Misplaced Pages

:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Reference desk Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:51, 14 January 2015 editDismas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers79,891 edits →Hackers and Internet Security← Previous edit Revision as of 08:54, 14 January 2015 edit undo65.94.50.4 (talk) →Coins and their colours/colorsNext edit →
Line 442: Line 442:
::In the current US coins, as per their articles here, cents are made from copper and zinc, and all the other denominations are made from copper and nickel. No more silver. So at this point their sizes are merely traditional. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 06:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC) ::In the current US coins, as per their articles here, cents are made from copper and zinc, and all the other denominations are made from copper and nickel. No more silver. So at this point their sizes are merely traditional. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 06:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Sizes, yes. But what about color? <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 06:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC) :::Sizes, yes. But what about color? <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 06:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::::That's also tradition. The common coinage metals in all the three countries were copper-based alloys for the lowest values, silver for middle values, gold for high values (although after the Canadian dollar was established, gold coins were used in Canada only for a short period). Later the US decided that its smallest silver coins (3 and 5 cents) were inconveniently small and substituted a fourth, cheaper metal, a 25% nickel alloy, allowing the coin to be larger; Canada eventually copied this change, introducing 100% nickel coins instead. And since then the sizes and colors have generally been kept even though the content of the coins has changed. Small coins are colored like copper, middle coins are silvery colored like nickel or silver (with the 5-cent denomination in the US and Canada larger than the 10-cent because it used to be nickel). Large coins more or less dropped out of use as paper money became preferred, but after inflation led to their reintroduction, a lighter yellow color suggestive of gold was used. (Not necessarily the actual color of gold, but still.) Note that euro coinage uses a similar color pattern as well, although the actual coins only appeared in 2001 and do not relate to specific coins in earlier countries. --] (]) 08:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


== Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - what is the culture like? == == Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - what is the culture like? ==

Revision as of 08:54, 14 January 2015

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Misplaced Pages reference desk. skip to bottom Select a section: Shortcut Want a faster answer?

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.


Ready? Ask a new question!


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.
See also:


January 9

Need help finding a short story

Hi, I'm looking for a short story I read five years ago which is from the late 19th-early 20th century. It's about an Irish union organizer whose name is Mulligan(?), who's job is to organize workers at a port city and (I believe) loses his job. At the end of the story he gets his job back (I think) or resolves whatever problem it was he had, and the only other detail I remember clearly is some kind of port official talking about his case at the end of the story who (incorrectly) mentions the man's name as "Mullarkey". Would really appreciate if someone could help me find this. 70.185.254.48 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

James Joyce? 49.226.162.124 (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't sound like it could be him. The story had a lighthearted, somewhat humorous ending, if that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.254.48 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a 'Rat Mulligan' in The Informer by Liam O'Flaherty. The story is about some Irish revolutionaries and the time of action is 1920's. But it's much longer than a short story. Omidinist (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Nope, that's not it at all. This was definitely a short story, and it was about a union organizer.

Organization whose initial is C

According to CIA website about Canada, it says that Canada is a member of an organization called "C". What does it stand for? . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.171 (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting a "404 Not Found" from that link. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
There was an extra bit at the end. I've fixed it. Still don't see the relevant part, though. Listed under Government>International Organization Participation. Stands for "Commonwealth", it seems. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
That was my next guess. Is there any standard abbreviation for the British Commonwealth? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless Britain has its own Commonwealth, seems to be "C". There was a Commonwealth of England, a while back. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
The "British Commonwealth" is the former name of the "Commonwealth of Nations". StuRat (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
But not since 1949. Alansplodge (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
"C" looks standard for government, anyway. Apparently, business uses "Comm." and military uses "CW". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
No。 It is spelled out in full on pretty much every conceivable occasion. Like 'Olympic' - you almost never see that abbreviated. Matt's talk 03:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Incredible, above, gave the correct answer, but for those not familiar with the CIA World Factbook web site, here's one way to find it within the site. On the page that the original poster cited, every the section title is a link to further details about what it means. So the title "International organization participation" is a link to a page of definitions of terms starting with I, with parameters that jump you directly to the definition of "International organization participation". That definition isn't helpful, but the very next definition is "international organizations". And that contains a link to Appendix B: International organizations and groups]. Unfortunately, on that page (unlike the one Incredible cited) the organizations are sorted by full name. But the abbreviations are consistently in parentheses, so the final step is just to search on the page for the text "(C)". --65.94.50.4 (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you search my name for a C, you won't find it. I am a bit incredible, but truly can't afford to get sued. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
Oh, is that the explanation? We used to have User:FeloniousMonk and he may have had the same worry. Thincat (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The answer is in the CIA World Factbook Appendix. Click here, then on the letter C, the first item on the C page is Commonwealth. In the absence of any other meaningful international commonwealths, this would be the Commonwealth of Nations. 13:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Keeping Faith

In the Plot Summary section of Jodi Picoult's novel, "Keeping Faith, Misplaced Pages states that Faith has never read the Bible because she is a Jew. This is blatantly incorrect. Many Jew study the Bible. Many Jewish children are taught bible stories from the Old Testament in Hebrew or Sunday School. Many Jewish adults read the Old and New Testaments. Although, Jodi Picoult or her character, Faith, may not have read the Bible, it is very incorrect and misleading to state the a person has never read the Bible because she is a Jew.

Bobbie Levine Visalia, CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.238.194.188 (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read the novel, so I can't give an accurate answer, but I wonder if "New Testament" was intended? I assume that only a small proportion of Jews have read this part. We need to know exactly what the novel says, but Google won't let me preview any pages. I've added a heading to your question. Dbfirs 07:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
In Judaism, "The Bible" refers to what Christians call "The Old Testament". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Many Jews have not read (all of) what Christians call "The Bible". --ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
No? But at the climax of The Great Dictator, the Jewish Barber quotes spontaneously from Luke! —Tamfang (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
In the absence of comments from anyone who has read the novel, I've made a minor alteration to avoid the implication that Jews have never read any of the bible. Dbfirs 10:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
That unwarranted generalization, implicit in because, was certainly unjustified. Thanks to both OP and Dbfirs for the correction.
In my limited Bible study group experiences, having participated in a Tanakh study group for a year of readings and midrash only once, ordinary Jews are better interpreters of Christian scripture than ordinary Christians are of Hebrew scripture. Recent extraordinary readings: Levine & Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford, 2011) ISBN 978-0195297706
However, the actual text of the novel is plain enough in this specific case. I haven't read Keeping Faith, but I googled for an ebook and searched it for "Bible" in less time than it takes to type this: here is what a supposed expert on Faith, her mother Mariah (wife of Colin), has to say in chapter 2 (~10% into book, no page # in ebook, sorry): "It has been years since Mariah has studied a Bible, and as far as she knows, Faith's never even seen one. She and Colin had put off their daughter's religious instruction indefinitely, since neither of them could consider it without feeling like a hypocrite." Faith was barely 7 years old at the time and still wrote letters backwards. Looks like an interesting book. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I've whittled that sentence down further and explained in the edit summary my reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvement. Paul evidently has better access to ebooks than I have. It looks as if the original editor of the article misunderstood the reason. Dbfirs 19:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Suborning sin?

I am looking for references for the following conundrum:

A priest who is also a diplomat in Renaissance Europe has been forced to send back two staff members to his home country to be investigated for treason. Naturally they will be interrogated (and tortured) for a confession and executed. So far so good: the priest, although conscientious and unusually religious-minded for a secular priest in this time period, is fine with the death penalty for treason, as it's standard operating procedure and traitors are the worst of the worst. But how does he conscion himself suborning others to commit treason against their masters to benefit his own master?

Note that I'm not looking for opinions from y'all; I'm looking for some reference from the era that he would rely upon to salve his conscience. I've searched for "suborn treason" and all I find is crap on American politics and old trial records. There got to be something; even if people "didn't worry about it too much" there would be some explanation of why they didn't meant to at least make their masters feel less guilty. Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "suborning others to commit treason against their masters to benefit his own master"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
For example, if a Venetian diplomat stationed in Paris were to get secret information from the French King's private secretary, or the Imperial ambassador to England were to get secret information from the private secretary to the French ambassador. (Both real examples, by the way; King François's diplomats were pretty easy to suborn.) --NellieBly (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
To be clearer, I mean that by getting the French ambassador's secretary to pass on information to him, the Imperial ambassador is suborning that man to commit treason against King François - a treason that benefits the Imperial ambassador's master, Charles V. --NellieBly (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Insofar as I can interpret what you're trying to ask, you seem to be querying how a priest-diplomat could "square away" (with his own conscience) encouraging in-country diplomatic staff to commit treason against their own sovereign, thus putting themselves at risk of the death penalty. Am I getting close? Though not Catholic, there are multiple references available to 17th-centry opinion from John Williams, the Archbishop of York with regard to a "public and private conscience" and such ideas don't seem to be unique to him or his time (just an easy-to-search-for reference). Oath of Allegiance of James I of England might also be of interest to OP. During the 17th century, there are plenty of examples of Catholic diplomats (those from Rome itself and from other Catholic countries) disguising themselves as noblemen, merchants and other things in order to function incognito in England. Though not the same thing, lying about their true identities, lying to diplomatic staff, and eliciting "diplomatic information" all while pretending to have no interest in diplomacy was very common. Had those functionaries been caught discussing such matters with "papal spies", they likely would have been hanged as traitors despite their ignorance. Such "papal spies" operated in England for many years and justified their activities as service to God. Doing the same between two notionally Catholic states might be a different matter, but it might serve as a relevant reference. St★lwart 00:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
That's my exact meaning. Thank you for the references and especially the reminder of public vs. private conscience. --NellieBly (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
It might help if you saw your hypothetical priest/diplomat as being exactly where he was and doing what he was doing as a career choice, rather than a vocation. We're talking about a period framed by Pope Alexander VI and Cardinal Richelieu. A diplomat/spy would do well not to be troubled by a conscience, and many who chose the priesthood as a career path fitted the bill. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
And written justifications for diplomatic duplicity long precede Machiavelli's The Prince in the genre mirrors for princes. But in an era of God-ordained principalities, rife with religious conflict, it does not take a Machiavelli to sincerely justify sending all one's political/religious adversaries to hell. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
That's certainly true, though we're not really talking about "adversaries" - a 17th-century priest is unlikely to have seen himself as sending treasonous collaborators to "hell". While he might have been sending them to the gallows, he would have been doing so for his king, his country and his God. He might have seen such actions as a "necessary sacrifice", or some form of involuntary martyrdom. While no longer the Middle Ages, many who chose the priesthood as a career still did so because they were the second son and for no other reason. In an era of religiously-motivated capital punishment, inquisitions, reformation, treason and wars of religion, conscience wasn't what we might think of it today. Cardinals hired brigands to take to the streets and beat Rome's own citizens to death in order to create enough disruption as to justify support for the status quo during papal conclaves. By comparison, "flipping" a foreign diplomat is unlikely to rate highly on the "guilty conscience" scale. St★lwart 01:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

January 10

Where is Hammeliski?

I'm having a go at improving a stub article, HMS Nile (1839). One source, W.L. Clowes on the 1854-56 Russian ("Crimean") War, says "On September 18th, the boats of the Nile boarded and burnt some vessels near Hammeliski". It's somewhere in the Baltic Sea, but the only references I can find to "Hammeliski" on Google relate to the same incident. Any ideas? Alansplodge (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I struck out on simple search, but you might do better first reading some instructions we have on the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names -- Paulscrawl (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like unique use on p 499 of v 6 of Clowes' The Royal Navy: A History - not in newspapers.com, Trove (which reprints lots of British newspaper clippings), nor index to Ency. Brit. 1911 ed. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Could it be the Russian name for some place we know by another name? If only I could transliterate it into Cyrillic I could check that. Alternatively, could it derive from someone's terrible misreading of an illegibly written "Helsinki"? --Antiquary (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it could be Helsinki; " As part of the Grand Duchy of Finland in the Russian Empire it was known as Gelsingfors", according to our article. You may be right about the Cyrillic transliteration though, I hadn't thought of that. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's a typo or an alternative transliteration or what, but the catalogue of an 1891 Royal Naval Exhibition renders the name "Hummeliski". Deor (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice find. Hummeliski also not in newspapers.com, Trove.
Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (direct link to search) allows wildcard * (asterisk) for right truncation only. No luck with Hammel*, Hamel*, Hummel*, Humel* - but more variations are easy to try. What else might be plausible Slavic (unspecified, not necess. Russian) transcription of what appears to be German name for "hill" (judging by hits)? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Helsinki is mentioned earlier as Helsingfors, along with its fortress of Sweaborg (Suomenlinna), which was the site of a major operation in July 1855. So Helsinki not Hammeliski. You can check the log of the HMS Nile at the National Archives, but it's not online and you have to go see it in person, so I'm not sure if that helps... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I see your point. "Hammeliski" reference source (Cowles Royal Navy, v. 6, linked above) has distinct index entries for "Helsingfors" (though none for "Helsinki") -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a place called "Humaliskari" in Finland, part of Pyhäranta, which is on the coast and conceivably could have been attacked here. I'm seeing some results in Italian for "Humaliski", "La fortificazione di Bjorkò e di Humaliski è necessaria per difendere i pressi di Leningrado" - this is apparently referring to WWII, but Björkö is mentioned in Clowes' book too (as Biorko). Another Italian source mentions "la base navale di Hango e le isole di Bjorko e di Humaliski", with Björkö and Hanko. So I assume it's an island near St. Petersburg. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, actually one says "Humaliski nella vicinanze della Carelia" - so it's in Karelia? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The Björkö in Karelia is now called Primorsk, Leningrad Oblast; the unfortunate Finns had to give it to the Soviets at the end of WWII. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Not much help but information from the Baltic Fleet a regular column in the London Times makes not mention of the Nile around the 18 September 1855, its mentioned before and after that date. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everybody for your input. I think we're about as close as we're going to get. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have amended the relevant sentence in the article to read: "On 18 September 1855, Nile's boats boarded and burnt some Russian vessels, reportedly near Hammeliski (possibly Humaliski on the island of Björkö, now called Primorsk, Leningrad Oblast)". I have also added a note to the talk page directing curious users to this discussion. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
Just guessing at the Russian spelling, but "Хумалиски" brings up this website, which appears to be about the defenses of Leningrad before WWII. Humaliski is mentioned alongside the Vuoksi River and "Kolevets", wherever that is. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Percentage of US citizens with family members in another country

I know there are statistics on how many people in the US travel overseas to visit family or friends, and how many Americans are foreign born or second generation immigrants, but I am wondering if there are estimates on how many Americans have family in another country, say as defined as a relative they regularly keep in touch with (it could be a sibling, cousin, grandparent etc. but should be close enough that they know personally). Would there be a good way to estimate this information from other statistics if this kind of data isn't available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.108.89 (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Largest cities in mountain passes?

What are the world's most populous cities that are located in mountain passes (not mountain valleys, like Los Angeles or Mexico City)? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 09:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As this nice map illustrates, Denver definitely isn't situated on a mountain pass - it is, as our Denver article notes, in the South Platte River valley. I think this may be a clue as to why few large settlements are built on mountain passes - more or less inevitably, the topography ensures that significant water supplies won't be found nearby. A pass is a local drainage divide, and will typically only have small streams flowing off it. Cities tend to be built on more substantial rivers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Probably not exactly on the pass, no, but perhaps controlling access to it, as seems to be the case in Denver. StuRat (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Our page on Tiaret, Algeria (pop. 178,915) says that it "occupies a strategic mountain pass at 3,552 feet (1,083 m)". It does admittedly stand on the river Mina, but since neither English nor French Wikipedias have a page on that river it may not amount to much. I also see references to Dhulikhel, Nepal (pop. 16,263) lying either on a pass or on a hill-top. But for the reasons Andy gives above I've a nasty feeling neither of these towns will stand up to close examination. The phrase "city in a mountain pass" only turns up on the Web in fantasy fiction and discussions of fantasy games. There's got to be a reason for that. --Antiquary (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Absence of water, I'd think. --jpgordon 00:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense. As for Tiaret, a Google Maps terrain view seems to show pretty clearly that it's not exactly in the pass; more like sitting at one end of it. But Dhulikhel is an interesting case. The way I "read" the map, there is a sort of pass running southwest from Ravi Opi toward the center of Dhulikhel; and while the center of Dhulikhel is just southwest of the pass, the town's limits clearly include the whole pass. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Besides the water issue, years of hill walking in the UK lead me to the opinion that passes tend to be natural wind tunnels even on calm days and are therefore not a place that you would want to hang about. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
On the plus side, you can set up windmills there, perhaps to pump up the missing water. StuRat (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Klyastitsy

On the page Battle_of_Klyastitsy, he Battle of Klyastitsy, is also called battle of Yakubovo. The last remark , is this correct ? Is Yakubovo a city in Belarus or Poland (Jakubowo) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.52.148 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Burton, R G (1914) Napoleon's Invasion Of Russia , George Allen & Co, London (p.77) which says "On 30th July, his advanced guard came in contact with that of Oudinot at Yakubovo...". I also found Mikaberidze, Alexander (2011) Moritz von Kotzebue's Memoir (p.5), which is based on an 1816 English translation of the German text, which says in a footnote: "He received the rank of a major general on 30 October 1812 in recognition of his performance in battles at Yakubovo, Klyastitsy, Golovshina and Beloe". Finally, Henry Cabot Lodge (1913), The History of Nations - Volume 15 (p.411) says in the index "Yakubovo: battle of (1812)...". That's as close as I could get to anybody calling it "the battle of Yakubovo", apart from several webpages which use identical wording to our article.
A map of Klyastitsy: Belarus can be seen here. According to the descriptions of the battle, "Yakubovo" is described as a village and it must have been nearby, as the Russians fell back from there to Klyastitsy during the afternoon. As the French were advancing towards St Petersburg, you would have expected them to have been coming from the southwest, but I can't see anything resembling "Yakubovo" in the area. Perhaps it doesn't exist anymore? Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, found it ! The Village of Yakubovo is no longer existing on (for example) google maps or google earth. I found it on a OpenStreetMap and the village is problably nowadays called Jakubova. See position: N55° 53.221' E28° 33.038' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.52.148 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

55°53.221′N 28°33.038′E / 55.887017°N 28.550633°E / 55.887017; 28.550633 fwiw --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Well done. Is there a Cyrillic transcription for "Jakubova"? Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Якубово —Tamfang (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Also found on an OpenStreetMap: http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=55.88756%2C28.54858#map=19/55.88689/28.55105 (якyбobo ?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.52.148 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Якyбobo (Yakubovo), to the east of which is Клястицы (Klyastitsy). -- Jack of Oz 18:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you kind sir. Perhaps there's a way of incorporating all this in the article. I might give it a go myself later on. Alansplodge (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

January 11

Apotheca - is it part of ancient roman houses?

There is a Hungarian article about apotheca what state it was a chamber over fumarium where the smoke helped to conservate and aging especially the wine in amphoras. There are references in the article.
Question: why not mentioned in the domus article? Was this in separated buildings? --hu:Rodrigo (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

All I can tell from Latin dictionaries is that an apotheca (a Greek loanword, by the way) was a storage room, especially one for storing wine. I don't know why smoke would help wine (as opposed to meat)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It's explained here as a way of accelerating the ageing process by the application of steady heat, rather like the estufagem process in Madeira winemaking. The smoke was just a by-product if this author is to be believed. --Antiquary (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Jose Serrano 22nd amendment?

Why does José E. Serrano want to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution? Simple googling doesn't turn up any explanations. Staecker (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

He told this website in 2009 that he does it because he doesn't believe in limited periods of office for anyone. He's not the only person to propose such changes as Snopes makes clear. Nanonic (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It was passed by Republicans in order to prevent another FDR situation. During Reagan's term, some Republicans talked about repealing it, but nothing happened. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
"It was passed by Republicans" is a considerable oversimplification. In order to get out of Congress it needed a 2/3 vote in both houses, that is 64 out of 96 senators and 290 out of 434 representatives. The Republicans had a majority in both houses in 1947 but that still included only 51 senators and 248 representatives. It then had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, that is 36 out of 48 states. It was actually ratified by 41 states and while I haven't tried to find out how many of them had Republican-controlled legislatures at the time, I would be surprised it it was as many as 36. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Read the article and note the hyperbole of Thomas Dewey about what a "threat to freedom" it was to allow the people to keep their president more than two terms. Also, it took four years to get ratified, so they had to do a persistent sell job. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources on a historic U.S. bank

I'm looking to research the history of an national bank in Philadelphia, which existed approximately 1875-1956 (as far as I can deduce). Where might I find information about incorporation, annual profits and capital, bank presidents and directors, etc.? Even just knowing the date and reason for the bank's closure (or merger, I'm not sure) would be nice, but I'm not sure where to look. The FDIC database wasn't helpful, so perhaps it was never FDIC-insured, but that's just conjecture. Knight of Truth (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what its name was? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It concerns the Centennial National Bank. I'm happy to do the research myself, I'm just not familiar with sources in this field. Knight of Truth (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust & the Kadoshim

Hi.

This is an Holocaust related question. Are those converts to Reform Judaism whose conversions were not recognized by Orthodox Jewish law and who were murdered in the Holocaust considered to be Kedoshim (Jewish Martrys)?

Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure "yes". Even converts in the other direction -- they were killed for their religion too, even though they'd renounced it. Check out this. --jpgordon 16:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
By whom? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, the "naming" was done by the State of Israel in 1952, so their opinion is the only one that matters. --jpgordon 19:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
That may be what the OP meant, but the use of kedoshim as a term for "religious martyrs" or "Jews murdered with anti-Semitic intent" dates to medieval times and is not dependent on the State of Israel's formal definition. (That being said, Israel does not (yet) recognize Reform conversions, so why would they accord them a Jewish-specific title?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Because their murderers did not care by which method they became Jewish? I'd like to see the 1952 declaration; haven't been able to find it yet. --jpgordon 20:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
True, but the question implies interest in the Orthodox point of view. I doubt Orthodox sources would use a term implying Jewishness in reference to people who, according to Orthodox Judaism, were never Jews in the first place. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

USA politics

1. When in the business cycle do Republicans start getting a tailwind? There might be a hurricane of other things impeding them (or a weak breeze) but point in the business cycle is still a wind component.

2. Are the kingmakers (swing-state open-minded persuadable to eternally undecided actual voters) voting for their choice or against the opposite more often? (to the extent that you can separate the two motives) (I've heard that the eternally very undecided usually don't vote that year (or at least contest), though)

3. Is there a ties win for the incumbent bias? Where the undecided to the last minute just end up picking the old guy?

4. Would Democrats on average have a harder time if third parties were illegal? Not that such a law would be good or democratic or fair or anything but who gets the short end of the spoiler stick? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

On the first point, maybe the GOP got a "tailwind" for this past fall's election, from (1) the economy improving, along with (2) too many apathetic Democrats not voting, which vaguely addresses your second point. There were enough incumbents turned out that I don't think your third point works. And finally, if there were no "spoilers" it probably wouldn't matter much, because apathy would still lose. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I dunno about that point 4. If there hadn't been third party candidates, Al Gore would have been elected in 2000, and GHW Bush would likely have been re-elected in 1992, and Humphrey might well have won in 1968 (a lot of the Wallace voters were drawn from the ranks of yellow-dog Lincoln haters.) --jpgordon 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, if I got references I would either swear to God to only read the non-referenced writing or believe them over the references if I did.</sarcasm> I've noticed that a lot of the third party votes since '92 have been to stuff that right of center people would be interested in and wondered if this would hold true where it mattered (i.e. majority of swing states counted by electoral college votes). I didn't realize that that Green party guy was the Independent when Bush was President both times. My mistake, I should have said that this is why I wondered (4).
Come on isn't it a reasonable guess that last minute undecideds who still chose to vote would probably not choose change on a whim for no reason?
I did not have a guess for (2). One has to be first.
It is well known that when times get real good people become greedy and don't want to pay as much taxes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
And going back to 1984 it appears to be 5 to 3 for my guess going just by the nationwide results in the articles so my guess might still hold. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
1980 and 1976 agree, too. 1972 still had a racist conservative Democrat splinter party so that's about when what is a Democrat/Republican starts to become muddy and paradoxical (for us young'uns). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
We can't really make any assumptions about who (if anyone) the third-party voters would have voted for if there were no third parties. Consider the 2008 Senate race in Minnesota. The incumbent Coleman and the challenger Franken each got about 42 percent. The third-party candidate Barkley got a bit over 15 percent. Had Barkley not been in it, there's no way to know how the vote would have fallen. Any number might have voted for one of the other two, or not voted at all. All we know for sure is that on election day at least 57 percent didn't want Coleman, and at least 57 percent didn't want Franken. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay but over 1 million people voted for the Libertarian Party last time (despite Ron Paul telling them to vote for the Republicans I think). I think it's reasonable that many libertarians wouldn't vote at all if Lib. wasn't available but I really wonder if more would choose Obama over Romney thus helping Obama. I don't think it changed the outcome this time though or would've made a bigger fuss about it. Maybe they're young and hip enough to know about vote pairing sites. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It would depend on which states they voted in and whether it would have made any difference in the electoral vote for those states. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course. Some third party vote splitting situations are easier to guess than others. That's probably the term that should be used because spoiling only implies successful (unintentional) election sabotage (like '92, '00). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The presense of third party candidates can also influence media coverage, donors, campaign decisions of the main candidates and so on, so saying what would have happened without third party candidates isn't merely a question of what their voters would have done otherwise. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Name of non-monetary transaction

I can't recall, what's the name for a non-monetary transaction, where one hires, for example, a homeless man to clean up his backyard and in exchange offers food and drink instead of money (certainly, this is something other than barter). As a side note, I've read about instances where girls voluntarily "paid" with sex instead of money for renting an apartment, I also wonder whether there's a name for this type of transaction. Brandmeister 22:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Paid in Kind? Uhlan 22:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree, consideration-in-kind sounds right. St★lwart 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. Brandmeister 00:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The in kind article that you linked to says that both terms, "in kind" and "barter", can be used for goods or services. Barter says that as well in the first line. Dismas| 09:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
There's also the fact that barter describes the transaction as a whole, whereas payment in kind regards payment in something other than cash, LIke Atticus Finch being paid in chickens. Finch didn't show up with chickens in order to win your case for you. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What Should She Have Said?

Read this excerpt from the Loaded Question article:

Madeleine Albright (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.) claims to have answered a loaded question (and later regretted not challenging it instead) on 60 Minutes on 12 May 1996. Lesley Stahl asked, regarding the effects of UN sanctions against Iraq, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright: "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it."
She later wrote of this response:

I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. … As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy, and wrong. … I had fallen into a trap and said something that I simply did not mean. That is no one’s fault but my own.

The elided part of the quote is telling; "nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people." That's what she says she should have said and that's what Loaded question leaves out. --jpgordon 01:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, let's rephrase. What was wrong with the question in the first place? Uhlan 01:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out that too. Perhaps a read of Albright's book might clarify, since Loaded question says Albright claims to have answered a loaded question, but does not provide enough context to show where she made that claim. --jpgordon 01:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Her other options appear to me to be limited to a) repudiating the .5M claim, and/or b) repudiating the connection between sanctions and any additional deaths in the period. --01:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • What source are we looking for? There are ethical theories that hold all sorts of ridiculous ideas, such as that the blame for the death of innocents lies on the shoulders of those who instigate a war of aggression, not on those who end one in self defense. What exactly is the request here? μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
What was wrong with the question was that it blamed those who placed the sanctions on Iraq for the horrific outcome rather than blame those who felt the horrific outcomes of the sanctions. Like the Germans placed the blame for German actions on Lidice, Albright places the blame for American actions on Iraq. She believes Iraq chose to cut off imports of life sustaining goods. 174.95.40.40 (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Imposing sanctions on a country always poses a moral dilemma, because we seek to punish the government, but it's the common citizens who suffer. But they also suffer under the rule of their dictator. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
There's also a couple ways the sanctioned nation may intentionally kill it's civilians, and blame it on the sanctions:
1) If there aren't enough food and meds for all, they may make sure that those minorities they want to kill off anyway get the brunt of the shortages, rather than spread the shortage evenly, so all would survive. I believe North Korea used this method during sanctions over their nuclear weapons program.
2) There may not be shortages at all, but they keep the food and meds in warehouses to reap the PR benefits of dying civilians they can blame on their enemies. I believe Saddam used this method during sanctions. Specifically, the oil for food program was designed to prevent civilian casualties, but the Iraqi government used it to enrich themselves instead.
StuRat (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Your account directly conflicts with the relevant articles on Misplaced Pages; perhaps you should add your sources to the articles. 174.95.40.40 (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Saddam did all manner of stuff to the citizens of Iraq. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the question is that it contains extraneous and gratuitous information. In responding, Madeleine Albright should have started out by stating that she knows what the number "half-million" means. She then could have asserted that it is unfortunate and that it grieves her deeply if it is correct that a half-million children died in Iraq as a result of UN sanctions against Iraq. And finally she could have restated the original reasons for the sanctions, including possible dangers to human life posed by the brutal and expanding regime of Saddam Hussein. The suggestion that a "half-million" children in one time and place is equivalent in every respect to a "half-million" children in another time and place should not have been accepted by Madeleine Albright. This bears a relation however imperfect to the legal concept of "leading the witness" insofar as it "puts words in the mouth" of a person to which a question is posed. Madeleine Albright should simply have started out by saying that yes, she knows the significance of the number 500,000. Doing so would have put the questioner on alert that she would not readily accept the comparison, but she could have then responded to the question on her own grounds. Bus stop (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The wording happens to touch on one of my pet peeves. (I'm the Crazy Cat Lady of language peeves.) To me, "X is worth Y" means "the value of X is equal to or greater than the value of Y." Literally, then, Albright said that the price (half a million children's lives) equals or exceeds "it" (presumably meaning the benefits resulting from the sanctions). What's shocking about that? —Tamfang (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Murder Most Contradictory

I was watching an episode of The Mentalist, where a murder is committed by two people. One stabs the victim, the other stands watching. They both claim the other murdered the victim, though both accept they were there when it happened and that they conspired to blame it on a break-in. Given it's a police procedural they don't go into the legal aspects, but I'm curious - in such a situation, what charges might be filed against the murderers, given they both claim innocence of the actual act, and there is no evidence to support one over the other? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy (criminal). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
In the UK both can be done for murder - see Common purpose (aka Joint Enterprise). Here's a contemporary story on the issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, criminal conspiracy and probably felony murder as well. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou all. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

January 12

Rob Fisk

Rob Fisk says in his book that Saddam Hussein was an evil man who oppressed the Iraqs, but he says he doesnt support the iraq war that toppled him. Are there any sources that say before 2003 that he says an invasion to depose Saddam is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.90.192.231 (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

For those who want to research this but need some basic info, our article is at Robert Fisk but I don't know which book OP might be talking about. Fisk has apparently written several. Dismas| 07:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
If I understand the question; I very much doubt that Fisk ever called for an invasion to remove Saddam. That - in my estimation - would be a most un-Fisk-like thing to call for. If I hve you wrong, please clarify the question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The book is almost certainly The Great War for Civilisation, against which the American right wing has long held a grudge that elevates it way above its actual importance. As Tagishsimon almost says, even if you can find a source for Fisk calling for an invasion it's almost certain that your source is wrong - Fisk has always been a hard-line pacifist. Mogism (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
(adding) If this is a more general "how do pacifists respond to the charge that war is sometimes necessary to prevent a greater loss of life" question, see Just war theory and the links it contains for the various viewpoints on the matter. Mogism (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
What i mean is, the only reason saddm would have been removed is through war. The west couldnt have just said ″could you please step down from power and stop oppressing your people please?″ So if robert fisk says that saddamm is so bad, why doesn't he support the invasion that toppled him.? 49.226.193.133 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If I understand you rightly, you think that Fisk's opposition to Hussein should mean that he would want to see him actively removed, and that he'd support war because there was no other way. Are you familiar with the concept of "the ends justify the means"? Many people hold the opposite perspective, i.e. the final result doesn't necessarily justify the way of getting there; it's entirely possible to say "It would be wonderful if this thing were to happen, but we mustn't accomplish it by doing X, since X is wrong/not the best/an outright bad idea". Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, thank you I do see what you mean. Its just the vibe that i always got when reading Gret War for Civilisation was that he wanted something to be done about sdaam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.227.200.98 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

image of Muhammad

It is supposedly taboo to draw am image of Muhammad. But as far as I know, there are no contemporaneous images of Muhammad. So if someone draws something, how do you know it is Muhammad? Bubba73 07:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Usually because of the context, and maybe the caption (if any). These are caricatures. They don't actually have to be a perfect representation of the person they are drawing. KägeTorä - (虎) (Chin Wag) 07:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
In medieval Persian miniatures, Muhammad's face is never shown, but he's generally the center of focus of the piece, sometimes shown with a flame-like halo, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
We don't have any "contemporaneous images" of Jesus, but everybody knows what he looks like. See Depiction of Jesus. Alansplodge (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he was definitely a white European 1960s hippy-style, despite being from the Middle East. We all know this, because God speaks English and he's his son. KägeTorä - (虎) (Chin Wag) 09:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Quite; he has an appearance derived from convention rather than authenticity. I believe that he only acquired a beard in the 4th Century (rather than the 1960s). However, take a look at this Chinese Jesus! "The head of every man is Christ" (First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch.11: V.3). We digress. Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't take 400 years to grow a beard - I can do that in a week - that's no miracle (it's more of a miracle getting rid of it, with my cheap ASDA blunt blades). I was talking about his long hair and his travelling lifestyle, occasionally attracting huge crowds to say 'blessed are the ' (blessed by whom? and what's that going to do for them?), whilst singing 'American Pie' or something. Come on, a child who 'turns water into wine' must be an alcoholic. KägeTorä - (虎) (Chin Wag) 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
There may not be contemporeous images of Muhammad, but there are detailed descriptions of his appearance in Muslim sources. Look for example at this website. Now I cannot say if these sources are authentic or reliably transmitted, but it's definitely plausible that one might attempt to draw Muhammad based on the best information we have. Whether cartoonists actually bother to look for that information is another matter, of course. - Lindert (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Our own Depictions of Muhammad article has images of him (not just cartoons). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, there are no accurate representations of Muhammad from his era, nor of anyone else for that matter. It's not a question of whether it looks like Muhammad - it's that merely the attempt at depicting him is now considered blasphemous, regardless of the artist's motivations for doing so. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
So trying to depict this specific prophet is blasphemous? Or is it all prophets? Is blasphemy considered a crime? If so, since when? And if so, shouldn't then death penalty be reconsidered back? Akseli9 (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It might well be a crime under strict Islamic law. And in places where strict Islamic law is observed, there is no hesitation to apply the death penalty. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) According to the "Depictions of Muhammad" article linked above; "there is disagreement about visual depictions. The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures." Like Christianity, there are many strands of Islam and some have different standpoints to others on this point. A Bangladeshi restaurant in East London that I used to frequent, had its walls decorated with images of Muslim saints. Alansplodge (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the commandment Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image covers this. Not that it ever stopped Christians from making likenesses of Jesus, Mary, etc. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, lots of Christians thought it should do - see Iconoclasm. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Is blasphemy considered a crime? It depends on the jurisdiction. See Blasphemy law in the United States for the fact that some states retain prohibitions on blasphemy, although they seem to violate the Constitution. Not a crime in the United Kingdom since 2008. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Technically, a law which violates the Constitution is still as legit as any other. It only becomes unconstitutional after a judicial review says so. Many laws never even start the process. The Netherlands' constitution has a part that says "The court shall not enter into the assessment of the constitutionality of laws and treaties" (in Dutch, of course). I guess it prefers to somehow stand up for itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, many traditions which consider depictions of Muhammad as generally unwelcome (as has been said, this isn't all traditions), also consider depictions of other prophets unwelcome (also God/Allah which is actually AFAIK the one most forbidden). Some movies and other media depicting Moses, Noah and other prophets in Islam (from a Christian or Judeo-Christian POV) have been banned in various countries at least partially for this reason, see e.g. . Jesus seems to be one exception, in that many allow Christian depictions at least for Christian usage. Of course, as our Aniconism in Islam mentions, some go as far to consider all depictions of humans or other sentient beings as unwelcome, although as that article mentions given the proliferation of TV and cameras nowadays that part seems largely ignored. That article also mentions how Muhammad seemed to allow some depictions of Jesus (and Mary), perhaps another reason why depictions of Jesus tend to be ignored. Depictions of Muhammad do tend to cause the most controversy by far, as their final prophet and also one not recognised as a religious figure in any way by most religions, I guess there's greater concern over potrayals of him. (And realisticly most depictions are at least partially thinking of Islam, whereas this is often not the case with depictions of the other prophets of Islam.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Depiction of the Prophet Muhammad

This Guardian newspaper report includes the statement that the "Charlie Hebdo" cover published today "depicts the prophet Muhammad' The link also includes an image of that magazine cover so if the image might offend you, please do not follow that link.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/13/charlie-hebdo-cover-magazine-prophet-muhammad

With that background information, here is my question. What if anything in the image makes it specifically a depiction of the Prophet rather than simply an image of a male in Middle Eastern looking garb?

Thank you, CBHA (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in the image, only in the context, and in the description of the image by the cartoonist who drew it. Keep in mind that at least one person is currently in jail for threats against cartoonists who drew a man completely covered head to toe in a large bear costume and said it was Muhammad... - Nunh-huh 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Given the frequently ambiguous status of Islamic iconography, there's no "conventional" representation of Muhammad; even in Western art, he's rare enough that he didn't acquire a standard representation. Absolutely nothing of the artwork itself (as opposed to the captions) suggests that File:Giovanni da Modena - The Inferno, detail (Machomet).jpg, File:Mahomet.jpg, and File:La.Vie.de.Mahomet.jpg all depict the same person. It's radically different from Christian iconography of Christ (who, being God, naturally gets depicted as ruling everything/everyone), or even from Christian iconography of the saints, who routinely appeared with the same items to help the illiterate know who the depictee was. Saint George pretty much always wears armor and is generally sitting on his horse while spearing the dragon, and the text of our article on Saint Lucy notes that she routinely holds a plate with two eyeballs on it. There was no comparable need for Westerners to know about Muhammad (he was just another non-Christian foreigner), so Westerners didn't have a reason to develop a routine way of depicting him. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
well, Christians eventually decided he was a non-Christian foreigner, but initially conceived of him as a Christian heretic... - Nunh-huh 00:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
True, but he wasn't popping up in the artwork at the time. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, in the end, all portraiture is just some splodges of colour that happen to look a bit like a certain person from a particular angle. The question is one of the artist's intent. Of course we have no idea at all what Muhammad looked like; so you can draw any person who looks vaguely Arabic and you're fine, until you communicate in some way that it's meant to be him. Draw an Arab sitting next to an oasis and you're fine; draw an angel speaking to him and title it, 'Muhammad receives his revelation' and you've got a very different kettle of fish. GoldenRing (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Draw an obvious Jerry Falwell screwing the unmistakable Porky Pig in what is clearly a Walmart parking lot, you're untouchable. Call either of the unbearded Caucasian swine "Muhammad" in the caption, suddenly you're holding a "depiction of Muhammad", instead of a thing that could not be understood as factual. It doesn't even have to be a sentient being or the least obscene. Say a drawing of a kettle or mailbox is of the Prophet, that's as valid a depiction as any, though a poor illustration. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, January 14, 2015 (UTC)

20 year employment and capital stock projections

The new dynamic scoring rules that the US House of Representatives adopted last Tuesday require 20 year projections of changes in economic output, employment, and capital stock (definition, details, graph.) Does anyone know of examples of 20 year projections for employment or capital stock in reliable sources, either as baseline or changes due to some proposal? EllenCT (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No. It's utterly absurd to think you can accurately predict the state of the economy that far in advance. Think about what happened in the last 20 years. We had the Internet boom, housing bubble collapse, several wars, the rise of China, etc. All of this affected the economy. So any prediction of the current state of our economy 20 years ago would have been way off. This requirement is a purely political ploy so Republicans can tweak the numbers and say anything they want is good for the economy and anything Democrats want is bad (since Republicans are the majority now, they will ensure that the people chosen to come up with these "projections" will do as they are told, by Republicans). StuRat (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not willing to rule out the possibility that in many cases we can get some idea of what a legislative change will do to economic situations a decade out. I'm probably with you on two decades though. But I'm sure people must have tried, somewhere. Any idea where? EllenCT (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Another problem is that the business cycle has a variable length, so 20 years from now we could be at the height of a boom or in the depths of a recession, and there's no way to tell that now. StuRat (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
OMG, trickle down is not dead yet? They found another name for it and even made it seem like a new level of economic scientificness? But isn't it weird that 2011, 2001, 1991, 1981, 1971 and 1961 were all bad economies? Also 1941, 1931 and 1921. (or was the hyperinflation 1922?). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say (1) this will not give them trickle-down, (2) it will force Republicans to support Keynesian stimulus, but they won't call it that, (3) the Republican leadership is well aware of this and they know exactly what they're doing, (4) because decades of kowtowing to Grover Norquist has painted them into a corner and they don't want to shoot off their feet for 2016, (5) as evidenced by their need for populism in an off-term election with more gerrymandering than ever. EllenCT (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You said it, but I'll remain a bit skeptical regarding your idea of a Keynesian stimulus; it shouldn't be that much difficult to draw a 20 years projection starting with the current figures regarding oil production, what's your opinion ? --Askedonty (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. It seems like only a few years ago peak oil was a serious thing showing up in all the Fortune 500 annual reports, and fracking was just some weird experiment that people who liked to fish with dynamite were trying because their wells had dried up. With fracking and renewables price and production trends, I think the Saudis might be right about oil never going over $100 again. EllenCT (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. We've gotten a reprieve, but we are still using up petroleum far faster than it is being produced, and that will inevitably lead to shortages. As for renewables, the low petroleum prices will stop development in those areas, since they can't compete with cheap oil. StuRat (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It also works with music. c. 2010: dubstep, electro, dance. c. 2000: trance, I'm Blue by Eiffel 65, Vengabus, dance. c. 1990: "I've Got the Power! "-type music (called techno at time), In a Dream (Rockell) type stuff (a remix of something 1989), dance. c. 1980: Funkytown, dance came a bit early (disco). c. 1970: Popcorn by Hot Butter, Plugged-In Bach, rock with new effects like that (Johnny Cash?) buzz thing played in Apollo 13. Top 40 suddenly has a fad of the most high-tech sounding electronic pop they could think of at the time and it dies out after a few years. They all sounded futuristic at the time and dated after 2 cycles. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I want to subscribe to your newsletter. EllenCT (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, though I would've put Daft Punk for 2000 if I'd remembered them. And Moog synthesizers goes under 1970. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of 20 years ago, it was in the early-to-mid 90s that a bunch of books on the Japanese threat or Japanese challenge or Japan as the incipient new #1 world power came out in the wake of The Japan That Can Say No incident, as well as the "Rising Sun" movie with Sean Connery. Yet that period actually turned out to be the beginning of Japan's major economic problems... AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

These aren't projections of absolute conditions, they are scores for proposals based on their relative effects, "all else being equal." (Which brings up the issue of proposals which would both be expected to work by themselves, but not together, for instance if they depend on the same scarce inputs. For example, if you have one bill to use all the excess capacity for an employment program, that's okay, but if you have two laws that depend on the same amount of excess capacity, they are both likely to come up short. Proposals do not exist in a vacuum.) EllenCT (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
But that "all things being equal" assumption is a bit like the spherical cow model. Over a 20 year period, you can be certain that all things will not be equal. For example, an economic policy that makes sense during peace may be a disaster during a major war. StuRat (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

January 13

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

The The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance article twice mentions someone named "Duke", but the name is absent from the cast list; it's someone who apparently was a worse football player than John Wayne. A Google search for <"liberty valance" duke> reveals lots of WP mirrors and various pages that mention the guy in connection with Wayne, but nothing explains who he was. What was Duke's full name, and where does he fit in? Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"The Duke" was nickname for John Wayne (much better than his real name, Marion). StuRat (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
His birth name was Marion Morrison, and he was going by "Duke" even before he adopted the stage name of John Wayne. His early film credits say "Duke Morrison". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No wonder the name consistently appeared in connection with Wayne...I've added a next to "Duke" in the first quote that mentions him. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Bravo. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Like Indiana Jones, he was named after a dog. —Tamfang (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

funny or else

If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you. —Oscar Wilde
If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you. —Billy Wilder

I got both of these from the same unreliable source. Is one of the attributions accurate? —Tamfang (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following is from a blog source which purportedly cites several other sources (which theoretically could be checked). Apparently, Wilder "borrowed" from George Bernard Shaw, who is credited with: "If you are going to tell people the truth, you’d better make them laugh. Otherwise, they’ll kill you"; whereas Wilder: "If you’re going to tell people the truth, be funny or they’ll kill you". —Source:  ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
—P.s.: The blog is from Barry Popik; which our article suggests would be a reliable source for this topic. 71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
He only says that it's attributed to G. B. Shaw (along with many other people). I think that if there were evidence that Shaw actually said it, he would have mentioned that. -- BenRG (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. There's a discussion of this quote at q:George Bernard Shaw#Disputed from which it seems that it's also attributed to W. C. Fields and Charlie Chaplin. They cite some vaguely similar quotes from GBS: "My way of joking is to tell the truth. It's the funniest joke in the world", (John Bull's Other Island), and " has to put things in such a way as to make people who would otherwise hang him believe he is joking", (no source given). Possibly one or the other is the origin of all this. --Antiquary (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The quote about Mark Twain is pretty securely sourced to Shaw's conversation here. --Antiquary (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Where can I find a copy of Charlie Hebdo in the US?

I read that Charlie Hebdo has printed about a million copies of its most recent issue. On eBay these are being sold for $130 each. Is there a way I can get a copy in the US without having to pay $130? Shii (tock) 04:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

See WorldCat. Its entry for the magazine will list libraries that subscribe or subscribed to it, sorted by their distance from your location (be sure to specify your ZIP code, since it depends on your IP address, which is sometimes far from your actual location), and it links to the library catalogue so that you can check whether or not they currently subscribe. It's not a widely held publication in this country; I'm in metro Pittsburgh, and the two closest libraries that get it are Michigan State University and Indiana University, 250 and 350 miles away respectively. Of course, libraries generally won't let you check out a periodical, but you can view it. You can also request an interlibrary loan; with a magazine, this usually is accomplished by the owning library scanning or photocopying a single article, because they generally don't send the whole issue. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for a reply, I basically just want to own it though, or get it framed. Shii (tock) 06:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Should have grabbed it when it was only $130. CNN Money says they're between $190 and $595, straight up. You know those auctions will soon make those prices look relatively sane. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
Or no, wait. That was the other, less relevant issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
These people have decided to print the next edition in 16 languages and are smart enough to print enough copies in English to fulfill the immediate demand. Keep an eye on the web, and my guess is that the price will come down in days to come. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This article says there will be 300000 copies for foreign markets instead of the usual 4000, and 3 millions copies instead of the usual 60000. It also says among those who usually don't receive it, the US and GB are already included. Note that the last Luz green drawing showed (forgiving Prophet Muhammad holding a sheet of paper stating "Je Suis Charlie") is not necessarily the next Charlie Hebdo front page. Akseli9 (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings from Singapore. France is a racist society? Why they support the newspaper making a million copies for even more insulting Muhammad cartoons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.188.218 (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No, this is not what they support. And racism of course not. What they support when it is attacked by totalitarian-minded people, is the right to say or draw anything you like or don't like. You are free not to buy and not to read a cartoon hebdo that usually sells only 35000 copies or so, and issues only between 45000 and 60000 at most. Akseli9 (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Insulting Muhammad, even if that's what they're doing (which it isn't), is not racism under any definition of "race". --Bowlhover (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Misplaced Pages is great. Thanks for all the hard work Ladies and Gentlemen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear5381 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comment - it's always nice to be appreciated! RomanSpa (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

January 14

Coins and their colours/colors

US, Canadian, and British coins for the most part have the same basic color for each denomination of their coinage. Pennies are copper colored and everything else is silver. (I'm not including the two pence piece since the US and Canada don't have a similar denomination.) Is this by design or coincidence? Is it a matter of the various metals and their values? By that I mean that copper just sort of makes economic sense for 0.01 value pieces but nickel makes more economic sense in general for larger pieces. Thanks, Dismas| 05:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's just based on their relative values. Of course, gold is more valuable yet, and then there's platinum. I suppose pennies could have been made out of small nickel coins, and 5 cent pieces out of larger copper coins. Also, there were steel pennies during WW2, in the US, due to a copper shortage. So the whole "brown money cheap, white money valuable" idea breaks down all over. StuRat (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
In the current US coins, as per their articles here, cents are made from copper and zinc, and all the other denominations are made from copper and nickel. No more silver. So at this point their sizes are merely traditional. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Sizes, yes. But what about color? Dismas| 06:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That's also tradition. The common coinage metals in all the three countries were copper-based alloys for the lowest values, silver for middle values, gold for high values (although after the Canadian dollar was established, gold coins were used in Canada only for a short period). Later the US decided that its smallest silver coins (3 and 5 cents) were inconveniently small and substituted a fourth, cheaper metal, a 25% nickel alloy, allowing the coin to be larger; Canada eventually copied this change, introducing 100% nickel coins instead. And since then the sizes and colors have generally been kept even though the content of the coins has changed. Small coins are colored like copper, middle coins are silvery colored like nickel or silver (with the 5-cent denomination in the US and Canada larger than the 10-cent because it used to be nickel). Large coins more or less dropped out of use as paper money became preferred, but after inflation led to their reintroduction, a lighter yellow color suggestive of gold was used. (Not necessarily the actual color of gold, but still.) Note that euro coinage uses a similar color pattern as well, although the actual coins only appeared in 2001 and do not relate to specific coins in earlier countries. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - what is the culture like?

I have read about the history of Lutheranism, some parts of the Small Catechism, some parts of the Large Catechism, a biography of Martin Luther's life (and part of the history of early Lutheranism), and a bit about the Pietist movement. I have heard from an ex-Lutheran that all the other American Lutheran denominations perceive the ELCA as "apostate". It seems there is some sort of animosity going on between the ELCA and the other Lutherans. What is the basis of the negative perceptions of the ELCA by the other Lutheran denominations? (Please don't provide a non-Lutheran source that views the ELCA negatively. I want to see how other Lutherans view the ELCA.) Is the bad perception mostly by other American Lutherans or by American and non-American Lutherans worldwide? I am also aware that the American Lutheran denominations are largely descended, theologically and genetically, from the Lutherans in Central and Northern Europe, and this ethnic differences are present in the contemporary Lutheran denominations. In that case, what is the dominant ethnic make-up of the ELCA members? Are they mostly of German or Scandinavian descent? Does the ethnic make-up influence the style of the liturgy in any way? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hackers and Internet Security

If hackers can break into the United States Government, why do people bother buying computer protection? 49.226.166.109 (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith for this question even in light of your other edit. That said, you're not really comparing similar things. I'm guessing you're referring to the recent hacking of Twitter and YouTube accounts. That's not the same as, for example, the President's email address or the computers at NSA headquarters. Yes, the Twitter and YouTube accounts are government operated but are by no means under the same security as the other examples I mentioned.
And people try to protect their computers because there are different levels of hacker ability, for lack of a better phrase. You might as well ask why banks don't leave their doors unlocked at night if there are still going to be bank robberies. Protection keeps the amateurs out at the very least. Dismas| 07:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Categories: