenge the order or even realise what they're doing, it won't necessarily be easy to convince them to take an order directly from the president even if they are commander in chief. Note if you don't care about legalities, theoretically anyone can do it. The question remains, are they really capable? Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you pardon someone before he was convicted? Can a president be judged as he's still in office? Otherwise, the case might never arise. A criminal president would be impeached (=> no longer president), judged, and convicted.--Scicurious (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

See Pardon. Ford absolutely pardoned Nixon before Nixon was tried or convicted in a court of law. Commentators at the time suggested Nixon selected Ford as his successor with expectation that Ford would pardon him (but without discussion of this or it being a quid pro quo). From the article, "Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon, and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward." Many Americans had hoped to see Nixon tried in court for his crimes, which had resulted in several of his assistants being convicted.A pardon after a trial and conviction would have been less objectionable. A preemptive pardon can serve as a coverup, so that all the discovery and interrogation of a rtial are avoided. Ford then lost the presidential election. (Payback). Edison (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You are correct to say that Ford absolutely pardoned Nixon before Nixon was tried or convicted in a court of law. But -- even further than that -- Nixon was not even (yet) charged or brought up on any crimes. So, the Nixon case also allows a pardon in a case where there is not even a criminal charge filed against the pardoned person. Of course, it would only have been a matter of time before prosecutors did file some criminal charge against Nixon. But, as of the time of the pardon, they had not yet done so. So, technically, there was not even any crime to "pardon". But, we all know how politics goes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

On September 8, 1974, Ford issued Proclamation 4311, which gave Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while President. We have no Misplaced Pages article on the Nixon pardon? Really? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Can a court strike down a child support insurance contract on public policy grounds?

I have previously thought about this scenario:

If some doctor will surgically remove both my entire vas deferens and my entire epididymis (after all, regular vasectomies can and sometimes do fail and vasectomy failure certainly isn't an acceptable excuse to avoid paying child support) and I will find and purchase some insurance which is going to pay all of my child support for me in the event of an unplanned pregnancy (the risk of which should be extremely small in this scenario), then can some court strike down this insurance contract of mine on public policy grounds (such as by having this court argue that having my insurance company pay my child support for me could be emotionally traumatic to this child later on)?

Completely serious question, for the record. After all, I have previously heard about how some people have argued that courts shouldn't award childcare costs to people whose sterilizations had failed due to medical negligence due to the fact that this could be emotionally traumatic to this child later on. Futurist110 (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your premise. Why would having an insurance company pay someone's child support for them be emotionally traumatic to a child later on? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Because the child can be upset about the fact that his or her father didn't want him or her and/or about the fact that his or her father wasn't even willing to spend (much) of his own money in taking care of him or her. Futurist110 (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Little kids do not understand money, finances, expenses, bills, how they are paid, etc. They have no concept about that. And they could care less. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly *not* going to remain true in the long(er)-run, though. Futurist110 (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Under your theory, a court would strike down forcing a father to pay child support. Because the kid might be traumatized by the fact that the father did not want to pay for the kid's expenses and only did so because a judge forced him to. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, No; after all, in the eyes of a judge, having a judge force an unwilling father to pay child support is certainly better than having an unwilling father simply not pay any child support at all. After all, if a child can be emotionally traumatized either way, then this child might as well at least get the child support that he or she deserves and is legally entitled to. Futurist110 (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

But how will that fit in with your scenario? Having a court strike down such an insurance contract would be worse that the judge ordering the father to pay because in that case the father may not pay or require a lot of pressure etc which the child could learn about. If the insurance pays, well the child can always find out about the insurance in any case so they are always going to know the father didn't want kids at one stage. But they can at least be reassured that despite this, the father was possibly at least responsible and perhaps even caring enough (or possibly more "selfish" motivations) to set up the insurance contract rather than risk the child having no support if the father simply couldn't pay (or didn't pay) because he never planned, expected or wanted that responsibility. Even if the father happily paid when ordered to, there's no guarantee the child is going to see this better than the insurance which the father set up paying, and the court has no way of knowing how the father would handle it anyway. The only way the court could be confident it would be better is if the father voluntarily rejects the contract and pays, not if a court orders it. Note however if you need legal advice about insurance contracts (rather than discussion about the possible emotional effects on the child) you should contact a lawyer. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Kangaroo bomber

According to the BBC, Sevdet Besim "faces charges relating to searching internet sites" for terrorism-related activities, and he "allegedly conducted internet searches on Anzac Day in preparation for a terrorist attack". Does Victorian law specifically address Internet searches, or are prosecutors merely mentioning it as another piece of evidence in favo(u)r of their argument that Besim was intending to commit terrorism? Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The crime is intentionally doing an act in preparation for a terrorist act. In Faheem Khalid Lodhi's case, he was convicted for researching chemicals. Seems anything done towards terrorism is its own offense, even if the kangaroo never explodes. Same goes for possessing things. As long as prosecutors can tie it together as a plan, the outcome is irrelevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

Floor scraping

The Floor Scrapers is a milestone in art... but are its subjects actually doing? They seem to be peeling away the varnish presumably to re-paint it, but why are they working in thin strips along the edge of each board? Smurrayinchester 12:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Because when working with wood, you want to work with the grain of the wood, when you work perpendicular to the grain you are more likely to damage the surface. The fibers in the wood run parallel to each other. You would want to scrape in the same direction as those fibers so you don't catch those fibers and damage the wood. Boards are cut parallel to the grain as well. If you scrape or sand or plane wood perpendicular to the grain, you'll disrupt those fibers and damage the surface. --Jayron32 13:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

But why in those alternating tiger stripes though? Smurrayinchester 16:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The goal would be to remove the old varnish and as slight as possible a depth of wood so the floor will be uniform, flat and smoth to accept the new varnish. If they used a scraper with a slightly convex surface, it would take out a shallow trough and leave tiger stripes, but this makes little sense. The scene makes more sense if the boards were all cupped, with the edges higher than the centers. Then scraping the high edges with a flat scraper on the initial pass would produce the depicted scene. Subsequent passes would achieve the flat planar surface desired. When I have had similar floors refinished, the contractors used power belt sanders with very course sandpaper initially, followed by finer paper. But at the end of the boards, where they met the wall, and in confined spaces too small fr the machine, they still used scrapers as in the painting/ The puzzle here is that in the painting, the boards which have not yet been scraped look quite flat. My contractor filled in the gaps between the boards with wood filler after the initial sanding, which produced a similar tiger stripe effect before he sanded it flat, but zooming into the painting shows no sign of such wood filler. Edison (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Does ISIS have a corresponding religious identity?

I'm no expert, but it seems like most (I don't know if it's all) of the branches of Islam are based on belief/disbelief in the Caliphate of specific individuals. Not just Shia and Sunni, but Ismaili and Ahmadi Muslims, for example, are defined by their belief in some particular Caliph. So is there a sect name like "Baghdadi" or something, indicating Muslims who believe that the ISIS leader is a religious authority? For that matter, is there a sect that is defined by belief in the Ottomans as Caliphs?

Probably I shouldn't even pose the scenario, but just to sort of illustrate the relevance, I could picture that an old woman in a Western country might decide she can't participate in any actual ISIS activities, but maintain that she believes al-Baghdadi is Caliph in a religious way, and demand respect for her freedom of religion as she posts admiring comments in a country that has otherwise infringed freedom of speech in this regard. (I don't know if such a scenario has occurred) Wnt (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Source amnesia, but I do remember reading and seeing interviews a few years ago with a couple of folks who consider themselves to be fighting for Daesh on ideological grounds. Their relationship with the UK and US gov'ts was akin to two kids holding their fingers an inch away from each other's face while saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you..." in hopes that the other one would shove first. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it really is a religious organization, but rather a criminal organization that finds it convenient to claim religious affiliation for recruiting purposes. I am reminded of the Mafia and their supposed Catholic beliefs, which they feel free to ignore whenever those beliefs might interfere with "business". Similarly, ISIS claims to believe whatever is most convenient at the time. In particular, how they treat non-Muslims and those of other sects of Islam has been all over the map (from leaving them alone in exchange for a tax, right up to genocide). StuRat (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

:Sounds more like a country/city type organisation in the name of the religion.

I don't think "any" religious authority figure would create such devastation around the world until/unless their religion is under scrutiny. There just a manipulated bunch who 1) understand the Quran the wrong way, 2) are bothered of the evolution of the world, can't take it, so creating problems. 3) I think I recall from BBC that the original network started before 1930...

The "Allah" that they are dying for, its the same Allah that forbidden suicidal acts. (Lol)

Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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