Revision as of 07:18, 8 January 2013

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

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

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 3

Battleship Potemkin

I've read a lot about the uprising on the battleship Potemkin, but I still have more questions than answers. Here are a few:

(1) The ship's CO, Captain Golikov, had a reputation as a martinet, but how accurate was it? Did he really treat the sailors especially harshly, or was some of his reputation due to the sailors themselves being unused to (and resentful of) military discipline, in general?
(2) Was the meat really rotten (as in, unfit for eating) like the official Soviet sources say, or was it merely maggoty as the ship's surgeon, Dr. Smirnov, maintained?(If the latter, then this situation was not all that uncommon aboard ship, even in the early 20th century.)
(3) What exactly happened between when the meat was served and when the officers gathered the crew on the quarterdeck? Do the Soviet sources tell the whole story when they say that the sailors merely refused to eat the meat, or was there something else going on as well (possibly some kind of violent altercation between the sailors and the officers)? As strict as the Imperial Russian officers must have been, I seriously doubt that they would have threatened the sailors with mass execution merely for refusing to eat.
(4) What exactly was the role of Quartermaster Vakulinchuk (sic) in the uprising? There's a lot of contradictory info about his involvement -- on the one hand, he was said to be the chief organizer of the rebellion, but on the other hand, it was also said (in fact, sometimes by the very same sources) that he tried to put a damper on the rebellion when it did take place.
(5) When exactly was Vakulinchuk shot, and by whom? There's considerable disagreement among the various sources about this. Are the official Soviet historians perhaps hiding something?
24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the answers are known. Records of things which happened in Tsarist times were not necessarily kept by the communists, and the full truth might not even have been known at the time. StuRat (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this as "we'll never know". 24.23.196.85 (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be in such a hurry to call it quits, on the basis of one editor's unreferenced opinion. I'm sure others will have valuable things to offer. -- Jack of Oz 03:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be your unreferenced opinion ? StuRat (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't need a reference to refer to another editor's unreferenced opinion. No need to be defensive, Stu. I was simply wanting to support the OP in waiting for some other answers before coming to conclusions. -- Jack of Oz 05:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You may try British newspapers archives of the time, the British were very invested in all things Russians at the time (and some claim still are) because of the vital trade routes past the Dardenelles (that Catherine the Great and a Russian John Paul Jones tried to take among other Russians) that could sever the Suez Canal and Indian, Australian and eastern empire treasures. Especially in that time the U.K. papers did have a lot more accurate information then even the Tsar. Good luck! _{⧐ Diamond Way} 09:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see if I can find anything. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What book is good for political philosophy graudauate study

I wonder if the book of Micheal Curtis "The Great Political Theories" is sufficient, I have the copy of the two volumes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 03:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're looking to get into graduate-level studies, you're probably best to get involved in the original works and direct commentaries of them, not on omnibus overview texts, which are usually introductory in nature. That is, you'll want to read the original works by Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, John Locke, Jeremy Bentham, Michel Foucault, etc. to name just a few. --Jayron32 04:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Joshua Atienza, I agree with Jayron32, as a Poltical Science major in my undergrad I have to wonder what undergrad preparation have you or the interested party your asking for done? I don't believe any social or humanity sciences are pre-reqs on all but most grad programs do require some. From my limited knowledge of graduate studies especially in the social sciences is that one would almost always drill down to something more specific than simply political philosophy. Perhaps its more me seeing how such a degree translates into the real world, not to say some grad schools would offer such a grad degree. So is there a particular era of poli phi, particular "school" or ideology that you are looking to drill down on? Also I will say--although you already may know--at the graduate level something such as this spills into economics (macro and micro), anthropology, cultural studies, even demographics and statistics so some overview texts on those topics would be at least required for any grad degree in poli phi. The specific texts on the specific subject covers everything from Plato, Cato, Machiavelli, Jefferson, Tzu (as in Sun) even Franklin and Twain, just for an undergrad there were completely different reading texts for the 4 requirements of political theory, international politics, local/regional politics and comparative politics and from my experience all 4 can get super specific kind of like a career for Mayor Daley in Chicago vs. a career at the White House vs. a career in the United Nations or NATO vs. a career interpreting ancient greek city states or how Marx compares to Hobbes etc. after 6 years of study the one aiming for the UN gets a very different last 2-3 years then the one aiming for being a county planning and zoning manager, even though both are integral to poli phi. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, 'Sun Tzu' is not a name of the form 'firstname surname'. 'Tzu' is an honorific meaning 'sage', as in Lao Tzu, Meng Tzu, and Kong Fu Tzu. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

For secondary sources, read Quentin Skinner, AGA Pocock, and Sheldon Wolin (be sure to pronounce this with a 'V').OldTimeNESter (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the anthology Arguing About Political Philosophy compiled by Matt Zwolinski from cover to cover and I found it quite good. Gabbe (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

United States Going To War And Then Backing Out

When has the United States of America seriously considered going to war (by war, I mean all-out-war, like the Vietnam War, not like the NATO intervention in Libya) but decided not to go to war in the end? Futurist110 (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Cuban missile crisis is a popular example of this. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you know of any other similar examples? Futurist110 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There was some serious discussion during the early 1990s, that the U.S. should have been more involved, militarily, in the Bosnian War, but the Gulf War had just concluded. During the 1990s, the U.S. global military strategy was dominated by what was called the Powell Doctrine, and Bosnia didn't represent the kind of conflict the U.S. had an interest in fighting under those terms. By the time the U.S. got involved in 1995, it was mainly some token NATO troops to enforce as cease-fire, and as a peace broker for an already played-out war (i.e. the Dayton Accords). There's been a lot of discussion over the U.S. and other powers failure to act in 1991 when a strong military action may have been able to prevent much of the genocide that occurred in the subsequent years. This paper alludes to many analyses of the U.S.'s failure to act, though it mainly discusses the final token intevention in 1995. This book may have some more information on the subject. --Jayron32 06:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayron. Any other examples? Futurist110 (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you'll find many. As informed by the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. until World War II (World War I notwithstanding) was took a stridently non-interventionist foreign policy. Pretty much prior to 1941 (except for when it was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the final phases of WWI) the U.S. wasn't much involved in foreign wars outside of the Western Hemisphere. It just didn't happen. See United States non-interventionism. After WWII, the U.S. did an about face on this, and became the "world's police force" involved several "all out wars" (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghan War, Iraq War), numerous minor military operations (Granada, Panama, Bay of Pigs) and many proxy wars with the soviets (Soviet-Afghan War, etc.). Other than those already noted, perhaps the Berlin Airlift represents a time when the U.S. may have been dragged open war with the Soviets. Maybe also the Somali Civil War as a place where the U.S. failed to become too involved, Operation Gothic Serpent was something of a Charlie-Foxtrot (Black Hawk Down and all), like Bosnia and Rwanda, is among the major ethnic civil wars that the World Powers have been criticized for doing nothing about. --Jayron32 07:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. fought in the Philippines between 1898 and 1913, and they were outside the Western Hemisphere. Also, wars and potential wars in the Western Hemisphere also count for the purposes of answering this question (thus I suppose you can add a war with Britain over that Venezuela-Guyana border dispute in 1895 to this list of potential wars, if the parties did not agree to resolve this border dispute by international arbitration). Futurist110 (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Philippine War was a continuation of the entanglement of the Spanish-American War which was mostly (except the Philippines) a Monroe Doctrine war., it wasn't so much a war of intervention as it was a war of independence by the Philippines themselves against their new overlords (the U.S.) who won the colony from their old overlords (Spain) as a result of the Spanish-American war. The U.S. wasn't going to war with Britain in 1895. Nothing like Cuba in 1962. --Jayron32 13:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think you mean "all-out war", as the US hasn't done that since WW2. StuRat (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Losing over 50,000 troops in the Vietnam War does not count as an all-out war in your view? Anyway, maybe I used the incorrect terminology. Futurist110 (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

But that was spread out over about a decade. That's something less than 1/1000th of a percent of the US population killed each year. StuRat (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It was only an all-out war for the Vietnamese. Uncle Sam was fighting with one arm tied behind his back, and the civilians back in the States were not mobilized into a wartime economy. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

They seriously spun the spin machine up on Iran but never did invade. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Were there ever any serious consideration of invading Iran? From what I know it all appeared to have been empty bluster and bluffing. Futurist110 (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you will have a lot of different answers to different degrees with a question as vague as that. Not a criticism I get what your trying to ask just with your last clarification, I remember news stories of Pentagon plans for Iran invasions but (and this is key) I didn't pay much mind to those because the Pentagon (as well as Langely) have plans to invade almost every nation, from my knowledge there are floors of personnel (analysts) who all day long just draw up contingencies for military or special op responses to all kinds of events in almost every nation. And here is the other reason some of these answers may be muddled prior to the 1940s or 1950s this was not the case, so bluster and bluffing was more the order of the day but without plans. So hard to draw a bright line exclusion or inclusion on a question like this.

One thing that pops into mind though is the War of 1812 we actually invaded Canada (memory tells me the Windsor area of Ontario) but the U.S. army commander decided to retreat after the Canadians spread rumors of a massive land force luring his men into a "trap" when in fact no British or militia force was mustered between him and Toronto and probably Ottawa and Montreal. If he had not listened to the rumors and turned away Canada would be our 51st state today--again this is from a memory of several readings of history. Though to talk of bluster I did see on CSPAN recently on their "contenders" series that Henry Clay during the war of 1812 declared that Canada should be invaded and that the Kentucky militia alone could take it!

I don't think your take on the war of 1812 matches any of the 4 sides interpretations. See our well-fought-over article: War of 1812. Rmhermen (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Another possible answer was aired several times this week on CSPAN book notes the name escapes me but the author wrote several military books and this one about generals not being held accountable and did mention that the 1991 Iraq War it is now known Saddam was shocked and surprised that "we offered him a cease fire" after destroying his force, and that his take was that we surrendered and he won that war in that we never invaded past southern Iraq. Perhaps asking Vietnam or the North Koreans or others may actually claim different histories than ones popularly held in the west. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "Were there ever any serious consideration of invading Iran? From what I know it all appeared to have been empty bluster and bluffing", to my eyes as someone who is able to observe and has a memory (I realize this puts me in the minority), I remember the same circus preceding the invasion of Iraq: namely, its circus "weapons of mass destruction". So, to me, the spin-up to Iraq was the same as the spin-up to Iran, and then was followed-through on, where-as the Iran spin machine got spun up but then abandoned. It would have surprised me 0.000% if Iran then was invaded the same as Iraq had been, following the exact same spin-up. But, again, the view that this is how America "seriously considers going to war" (by trumping up Iraq's WMD or Iran's nuclear danger to fever-pitch) is just my view. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It may not be safe to refer to threatened U.S. invasion(s) of Iran in the past tense. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right. And if it did happen, it could not possibly happen in the next two or three weeks. Instead it would be preceded by a spinning up period of spinning up the spin. This is not happening at the moment (so we know America is not about to invade Iran in the next couple of weeks) but did in the past and, were there to be a war, would precede a war in the future. This is just the MO, not really a value statement or anything. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Technically, we did invade Iran once, in an attempt to get our hostages back, in a move which worked out about as well for Jimmy Carter as the Bay of Pigs invasion did for JFK. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Quasi-War might meet your criteria, as might the US interventions in the Russian Civil War, the American Expeditionary Force Siberia and the Polar Bear Expedition. Marco polo (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

First Taiwan Strait Crisis, Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Add: General MacArthur was determined to cross the Yalu River into China during the Korean War, and General Patton dearly wanted to see Moscow, ca. 1945. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a bizarre question because first of all it has a nice slant to it (the u.s. is so warlike... when have they not gone to war...). Secondly it's a really ambiguous threshold about when they were "about" to go to war and then didn't. Perhaps a country that does a lot of saber rattling (Iran and North Korea come to mind) but then backs down (probably because they're either completely wrong in the eyes of the world community, or can't possibly come out ahead) would seem almost sympathetic given this prompt.

The answers here seem fine given how... frankly dumb... this question is. I think the better question is are there situations in which country X would have gone to war but country Y didn't, given similar circumstances. Still a cause for rampant speculation, but maybe more interesting... It'd be nice if the reference desk also occasionally included the one off reference, but I don't hold my breath for that. Shadowjams (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dhanyawadi state

Hello, in 325 BC, did Dhanyawadi state have a script? Greetings HeliosX (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If there was one, it was probably Brahmi or Kharosthi (or a slight variant)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Author of phrase?

Who wrote the phrase, "Mercy comes down like gentle rain but stupidity falls like fucking rocks"?170.154.182.202 (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The first part is a paraphrase of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, Act 4 Scene 1, where Portia says "The quality of mercy is not strain'd,/It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven." On page 18 of Private Heat: an Art Hardin Mystery, by Robert E. Bailey, the narrator says "The voice of Sergeant Ochoa, my old ranger instructor, whispered to me from the dark recesses of my memory, 'Mercy may fall like gentle rain, but stupidity comes down in great-big-fucking chunks.'" --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Feminism question

I've seen it argued that since the 1970s, a lot of girls and women have viewed traditionally feminine things and the concept of the "girly-girl" as weakness and an impediment to sexual equality. Is this accurate? Paul Austin (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

For one extended discussion, you can look in the book "Femininity" by Susan Brownmiller... AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Where have you seen this, and which particular country are you talking about? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Women don't have to identify as feminists to reject stereotyped or over-the-top feminity.. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the original, rather strident version of feminism, where they wanted to dress and look like men, reject marriage and children, etc., has largely given way to a more subtle form. I think this newer form was summed up nicely by the lyrics from Peggy Lee's I'm a Woman: (although perhaps the lyrics from the commercial based on this song are even better: "I can bring home the bacon, then fry it up in a pan", where "bring home the bacon" means she has a job). That is, many modern feminists no longer feel it necessary to reject their traditional roles when taking on new roles.

So, to get back to your Q, under the original form, yes, "feminine" was the opposite of "feminism". However, this is no longer true. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

See also the different "waves" of feminism: First-wave_feminism, Second-wave_feminism, and Third-wave_feminism. OldTimeNESter (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In this context, my answer was comparing the 2nd wave with the 3rd (I don't call the 1st wave "feminism", I call it "women's suffrage" and the "women's temperance movement"). StuRat (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

They called it feminism at the time. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've always found the numbered "wave" thing to be completely confusing, because in my own mind feminism in the United States is mainly concentrated into three periods (the earliest period in the mid-19th century, ca. 1848-1870, when it was often associated with abolitionism; the struggle to gain the vote towards the end of the 19th century and during the first two decades of the 20th century; and the modern period beginning in the 1960s) -- but those who devised the "wave" terminology apparently had something completely different in mind. AnonMoos (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Houghton Hall, Norfolk, UK

How did Houghton Hall, Norfolk UK get it's name ? Deanne Houghton Shorb at <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.229.19 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Our Houghton Hall article doesn't seem to say. The most obvious answer is that this was the name of one of the owners, but I can't confirm this. StuRat (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's in the parish of Houghton, Norfolk, one of several with the same name in that county. If I've got the right one, it was listed as Houtuna in the Domesday Book of 1086. Alansplodge (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A bit more detail; apparently the old village of Houghton was demolished to make way for the Hall. In 1729, the village was rebuilt in a more convenient place and called "New Houghton". The name comes from the Old English language, hoh (hill-spur) plus tun (enclosure, settlement or farm); so "farm on the hill-spur". See Samuel Lewis, A Popular Guide to Norfolk Place Names. There are a great many places called Houghton in England, A Topographical Dictionary of England: Volume 2 lists 26 of them. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed your email address for your protection. Rojomoke (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Good job - I missed that. Alansplodge (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now updated the rather sparse Houghton, Norfolk article and put a link to it in the lede of Houghton Hall. Alansplodge (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

House numbering in Britain

In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, chapter 12 opens with an explanation as to how the Muggles had "come to accept the amusing mistake that had caused number eleven to sit beside number thirteen." Wouldn't evens and odds be across the street from each other, so that 11 is always adjacent to 13 and 12 would be on the other side, or is that a modern thing, or perhaps an American thing? DRosenbach 22:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an article on that. See House numbering#United Kingdom. In the UK, house numbering often proceeds sequentially down one side of the street, to the extreme end, then returns in the opposite direction, AKA Boustrophedon-style. So neighboring houses have directly sequential numbers (i.e. 11 is between 10 and 12). This occurs in areas where the numbering occurred prior to the 19th century. More modern numbering schemes (with odds on one side and evens on the other) resemble that commonly found in the U.S. However, the setting of Harry Potter, being a well-established part of London, appears to use the older boustrophedon numbering scheme. --Jayron32 22:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have said that the odds one side and evens the other is far more common in the UK, and that consecutive numbering is a more recent thing. MilborneOne (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think I've ever seen a street in London that is numbered in the way that Jayron suggests. Certainly my 1890s terraced house is on the odd numbered side of the street. I would expect 11 to be next to 13. However, Privet Drive is supposed to be on a new-ish housing estate in Surrey, so who knows? Alansplodge (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There are some smart streets in central London with the boustrophedon method. Holborn area for example. But I agree with Alan, not 1890s terraces, not 1870s terraces. Not 1930s semis, either. 1980s private estate, maybe. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it in cul-de-sacs and squares in various British cities, and very occasionally in larger thoroughfares. OR here, but I think that in those cases, it's been streets with long histories. I wouldn't mind some background on what Grimmauld Place is. --Dweller (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A Victorian or Georgian terrace, in a style very typical for central London, in Islington. . I would expect this to have the usual British 1/3/5 opposite 2/4/6 unless the house is on a square or garden crescent (where there aren't houses on the "opposite" side). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

But given that Rowling has shown herself to be a smart and very meticulous writer, she knew what she was doing when she wrote the section in question. So we can surmise that she meant some posh place where the houses are arranged without an opposite. A good example is Moray Place in Edinburgh (I mention Edinburgh in particular because that's where Rowling lived when she was writing the books). I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that, when thinking of that house, she was thinking of somewhere like that, Athol Crescent, Rothsay Terrace or the like. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

She would never mistake King's Cross for Euston. -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

...or place a non-existent platform between tracks 9 and 10, which are actually adjacent. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Using Google Street View, I have found both numbering systems at use throughout London. Argyle Street, in Kings Cross, uses alternate side of street (odds on one side and even on other), easily confirmable by house numbers on both sides. However, Dartmouth Street in St James Park area uses Boustrophedon-style numbering; on the left side of the road going north the numbers go 18 -> 17, while down the road a bit on the right 21 is next door to 20. However, other streets in the same neighborhood seem to use conventional numbering, for example Old Queen Street, a continuation of Dartmouth Street, uses the odd-even convention. The same hodgepodge exists elsewhere: Pall Mall is numbered Boustrophedon-style, nearby St. James Street is odds and evens. So, there doesn't appear to be much of a system in London. I have no doubt that in most of the city the standard odds-even convention is more commonplace, but the boustrophedon numbering is common enough that I could find examples randomly wandering around various well-known parts of the city with Google Street View. --Jayron32 02:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I grew up on a fairly new housing estate where the numbering was all consecutive. When I was 12 I moved to the family's current semi-detached house, where opposite us where 2 and 4 and we are 3 with our neighbours as 5, which I thought was odd (if you pardon the pun), so both systems are in use here in the UK. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever accused the British of being systematic. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Somebody once had an idea to number the houses in feet from the end of the road, so No. 1250 would be 1250 feet from the start of the road. It was to help postman and the like, I dont think the idea caught on! MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't know about in the UK, but it's extremely common here in the USA, especially in rural areas where you have big gaps between houses. For example, the county where I grew up has determined which roads are the east/west and north/south meridians; if you live outside of a city or village, your house number reflects how far you are in miles (e.g. house 3055 is 3.055 miles away) from the meridian for that direction. It's the dominant scheme in Indiana, and reflected in the road numbering too; someone who lives at 3055E500N lives 3.055 miles east of the line dividing east and west, and his road runs parallel to the north/south line and is five miles north of it. Nyttend (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I grew up in Albury, NSW, in a house numbered 682, in a street that had only about 40-50 houses. The reason is that they divided the city into 4 zones, each zone had its own range of numbers, and our zone used the range 600-799. Not sure what purpose this system ever had. Taxi drivers and postal deliverers would know a street by its name, not by whatever numbers the houses in it were allocated. But I'm sure the city fathers had some reason. -- Jack of Oz 19:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Our entire neighborhood has houses numbered sequentially from the single entrance into the neighborhood. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are side by side, then you turn a corner at our house, and 7, 8, 9, etc. are numbered on the same side of the street all the way down. We're across the street from 7, and we're several numbers higher than that. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Both the OP and everyone who has answered has missed the point on this. The numbering system on UK streets is irrelevent. It's not that number 12 is across the road; there is no number 12. Number 12 is invisible to Muggles (as the Black family house and headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix.86.145.219.38 (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

We understand; the question asks why Muggles would expect to find #12 between #11 and #13, rather than between #10 and #14. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But Grimmauld place is a square, not a street! On a square, there is not opposite side for the odd numbers, you would expect the numbers to be consecutive, going all the way around the square, wouldn't you? --Lgriot (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Places in Harry Potter calls it a street, and all appearances of "square" apply to other places. In what chapter is it called a square? I vaguely remember reading about the observers standing in the street and have no memory of reading that it was a square. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry, I think I was confused by the movie. You very well could be right, I'll have a look at the book later today at home. --Lgriot (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have checked the book and it is definitely a small square, it says so twice on the last page of chapter 3 of the order of the Phoenix. That is page 57 of the British edition. I knew I wasn't mad! So the most common numbering system for squares is that numbers are continuous, which is why 12 should be between 11 and 13, not on the other side. page 2 of chapter 4 repeats that it is a square. And chapter 12 of the deathly hallows indicates that there is a patch of grass in the middle. That is frequent on London squares, but very infrequent for London street, JKR is consistent. --Lgriot (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great -- thanks a lot! DRosenbach 23:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

January 4

French Revolutionaries

Similar to the American Revolutionary terms "Patriot, Whig, etc., what were the French Revolutionaries called (perhaps naming themselves or being named by the Monarchists)? Thanks! 174.93.61.139 (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sans-culottes, Jacobins, Montagnards, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To the amusement of generations of schoolboys Sans-culottes literally translates as "without underpants" (it really means "without fine breeches"). See also our articles Jacobin and Montagnard. Alansplodge (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern translation could be "lacking capri pants". What I found most amusing is that the extra and most solemn days in the French Revolutionary calendar were named the "Sansculottides" (or "Pantsless days" to semi-mistranslate )... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

...taking "Casual Friday" to a whole new — though not necessarily higher — level. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A more complete list can be found in Category:Groups of the French Revolution. The Girondins would be enragéd to be omitted. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How do Encyclopædia Britannica verify their contents?

Do they have a system similar to that of Misplaced Pages?--Inspector (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Their first line of defense is that they hire knowledgeable people to write the articles. I'm sure that they have guidelines and residual safeguards, but the elaborate Misplaced Pages dispute resolution mechanisms etc. would be needless... AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And they also need to have people who know what are the "knowledgeable people" in all kinds of sbujects from dung beetle to skyscrapers?--Inspector (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

They have some of their own problems, but they do not have most of Misplaced Pages's particular problems which arise from the "anyone-can-edit" nature of this site. Is that so hard to understand? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Read Encyclopedia Britannica#Personnel and management. Come back if you have any questions regarding what is written there. Please carefully note the specific date of the criticism noted in that section, and the specific names of some of the contributors of Britannica articles in the most recent print edition. --Jayron32 01:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Having worked as an editor for Britannica, I would add that editors are chosen in part for their academic background and are assigned to cover subject areas related to that background. Furthermore, any writing by editors is subject to review by senior editors, who may ask editors to list sources. Nothing gets into Britannica without fairly thorough review, though of course errors still find their way in. Marco polo (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

When I was in Hungary, I saw something odd. 'Encyclopedia Britannica' means 'British Encyclopedia', but the Hungarian version was called 'Britannica Hungarica' which just means 'British Hungarian'. I assume they take 'Britannica' as the brand name, as it is very often referred to as that in English. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Drat those Hungarian Phrase Books. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So does that mean some specific subjects (such as dung beetle) would be written less specifically?--Inspector (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Britannica probably also has a much narrower scope. I doubt very much that they have articles about every episode of Star Trek or lengthy discussions of porn stars. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, back in 2001 when she was just making her debut in the entertainment world, I recall Britannica's editor-in-chief citing Britney Spears as an example of the sort of person who was not worthy of a Britannica article. In other words, they set the bar for notability much higher. I notice that they now do have an article on her. I'm not sure when she crossed the threshold. Marco polo (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Or when they lowered the bar.  :) -- Jack of Oz 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

When Honey Boo-Boo shows up, you can figure they've rubbishized the proverbial bar. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Secular Humanism and Communism

What is the difference between secular humanism and communism? Republicanism (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read our articles on the subjects? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

One of them is not a political philosophy... AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

...nor is it necessarily an economic philosophy. --99.227.0.168 (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Communism and Socialism

What is the difference between communism and socialism?

Republicanism (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read our articles on the subjects? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

While both are '-isms', one is based on the community, and the other on society. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the speaker. In formal discourse, communism often is an economical system where (all) property is held "in common", while socialism is an economic system where the means of production are owned by society (usually represented by the state). In US political parlance, both essentially mean "anything I dont like to the left of me". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As Frank Zappa once said, "Communism doesn't work, because people like to own stuff." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Communism refers to classless and stateless social order. Socialism is not necessarily stateless.
2. In a communist society, the medium of exchange called money is abolished. In socialism, money may not be abolished. --PlanetEditor (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Socialism does not necessarily mean an economic system where all the means of production are owned by society, or even a large fraction. See the Socialist International for a list of parties that consider themselves socialist. As far as I know (and I only know about a small minority of the parties on that list), they are social democratic parties that advocate for what's more commonly known as the welfare state. Ideally, the economic system should be predominantly capitalist, but have high tax rates, lots of regulations, high welfare payments, good workers' rights, and good public service. --99.227.0.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, there are no absolute definitions of any of these terms. Both 'socialism' and 'communism' can refer to political ideologies as well as a certain type of society. The definitions of the term changes over time and place. Generally speaking, communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists. The modern communist movement emerged out of a split in the socialist movement at the time of World War I, when those who accepted far-reaching compromises with the capitalist order would retain the identity of Social Democrats (reformist socialism) and those who opted for reaffirming their internationalist commitment (Lenin and others) would chose to identify themselves as communists. --Soman (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

God and the Devil

Are God and the Devil opposites?

Republicanism (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That would depend on your religion. In some, yes, while in others they are two manifestations of the same god. StuRat (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, they are at odds, but not opposite. For one, their ability is not equal. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Republicanism -- Positing good and evil divinities as equal and opposite is what is known as "dualism" or "Manicheanism". It has been followed in certain variants or offshoots of Zoroastrianism, but has been rejected in the accepted mainstream interpretations of the "Abrahamic" religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a good, clear, answer. 86.129.14.69 (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Within the realm of the Abrahamic religions, God is all-powerful and cannot be defeated by anything, least of all his own creations - which include Satan. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but this leaves the problem of evil. That is, if God is all-powerful, then he could defeat the Devil. Thus, if he let's the Devil continue to exist, then God is himself partially evil for permitting this. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And He will, eventually, if you buy in to the book of Revelation. As to whether God is evil or not, I'll defer to Woody Allen in Love and Death: "I don't think God is evil. I think the worst you can say about Him is that He's an underachiever." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with the quote, but yes He will eventually destroy Satan. He delays because He requires the world to know both sin and the Love of God, for the world to know that sin is destructive, and that the Love of God is desireble. How do you know that you want light, when you've never been in darkness. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do hard core Christians use such weird language? HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason doctors say "acute in age" instead of "sharp and early". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bible uses a lot of metaphores and parables. It is an effective style, conveying an accurate understanding. Why reinvent the wheel? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Who says it's effective? And it's quite the opposite of accurate. By talking about anything but the precise topic at hand, it allows for multiple and extremely diverse interpretations, one of Christianity's biggest problems because it allows every bigot out there to say it endorses his position. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That issue is by no means limited to Christians. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So very true. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Only interpretations that are internally in harmony everywhere within Scripture are correct. If a snowflake represents 'cold' in one place, it cannot represent 'heat' in another, unless it is specifically stated to represent heat in the other place. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And there you go again. We're not talking about snowflakes. You've gone right off-topic now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

See below. Plasmic Physics has yet again confused trying to help people with trying to proselytise them, and is essentially lying and misleading them as a result. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Was it not you who posted "Why do hard core Christians use such weird language?" That is what I answered. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Your answer was in the form of unclear language, which is useless. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You can indicate which part was unclear? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

God is a creator and Devil is God's creation. But it's not science it's a belief. roscoe_x (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important to make the distinction: God created Lucifer, Lucifer chose to become Satan/Devil. He was not always asociated with evil. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read up on predestination and determinism. There's conflicting doctrine as to whether Satan had a choice in the matter. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to the theories of predestination and determinism. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Same social class or different?

If a lower middle-class family lives in an upper middle-class suburban neighborhood based on land and assets inheritance from the former generation, would this lower middle-class family count as "lower middle-class" or "upper middle-class"? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean, "count"? People don't get membership cards. Or if they do, mine must have gotten lost in the mail. --Trovatore (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your question is circular. Class is an arbitrary distinction at best, subject to whatever definition you happen to be using. You submit the presupposition that the family is "lower middle-class" by the definition you are using so they would be considered "lower middle-class"... 72.128.82.131 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Let me make this clearer. If a family makes money that would be typical of a lower middle-class family but lives in a neighborhood with members who earn money that is significantly higher and have higher education, then would this family be considered a part of the upper class simply by living in an upper middle class neighborhood? Another scenario would a group of teens who earn a part-time salary that would be comparable to someone working full-time burger-flipping; however, this group of teens are still dependent on their affluent parents' income and may use their own income as spending money. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This rather depends on where you live. In the US, social class is almost exclusively determined by your wealth/income, while in Europe, there are other factors that go into class, like family name, titles, relationship to royalty, etc. StuRat (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. In America, we like to pretend that a) social class is purely a function of cash-on-hand and income and b) that anyone could enter any class with enough hard work and gumption. Neither is particularly true. The U.S. regularly ranks well below many other western democracies in terms of socio-economic mobility (i.e. in other countries it is easier to move up in social and economic class than the U.S.) and the U.S. has class distinctions that aren't necessarily economic. Concepts like the Nouveau riche and Old money make it clear that you don't get on the Social Register just because you hit the lottery. Social class in the United States is a pretty good read. --Jayron32 04:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, nobody would ever mistake Donald Trump for somebody with class. StuRat (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the "class" you're talking about is more a marketing concept than a political one. No doubt one more versed in dialectical materialism will be along to clear it up, but if you have to work for a living you're working class: if you employ people to work for you you're middle class (but only if you don't work yourself): if you have a title you inherited you're upper class. They're basic distinctions, but work quite well. Or, if you're not a member of the 1%, you're a member of the 99%. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any country or society in the world which uses your definitions, Tammy? Because I can't think of one. It sounds like a handy system for some society that I've never met, but it doesn't describe how any class system I've met actually works. 86.129.14.69 (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Tammy has described the traditional conception of class in England. I don't know whether that conception still holds true in England; I had thought that, for example, bankers who work in the City of London for their £2 million annual salary would be considered middle class even though they work for a living. In fact, I thought that a wide range of highly educated and/or compensated professionals and managers were considered middle class in England despite working for a living, but I am not English and could be wrong. Tammy's description would never have been accurate for the United States, where the archetype of a member of the middle class was the small family farmer who owned his own farm and therefore operated a small business. In the United States, skilled manual workers with incomes sufficient to afford home ownership are also typically considered middle class (though usually lower middle class). What is described in England as middle class roughly equates to "upper middle class" in the United States.

But to answer the original question, I don't think place of residence is usually a decisive factor in assigning a person to a class. So if a household's level of education and income put them in the lower middle class, it doesn't matter that their neighbors are upper middle class. Marco polo (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as an erstwhile "professional" myself, it seems to me that we like to consider ourselves as belonging to a higher class than we actually are. Many accountants, stockbrokers, doctors and teachers like to consider themselves as being "middle class" but, if you have to work for a living, you are a wage slave and therefore working class. Only if you don't have to work for a living are you of any class except working class. (I'm taking the viewpoint there of, for example, CPGB amongst others.) --TammyMoet (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Accountants, doctors, and teachers all can have assistants working for them. Their assistants, I think, would be working class, but the white-collar grad-school graduates themselves would be middle class. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised nobody has mentioned Paul Fussel's wonderful Class: A Guide Through the American Status System. -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Some observations from Britain:

• Having your own employees is certainly not an essential factor of being middle-class.
• Having your own staff, that you manage but do not employ yourself, is much commoner among the middle classes, but not universal or definitive.
• Being middle class is not defined by any one thing, but rather by a number of factors. I don't want to assign points or rankings to each of the following, but to be middle class, you'd generally need more than one of them: a grammar-school or private-school education; a member of your household who is in, or who reasonably expects to be promoted into, a managerial position in a white-collar job; the freehold or long lease of a property with at least three bedrooms, with or without mortgage; a motor-car or an annual railway season ticket; a degree from a university founded before 1980; a single-honours degree; a large enough disposable income that you could, if you wished, spend a week or more each year at a hotel in a country other than your own.
• Being upper class precludes being middle-class, so if any of the following apply to you, you may not be middle-class any more: a public school (eg top fee-paying school) education; not needing a good degree because your career comes from family connections; owning a business employing more than 20 people; owning a house of five or more bedrooms, or three or more reception rooms, outright; having an hereditary title or life peerage; being the head of, or on the board of, a central government body; being able to take a month's foreign holiday, or more than two weeks' active holiday (skiing, diving, etc); owning more cars than there are people in your household who can drive; not using a railway season ticket because you can always afford to pay on the day.
• The American definition of 'middle class' seems to be broader on both sides than the British: people who run small businesses would not necessarily be middle-class in the UK, because they could be working-class. Conversely, people who make the equivalent of a quarter of a million dollars a year (which President Obama seems to think are well within the middle class) would probably be upper class here. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As a fellow Brit, I'm very surprised at your criteria for being upper class. To me, 'upper class' means that you (or a close relative) have a title, or are in line to inherit one. Having a lot of money or a big house only gets you as far as upper middle class. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't meet all your criteria for middle class but hooray, I meet criteria for upper class! It's complicated. I like Tammy's criteria, with the stipulation that if you earn a salary but your income from stock options, investments and other non-earned sources is greater than your salary or could be, then you are out of the broadly defined proletariat. But let's not focus on these divisions. The 1% know who they are. The rest of us whether we are middle class, working class or the non-class of non-workers (Andre Gorz, q.v., have nothing to lose but our chains, and a world to win. A world to save, too. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And of course there are different methods for determining class. Taking myself as an example, from a Marxian perspective I am clearly working class because I depend almost entirely on my own labor for my livelihood and do not own my means of production. In conventional American terms, which define class by income and social status, however, based on my income and education, I am upper middle class (though maybe just barely in terms of income). Marco polo (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

One more observation: In the United States, at least, I think that the line between middle and upper class varies regionally somewhat, and this has a lot to do with the wide variations in property values. In parts of California and the Northeast, you really need a household income of $80,000 or more a year to afford a house with three bedrooms. In these areas, that kind of household income is unremarkable and modestly middle class. (Three bedrooms are not very many from an American perspective.) In these areas, I think a household with an income of $250,000 would, as Obama suggests, be considered upper middle class. Doctors or lawyers have that kind of income in these areas, where average salaries are considerably higher than some other parts of the United States. However, in other parts of the United States, such as parts of the South and the Midwest, a household income of $250,000 would put you in the top 1% of households in your region, and you would probably be perceived as upper class. Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

All the Heinrichs in the Reuss family

Did the male members of the House of Reuss refer to their father, brothers, uncles, male cousins, children and etc by Heinrich follow by their numerals or were pet names used like in the Russian Imperial family? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

House of Schwarzburg

Beside the House of Schwarzburg, what other German noble family praticed the same system of ordinal as the House of Reuss in which all males are numbered by order of birth? Also what is the reason for this system of numbering? The House of Reuss call all their sons Heinrich to commerate Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor but why does the House of Schwarzburg number their Heinrich and Gunther regardless of who reign or not.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Name for that effect: personality test alredy biased by the person's self-assessment?

Is there a name for the effect that a person taking a personality test is already biased by her own self-assessment, and thus chooses her answers by thinking which one might best fit her self-assessed personality? So a completely "impartial" test would need to have only "inconspicuous" questions that give not hint about to which "solution" they would be added? (like "What's your favorite colour?")
I was wondering about this while looking at this test about narcissism, whose answers already clearly indicate to which personality type they belong... -- megA (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It only has one question: "Are you a narcissist ?" :-) StuRat (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

...repeated over and over again, yes. This is something like a psychological Heisenberg uncertainty principle: the test changes the test subject... -- megA (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"I took a test to see which Star Trek character I am ... I only had to take the test 4 times to get Kirk." - The Big Bang Theory - StuRat (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the name for it, but it's the same as some "researchers" on the payroll of one side or another on some issue, who then manipulate the data to reach whichever conclusion they have been paid to reach. StuRat (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Origins of the spoiler warning

Since this is a question about spoiler warnings, I could ask this at the Entertainment reference desk, but I would want to have more relevant answers. Basically, I'm surprised how the origins of the spoiler warning, one of the most ubiquitous contributions of the Internet, are rather obscure. From my readings on the topic, as well as my previous questions here on spoiler warnings, I know that the term "spoiler" in its current sense was more or less coined by the National Lampoon magazine, but it appears that the exact origins of the spoiler warning (in its modern/internet sense) are a mystery. It is known that it was popularized by Usenet, but it appears that the exact time period it was popularized, as well as the first use of the concept, are unknown. But why? With a concept that is practically a major part of internet etiquette, I'm surprised that there are relatively few articles online about the spoiler warning itself rather than articles using it. I know that the concept of not spoiling plots is as old as media itself, but the spoiler warning itself is a modern invention; in fact, according to my question last month, spoiler warnings appear to be uncommon outside of English media. So my question is: why are its origins obscure? Many memes have traceable origins, as well as other internet quirks, so why not the spoiler warning, knowing how extremely common it is? Narutolovehinata5 11:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Putting google books to work, National Lampoon may claim an early usage in 1971, but here's a clear use of the exact phrase with the current meaning apparently 11 years earlier: Chemistry & Atomic Structure (1960).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to submit that to the OED - they've currently got nothing earlier than the National Lampoon usage, and they always welcome antedatings. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. Searching for a different phrase from that same snippet suggests the 1960 date is likely wrong (I wondered what it had to do with Chemistry and Atomic Structure!) and it's actually from 1985. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So I guess that National Lampoon article really did coin that term. Ironically, the Lampoon article in question did not have a spoiler warning. Narutolovehinata5 15:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like they came up with a word to cover a long-standing practice - namely, that discussions of plotlines seldom gave away the endings, except for long-established literature. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

People are always coming up with new words to cover long-standing practices. "Spoiler warning" has earned its place, but verbs like "to transition" and "to workshop" are still worthless rubbish. -- Jack of Oz 19:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To reject or discard something could be to "rubbishize" it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Jack should read the article Productivity (linguistics) and come back with any questions he has. --Jayron32 23:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We have no questions. We just like making pontifical statements and issuing ex cathedra diktats. You may kiss our ring before you leave us to our further meditations.  :) -- Jack of Oz 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversion (linguistics) is also worthwhile, as it includes the practice of 'verbing': the conversion of a noun (or adjective) into a verb. In the immortal worlds of Calvin and Hobbes, "Verbing weirds language." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche quote

Nietzsche said, "The earth has a skin, and this skin has diseases. One of those diseases is called “man." What did he mean by this statement? Is it from antihumanist and nihilist point of view? --PlanetEditor (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of James Lovelock's Gaia theory. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Or V'ger talking about "carbon-based organisms infesting Enterprise". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis discusses it in The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength... AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the views of Nietzsche on nihilism was more complicated (some would say muddled) than what can be surmised from just one of his sayings. According to Nihilism#Nietzsche, his nihilism seems to have had various meanings, perhaps according to how the mood struck him? --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As Saddhiyama notes, Nietzsche might mean different things depending on the point he is trying to make in context. This quote comes from the chapter of Also Sprach Zarathustra entitled "Great Events." ("'Freedom' you all roar most eagerly: but I have unlearned the belief in 'great events,' when there is much roaring and smoke about them. And believe me, friend Hullabaloo! The greatest events- are not our noisiest, but our still hours. Not around the inventors of new noise, but around the inventors of new values, does the world revolve; inaudibly it revolves.") This particular text is the one that is most intensely Nietzsche being Nietzsche - the work is written and structured the way a scripture or religious text would be, full of metaphor and shaded meanings that require a ludicrous amount of time and effort to fully unpack. So, to the quote in question: despite the immediate face value of the words, I doubt whether Nietzsche is writing this from a similar attitude to Agent Smith ("Human beings are a disease, and we are the cure," cf. V'ger quote given by Bugs above). Rather, this is most likely a hyperbolic way of saying that contrary to almost all human mythology, the world was not created on our behalf, for our benefit, for us to live in and exploit as the darlings of creation. In this context it is one of several statements pointing to Zarathustra's (and Nietzsche's) central thesis that, in a badly oversimplified nutshell, all values must be torn down and replaced with new ones if people are to evolve/grow/realize their potential/become more & better than human. Compare some lines later: "Church?" answered I, "that is a kind of state, and indeed the most mendacious. ...For it seeks by all means to be the most important creature on earth, the state; and people think it so." ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The fire-dog said it, according to Nietzsche's Nachlass (see here). Karl Jaspers explains it here. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

N. was an inveterate punster - everything he said shouldn't be taken literally. From Duncan Large's introduction to the Oxford edition of Twilight of the Idols (ISBN 0192831380): "the exuberance and inventiveness of Nietzsche's philosophical mind are matched by a penchant for puns, parodies, neologisms, and other linguistic play." That can cause problems for a reader forced to rely on a translation. Read the translator's notes. Zoonoses (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

January 5

Hair and grooming in historical Venice, Italy

I need references to how people of historical Venice (very broad, C17 to C18) referred to hair and grooming - did the popolani go to hairdressers? Was makeup done by servants? Was there a special servant/maid? Was there a guild of hair and beauty craftspeople?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Maurice Andrieux's Daily life in Venice in the time of Casanova (ISBN 0049450107) may be a place to start. Zoonoses (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Venice specifically, but in much of Europe during most of the 18th century, middle-class and upper-class people (and even some servants) wore powdered wigs. AnonMoos (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, both; Casanova sometimes talks about 'wearing his own hair' in his texts on Gutenberg. Was there a barbers' guild in Venice, does anyone know? Adambrowne666 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember reading that, at the time wigs were widely worn, the term for someone who looked after them was "parrucchiere" which is Italian in origin. So maybe searching for that word will help. I have done this myself and haven't found anything in the UK, and if I just do a generic websearch I just get Italian pages (which I can't read). Just thought the term might help. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tammy - probably related to Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Did Figaro cut hair, or only shave beards? --ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Relation between William Perry and Matthew C. Perry

Is William Perry related to Matthew C. Perry? Google got me nothing so far. Someone online claims they are related so I'm trying to do a little myth-busting here. Dncsky (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you knew who his parents were, I might be able to find them on ancestry.com. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a direct or close relationship. I traced William Perry's line in Ancestry.com back to the Revolutionary War era. Around the time of the Revolutionary War, his family moved from Delaware, where they lived in the 18th century, into the southeastern corner of Pennsylvania, near the Maryland and Delaware state lines. During the 19th century, his ancestors gradually migrated west to western Pennsylvania, where William Perry was born. By contrast, Matthew C. Perry was born in Rhode Island, as was his father. There was not a lot of migration in colonial between New England and Delaware. If there is a relationship, it is probably a remote one involving common ancestors in early modern or medieval England or Wales. Marco polo (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much!Dncsky (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Classical vs. medieval armies

Before the development of firearms, were medieval era European armies actually any superior technology-wise vis-à-vis classical era European armies? For example, suppose 11th-century medieval armies battled 1st-century Roman armies of equal size, with equally skilled commanders on both sides. Would the medieval armies actually win more battles because of superior military technology, or was the technology still close enough that the two sides would more or less split the battles? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 07:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It might have been fairly close in terms of fighting out in the open (with the medieval army a bit ahead on technology and tactics and the Romans a bit ahead on discipline), but medieval fortifications seemed superior to Roman-era equivalents. So, the medieval army might fare better against a siege by Roman soldiers than vice-versa, especially if the medieval soldiers attacked the Roman fortification with a trebuchet. StuRat (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Great Stirrup Controversy is relevant.

For a very long time, Roman infantry did not make use of pikes; but later European armies used them extensively. This wasn't because the technology was unknown to the Romans, though.

It would be interesting to know whether the technology for manufacturing weapons would make a significant difference, but Ferrous metallurgy doesn't provide many answers. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably medieval cavalry would have been superior to Roman (especially Roman cavalry of the pre-cataphract era), but the discipline and esprit of Roman infantry would have often far exceeded that of medieval infantry (which in many cases was made up of awkward peasant levies, or mercenaries who could be quick to change sides if their side wasn't winning)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Roman army didn't have anything as good as the English longbow or the crossbow, although their big shield walls and plate armour would have been a reasonably effective defence. Alansplodge (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Romans had crossbows. There's some problems with the yew for longbows at higher temperatures than normal in England. Dmcq (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, although a quick Google suggests that it wasn't a major weapon in their inventory, but nobody knows for sure. As for yew wood " Interestingly English yew was not considered suitable to make bows and the staves were imported, largely from Italy and Spain." Our Longbow article states that versions were made from " cheaper hard woods, including elm, oak, ash, hazel and maple". Alansplodge (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I was meaning that I read somewhere that yew longbows were particularly sensitive to temperature and were nowhere near so effective even in the south of France during the Summer, and this is why composite bows were generally more popular despite the problems making them. Dmcq (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that Roman armies (at their best, i.e. after the Marian reforms - let's say Cesar's legions) were not only good at disciplined fighting, but also extremely strong in logistics and field fortifications. And they usually had the equivalent of field artillery attached or embedded - Ballistae, Scorpios and Onagers. For ranged skirmish weapons, Balearic slingers are nothing to ignore easily. Of course, one of the major reasons for Roman successes was the economic power, based on a large population. Consider Hannibal, Spartacus, or Mithridates - in all cases, the Romans lost several major battles, but would not go down, and just keep raising yet another army. So comparing equal-sized armies is only half the truth. Finally, to go back to reliable sources, GURPS Imperial Rome gives a 6000 man legion (of Cesar or Augustus) a Troop Strength of 37000, and a 2000 man dark ages cataphract army a TS of 10000. Since RPGs never are wrong, the Legion is stronger man for man even compared to an early medieval all-cavalry elite force. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Once King Abdullah dies, can a young Prince become King?

I mean, a 19 or 20 year old, and I mean Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Excuse English spelling mistakes, not my native language. Thank you. Kyxx (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia is Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, announced in June 2012 who has just turned 78 years old (if I've done the maths correctly). The throne would seem to pass to the King's many brothers, see Succession to the Saudi Arabian throne. In western monarchies, a king or queen can accede to the throne as an infant, although an adult regent (or a council of regents) is appointed to make any constitutional decisions on their behalf, until they are legally adult (18 in the UK). The most recent example that I can think of is Peter II of Yugoslavia, who came to the throne at 11 years-old in 1934. However, it seems as though an awful lot of princes would have to die before this happened in Saudi Arabia. Alansplodge (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Another example is Mswati III of Swaziland, who became King at the age of 14, while he was a pupil at Sherborne School in England. He had a number of regents. Alansplodge (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Salman, who is not young, is next in line. Salman has a number of (half-) brothers who are five or more years younger than him but all over 65 years old. Unless he outlives them all, one of them is likely to succeed him. When his generation dies out or has no more sound-minded able-bodied members left, then the Allegiance Council would be likely to name one of the older members of the next generation as successor. The most prominent of these (see House of Saud) are well into their 60s and will probably be in their 70s before one of them reaches the throne. So, essentially, Saudi Arabia is a gerontocracy. Marco polo (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Famous actors, musicians or artists who have received the Order of Canada

Apart from Michael J. Fox whom I know received it. Excuse my English spelling mistakes, not my first language. Thank you. Kyxx (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You can quickly scan our category Category:Order of Canada and its sub-categories for such names. -- Jack of Oz 19:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And, you can use a tool like WP:CATSCAN to find intersections of the above categories with, say, the Actors categories. --Jayron32 19:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Catholicism, priests, and reproduction

Democratic elections where one party wins all the seats

I would like to know if Misplaced Pages has a list of legislative elections which were conducted on a generally democratic, multi-party basis, but one party still wound up winning all the seats in the legislature. The New Brunswick general election, 1987 would be one example of that. The Hawaii Senate elections, 2012 came close, but the Democratic Party won 24 seats compared to the Republican Party's 1 seat -- so it almost qualifies. Are there other examples, or a list of them? (Note that I am only looking for elections involving partisan elections, and specifically those in democratic governments.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You may want to specify a minimum number of seats up for grab, since, otherwise, special elections to replace 1 or 2 legislators would qualify. StuRat (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

But that would not mean that one party still wound up winning all the seats in the legislature.

This outcome is not unknown in British local council elections, Newham Council election, 1998 being one example. Incidentally, in the next election in that London borough, the Christian Peoples Alliance became the second party and hence the official opposition. Sussexonian (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sixty council members — for a borough! Who is left outside of government, to do any actual work? --Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully being on the council isn't a full-time job. Ideally, I'd like to see everyone on the council, so we get direct democracy that way, rather than relying on "representatives" who just enrich themselves at the cost of the taxpayers' interests. StuRat (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Membership of a London Borough Council is not intended to be a full-time occupation. The majority of cabinet members are not full-time. Most council leaders (although not all) do work full-time on council business. Councillor allowances are not set at a level which allows councillors to live in London without an alternative sources of income. Oh, and I can tell you that I have never found any example in any party of someone who went into local government for the money. If you want to make money in London, being a councillor would be a very silly way of choosing to do so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And each London Borough has more than 200,000 people. The Borough is split into about 20 Wards each electing 3 part-time councillors. So each councillor represents more than 3,000 people in their spare time (I know one who is a lawyer and one who is a train driver). D'oh! I've just realised that Sussexonian has said about the same thing below! Alansplodge (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Still seems like a lot to me. Los Angeles has 15 councilcritters for more than 3M people. Granted, that's a highly paid (and presumably full-time) job. --Trovatore (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I would dispute whether an authority covering the whole of Los Angeles could accurately be described as being 'local' government. The London equivalent is the London Assembly which has 25 members (14 constituencies and 11 London-wide). But note that council members in the US are not merely full time but also have offices and can employ assistants. US local government has a far wider range of powers and responsibilities, of an extent which British local government can only dream of having. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

List of landslide victories is the only list I can find but it is mostly about state- and country-wide elections which are less likely to produce a single party outcome. Oh and the councillors are not expected to be full-time politicians, although I expect the 'leader of the opposition' (!) claimed some sort of extra responsibility allowance. I don't know if you know Newham has 300k residents so 1 part time representative per 5000 has plenty to do. There are not multiple layers of local government in most of GB unlike many other countries. - Sussexonian (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's another council example, very recent: Barking and Dagenham Council election, 2010. Notable for the utter collapse of the British National Party's vote. --Dweller (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Rhodesian Front won all the constituencies in the 1965 general election, and all the European Roll seats at the general elections of 1970, 1974 and 1977 and all byelections in between. There were however other seats in the Legislative Assembly. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any information online after some searching, but I would imagine that in the U.S., during the period known as the Solid South that there may have been a time when certain Southern states had every seat in their state legislatures held by a Democrat. --Jayron32 05:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There are currently no Republicans on the Council of the District of Columbia, but there are two independents. --Jayron32 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Chicago City Council is 100% Democratic Party. --Jayron32 06:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought about the Chicago City Council as a possibility, but those elections aren't held on a partisan basis, at least not in recent decades. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In the UK it is quite possible for local authority elections to result in single-party councils. Barnsley, South Yorkshire is one such place: overwhelmingly Labour for decades (with just the odd one or two blips). (Interestingly our page on it only goes back to 1998. Elections have been taking place there for many years before that!) --TammyMoet (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

One party winning all the seats seems to have happened in Seychelles in 2011. I also recall it was the case in one Caribbean nation in the late 1980s, but I can't remember which one (St. Lucia ?) and can't find it through a quick google search. Perhaps someone else could confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xuxl (talk • contribs) 11:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Left Front won all 28 seats up for election in the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council election, 2010. --Soman (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors records council composition in the UK on an ongoing basis (link to personal website of one of its members): http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm

There are currently 3 councils in the UK with one political party holding all of the seats; Barking & Dagenham, Newham and Knowsley. They're all urban and Labour controlled.

Dalliance (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Barking and Dagenham was entirely Labour at the time of the last council elections, but is no longer. One councillor defected to the Conservatives and another is now a member of the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (sitting as an Independent). An up to date list of council compositions, maintained every week, can be found here: http://www.indigopublicaffairs.com/index.php?page=ipa-council-database See also the related blog and iphone app which explain the changes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In Providence, Rhode Island (and, I think, Boston, Massachusetts), municipal elections are conducted on a partisan basis and now usually return all Democrats to the City Council. The same is true of many other towns. (In Providence, when David Segal was the only Councillor from the Green Party of Rhode Island he also ipso facto became Minority Leader, as the other 14 members were all Democrats.) Many California cities (e.g. Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland. Los Angeles) often have Councils whose members are all Democrats, but California's local elections, like Chicago's, are conducted on a non-partisan basis. In other times and/or other places (e.g. many Northern towns in the late 19th century), the same would hold true for the Republican Party. To see the composition of U.S. state legislatures in recent years, visit the web site of the National Conference of State Legislatures. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

January 6

Atheism and the Devil

Atheists believe that there is no god. But what about a devil? Do atheists believe that there is a devil?

Republicanism (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As a generalisation, atheists do not believe in the devil, any gods or demons whatever, or fairies. You might actually want to read about atheism before asking more questions on the subject. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

We are, however, quite fond of Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and of eating Hot Dogs on Friday. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would simply point out that, unlike members of organised religions, atheists don't have church leaders in some remote place like Rome or California telling them what to believe. There's nobody trying to stop atheists thinking for themselves, so they tend to come to a wide range of conclusions as to how it all works. Some might believe in a devil. Many certainly don't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As well as Discordians, Pastafarians and others who profess interest in parody religions, there are also Satanists, some of whom believe in God and some don't. Some of them also don't believe in Satan in the way that theists are generally expected to believe in their gods. And there are also people such as chaos magicians, who may or may not acknowledge the existence of spirits that might be regarded by others as gods, but that they personally steer clear of or ignore. Are any of these people atheists? Depends who you ask. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Discordianism is a "parody religion". I'm not saying it's exactly serious. But I think it's very serious about not being serious. It's not so much anti-religion as anti-earnestness. Pastafarianism and Unicornism, on the other hand, seem to be very direct pokes in the eye at religion, and appeal to people who I find a bit humorless in other ways. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Atheists don't believe in any supernatural deities. If they did, they wouldn't be atheists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not all supernatural beings are (supposedly) deities. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• reminds me of when I told a classmate in high school I was an atheist and got in response, "So you worship the Devill!?" μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • They were making the assumption that if you don't believe in God, you must be in the clutches of Satan. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Most people have no idea about religions other than their own. When I told my mum I was Buddhist at age 16, she said to me, "Oh, so you're gonna stand on street corners, ringing bells and chanting 'Hare Krishna'?" which is completely the wrong religion. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Most people have no idea about their own religion. They are a member of it because their parents were. (And before anyone tries to shoot me down by saying that THEY have studied their religion in depth, please note my use of the word "Most".) HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
        • You'll have to imagine Senator Claghorn's voice here: "Son, I don't have time to study my religion; I'm too busy defending it!" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nontheism, the Devil, Good, and Evil

When religions believe that there is a god, they also believe that there is a devil. God and the Devil symbolize and represent good and evil. God symbolizes and represents good. The Devil symbolizes and represents evil. God is good. The Devil is evil. What do nontheists, athiests, agnostics, deists, secularists, and people who don't believe in any religion think that?

Republicanism (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What is your reliable source for "When religions believe that there is a god, they also believe that there is a devil". HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Atheists in general don't believe in the supernatural. Recommend you read the article on atheism, as recommended in the previous section. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You might also want to check how often an individual personal devil is mentioned in (for example) the Torah. (Hint: the answer is zero.) Then reconsider your assumptions about even so-called Abrahamic religions and the devil, much less other theists. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really a good example. If you limit it to the Pentateuch (Torah), then the answer might be none. If you whgen the Jewish Bible/Tanakh (Torah) the answer is certainly not none. Try the book of Job. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The adversary in Job is not necessarily "The Devil". That interpretation may be a later innovation, and I'm not sure that many mainstream Jewish thinkers equate the two. Book of Job#Satan discusses the distinction between the character of Satan in Job according to Jewish tradition and the Christian Devil. --Jayron32 02:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This question is based on a couple false premises. Not all religions believe in a devil, and not all religions believe god(s) are good. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

His Dark Materials, God, the Devil, Good, and Evil

God is good. The Devil is evil. God symbolizes and represents good. The Devil symbolizes and represents evil. But in His Dark Materials, it is the opposite. God is evil. The Devil is good. Why? Republicanism (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Because the author (an avowed atheist who was brought up in an Anglican household) chose to write it that way. Whether that's ingenious, offensive, or just weak is a matter of subjective interpretation. But don't expect HDM to bear any resemblance either to reality or to the theology of any significant religion. And seriously, read the articles on these topics before badgering us. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I question the certainty of your initial assumption of "god is good". Many religions have some pretty mean and nasty gods. And many question the goodness of even the Christian one at time, what with letting all those innocent people suffer in natural disasters and the like. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think many Christians would question the idea that God is 'good' in the everyday sense; God (if there is a God) is cosmic and intangible, and even if God wants something which may ultimately be viewed or understood as good, it's quite obvious from the state of the world and the fate of many of God's own followers that 'preventing natural disasters' is not part of what God does. And given that most Christians regard a man who was tortured to death as being God himself, it's clear that they think either that God has a radically different sense of justice to practically any human, or that one of God's functions is to be down here in the blood and dirt with the rest of us. Often both. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Republicanism -- I haven't read the Pullman books, but from what I've seen written about them, it seems to at least partially correspond to the Gnostic "Demiurge"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've read them all, and I don't recognise myself at all ... except in the occasionally dim-witted polar bears :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I remember, there is no devil in His Dark Materials. Wrad (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Older name for the "Korean peninsula"

I'm looking for a name for the Korean peninsula, or a similar area, that predates the term "Korean peninsula" that is ubiquitous today. Apparently, the name "Korea" comes from the Goryeo dynasty (918–1392), whose northern border was the Taedong River rather than the Yalu River as is the case with modern North Korea. It may be unlikely or impossible that Europeans had a name for the area before then, but there is a good deal of Chinese historical writing about the area—particularly the treatment of the Dongyi in the Book of the Later Han, Records of the Three Kingdoms, and Book of Wei. I know that Liaodong used to be a generic name for all the lands east of the Liao River (which would include both today's "Liaodong Peninsula" and "Korean Peninsula"). But I want to know if there any more specific and ancient term for today's "Korean peninsula". Shrigley (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Names of Korea covers this pretty well, I think. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Reginald Brentnor

In your article about brentnor, I found no mention of his writing mystery short stories. I just finished the July 1990 issue of Elerry Queen Mystery Magazine containing a short story entirled "The Photography of the Dearest Dearest Defunt" Which appears to be one of a series of stories about a San Francisco used antinque dealer named Alexandrovitch Timifoff. Has anyone heard of this series?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.252.114 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a collection of his short stories, though that one doesn't seem tp be in it. --Jayron32 02:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

3rd, 4th and 5th and other largest Bangladeshi Americans

I read that New York City has the largest Bangladeshi American community and the 2nd is Paterson, New Jersey. Which city has the 3rd largest Bangladeshi-American community? Which has 4th and which has 5th? and who else?--Donmust90 (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

The Misplaced Pages article titled Bangladeshi American lists several cities with large Bangladeshi American populations after those two, but it does not rank-order them. --Jayron32 02:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Here we go. Start at this page. Search for the word "Bangladeshi". After that search, on the left side, select the "Geographies" option. A new window will pop up. Select the "Name" tab. Select "city or town" from the list on the left of that menu. Select the check box in "All Places within United States". Then click the "add" button. Close the "Select Geographies" window. Select the first "Asian alone by selected groups" option. This will give you a giant table with every Asian nationality for every city or town in the U.S. You can narrow this down using the "Modify table" button. When you select that, you can uncheck everything except "Bangladeshi". The "Transpose rows and columns" thing may make it easier to read as well. That website can be used similarly to look for estimated populations for any nationality within the U.S., just follow the same procedure. --Jayron32 02:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Arab American cities of New York, New Jersey, California, Michigan and Florida

Which city in New York state has the most Arab Americans? Which city in New Jersey has the most Arab American? Which city in Michigan has the most Arab Americans? Which city in California has the most Arab Americans? and Which city in Florida has the most Arab Americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Dearborn, Michigan. StuRat (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

See the instructions I gave you above, Donmust? Go to that same website. Don't put anything in the search box. Select "Race and ethnic groups" on left. A new window opens up. Select "ancestry group" from the little menu on the left. Select "Arab" from the middle menu. Close that window. Select "Geographies" from menu on the left. A new window opens up. Select "City or town" from menu on left. Select any individual state you want. Close that window. Select data set B01003, "Total Population". You'll get a nice table for estimates of the number of Arab-Americans living in any city in any state you choose. You can go back and adjust whichever states you are looking for. --Jayron32 06:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternatives to London ca. 1900

In, say, 1900 a country squire was interested in Society (with a capital S) and shopping, was there ANY alternative to London? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Paris certainly had the shopping part down, and I believe a few Society families managed to survive the French Revolution. StuRat (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What does the French Revolution have to do with 1900 England? And, although it wasn't clear, I meant, where would English families go other than London, for au courant Society? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have an unstated assumption that English families couldn't leave England. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, there's probably nothing equivalent to London, London is (and has always been) a place unto itself within the UK, especially in the past no other city or urban area compared to it. In 1901 (the nearest year when there was a UK census), according to this, London had a population of 4,536,541. Liverpool, the next most populous city, had a population of 684,958, and Liverpool has always been a working-class town, especially at the turn of the 20th century. I'm quite sure that there was no other large city in the UK where the upper class congregated in large numbers or where there was significant upper class society life. There were probably numerous cities on the Continent where one could go, but in the UK it was London. --Jayron32 05:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

For Society, how about resort towns like Brighton or possibly Bath? Can't speak to shopping. Also, why would you assume that English families wouldn't leave England? I'm not totally clear who you mean by "squire" but certainly the upper class often spent weeks in the French Riviera, Rome and yes, Paris. Taknaran (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you and StuRat assuming the OP is assuming that English families couldn't leave England? It seems clear to me that he's limiting his enquiry to places in England, and I assume he has a good reason for that. -- Jack of Oz 06:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The OP asked about alternatives to London, and it wasn't clear in their original post that they were excluding the rest of the world outside of England, but now it is, based on the OP's first response. StuRat (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think almost by definition a country squire was not interested in Society and shopping. They would have found amusement with the local "county set". Sons who wanted to see a wider world had a lot of options: university, the Army or Navy, the colonial service or the Church. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

For much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, London set the male upper-class fashions, and Paris the female upper-class fashions... AnonMoos (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

At this time the Cote d'Azur was the place to go for Society. Bear in mind the major role British society played in the invention of Nice as a holiday destination. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You mat be interested in our Season (society) article. I believe that you would have to be a particularly wealthy and well-connected country squire to be accepted. As Itsmejudith says above, most people in that position would have stuck to being a big fish in their own small pond. I don't think that a gentleman would have gone shopping, apart from visits to his bespoke taylor, bootmaker and gunsmith. This probably holds true for people of a certain class today. Lobb's the bootmaker still make an individual last for each of their customers feet and store them forever, so there was never a need to shop around, you simply tell them what sort of shoes you want and they make them for you. Alansplodge (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's quite wrong to suggest that a country squire in 1900 was "not interested in Society and shopping". He would indeed have found amusements in the country, but few of them in England during the summer months. He was certainly interested in horses, probably in horse racing. At his public school (probably Eton) he learnt Latin and Greek, and the chances are that he spoke some French and perhaps some German, too. In his youth he had probably served overseas in the Army or the Navy and more likely than not was a member of one or more London clubs. When he travelled during the summer months, his most likely destinations included the Scottish Highlands, Italy, Switzerland, and the spas of Germany such as Baden-Baden. If he had time to spare he might have gone further afield for some big game hunting. Moonraker (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Would it have been the Highlands for the hunting? And Baden-Baden for the gambling as well as the spa? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

For the younger squires, there was the Grand Tour. Although our article says this persisted only until the 1840s, people still travelled only it had more desinations and became possible for a wider selection of society. I believe it gradually morphed into the Hippie trail of the 1960s/70s, through the tour by InterRail of the 1980s/90s and now the gap year. Astronaut (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

XKCD comic

It may just be my chronic not-too-brightness flaring up again, but I really don't get this XKCD cartoon. Is it purposely nonsensical, or is there something I'm missing here? Evanh2008  10:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea is that, if people drive through your neighborhood with throbbing bass pounding, the birds and squirrels will think there is food, and swarm their cars, presumably pooping on them. Actually I'm not sure the squirrels help much. --Trovatore (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my best guess. Seems like it would just result in more roadkill, though... Evanh2008  10:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed by explainxkcd. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I interpreted it differently, that this trains the wildlife to no longer fear loud noise, so it no longer bothers them. StuRat (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How does that help solve the problem of loud cars? Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It solves the problem, if you interpret the problem with loud cars being that they scare the wildlife. StuRat (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What medal is Alexander wearing?

. Presumably Sir Alexander John Arbuthnot, KCSI, CIE. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It bears a resemblance to the Order of Merit, but he doesn't seem to have been a member. Alansplodge (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What a dour lot of men! They seem to have forgotten to take their happy pills. Or maybe they were just extremely unhappy about having to wear full gentlemanly clobber in the oppressive Calcutta climate. Maybe that's why their terms mostly seem to have been only about 2 years. -- Jack of Oz 18:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am quite sure no Arbuthnot has been a member of the OM. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite confused, since the image you linked to which is captioned on the site as Alexander Arbuthnot, doesn't look like the image of Arbuthnot that is on our page. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The source of the wikipicture is "Memories of Rugby & India" by AJA. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to it, I had a look round to see if he had any other awards but I did think it was unlikely to be the same person in the image. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying Calcutta Univ has posted a picture of someone else or that the Vice- Chancellor was a different Alexander? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 Inflation Data release?

Hi all, I left a note here asking if and when wikipedians with much more knowledge than I will be updating the coding for the inflation formula many articles use. Haven't gotten a response yet and it seems few check that talk page every month. Any editors here know if the official stats have yet to come out and when they do? And also have any knowledge of when wikipedians that have the coding skills usually do this. I realize this may actually be more of a helpdesk issue but trying it here first. Thanks! _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The "only two cars in Ohio" story

Sorry for the rapid-fire questions, but I'm really curious about this at the moment. I first encountered this story via this book a good number of years ago, but have heard it in various forms since. It has been recounted at several websites, including: . The basic idea of the story is that around the turn of the century, there were a grand total of two automobiles in the state of Ohio (or the city of St. Louis, but Ohio is the more popular location), which somehow defied the odds and managed to collide with each other. The problem is, I haven't been able to locate a reliable source that lays out the story in any detail, or any record of contemporary news accounts. I'm curious as to whether or not anyone knows more about this story. It sounds like it could very well be apocryphal, but I'd like to think it's not. Evanh2008  11:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I expect it to be apocryphal, at least for Ohio, but probably anywhere else. Elwood Haynes of Indiana invented the first American design for an automobile in the mid-90s; while their sales were slow in the earliest years, they sold well over 200 in 1901. Since some made it to New York, I'd guess that more than two made it to Ohio. What's more, cars were so ridiculously expensive (the latter link estimates that they were taking 4200 man-hours of work per day, and it took more than a day to produce a car) that only the wealthy could buy them; this means that it might be hard to find an area where there were two (especially since the slow speeds means that you couldn't easily go from distant place to distant place), and surely the owners would be particularly careful not to run into things, especially since the slow speeds means that you'd have more warning time. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Ohio History Central, the state was the first place to commercially manufacture cars in the USA. "Alexander Winton, a bicycle manufacturer in Cleveland, Ohio, had become interested in designing an automobile. He built his first motorized vehicle in 1896. It looked rather strange by modern-day standards, as Winton used bicycle tires in his first design. He organized the Winton Motor Carriage Company on March 15, 1897, and on March 24, 1898, became known for the first commercial sale of an automobile in the United States." We have an article; Winton Motor Carriage Company, which says that 100 had been made by 1899, and although many may have been exported across the state boundary, it seems unlikely that 98 of them would have. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

See also our Packard article; "Packard was not completely satisfied with the Winton car he had recently purchased. He wrote Alexander Winton with his complaints and suggestions; however Mr. Winton, offended by Packard's criticism, challenged Packard to build a better car. Packard responded by doing so, his marque outlasting Winton's by many decades. Packard runs his first automobile in Warren, Ohio on November 6, 1899. In September, 1900, the "Ohio Automobile Company" was founded as the manufacturer, while the cars were always sold as Packards." Also, the Baker Motor Vehicle Company was making electric cars in Cleveland, Ohio from 1899. Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And yet more... the Elmore Manufacturing Company of Clyde, Ohio made bicycles, but "the company began to build automobiles in 1898.". There was also the 1900 "Cleveland Runabout" (also electric?) from the Cleveland Machine Screw Company of Cleveland, OH, who started manufacturing in 1899 and finally, the 1900 "St. Louis Gasoline Buggy" by the St Louis Gasoline Motor Company who also started in 1899. And finally, the Thresher Electric Vehicle Company of Dayton, OH were up and running by 1900. So the place seems to have been fairly crawling with cars by 1900. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• So, in other words, this happened in St. Louis? μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A 1956 newspaper story said it was Kansas City at "the start of the century." . A 1967 Mobil Oil Company ad in Life magazine stated that there were only 2 cars in Ohio in 1895 and they collided: . It was in a 1988 "Book of blunders" as well :. I have read the statistic in many places many years ago. There were certainly cars in operation in Ohio by 1894: . A variant published a few years later said it was Kansas in 1905:. A 1994 writer placed the accident in Indianapolis: . A 2005 book placed the accident in St. Louis:. Many of the later writers may have been lazy and writing down some factoid they vaguely remembered. An 1895 collision is quite credible, since reach driver would have been surprised to see another driver. Snopes also looked into the story: , without really saying yes or no. Edison (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! I suspect Snopes is right in that they're won't be a definitive answer anytime soon. Evanh2008  22:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do flight attendants insist that in case of crashing into the sea you open the lifebelt once you got off the plane?

Excuse English spelling mistakes. Not my first language. Kyxx (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If life vests were inflated inside the plane, everyone becomes effectively much larger. So it'd difficult for them to move easily around in the cramped interior of the plane, and particularly through the rather tight emergency exit doors. And there's the danger that, in the crush, the vest could be torn, rendering it useless. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that most instructions I've seen say to inflate one side at the door just before you jump and one side after you touch water (or at least after you jump out). Inflating before you reach the door caries another risk besides those already mentioned. If the plane is already starting to fill up with water you may find it difficult or impossible to reach the door due to the bouyancy of your vest. Premature inflation may have caused some deaths on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961, see our article or . Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 May 14#During emergency landing, why blow air in life jacket only after getting out of airplane?, Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 October 10#Turning off all electronic equipment during take-off and landing, Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 September 19#Arctic Survival, Part Deux Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it true that god is present ?

Jonasson

I was looking for Jonas Jonasson, and searched for Jonasson in Misplaced Pages. The page that appears with people whose surname is Jonasson does not include the writer Jonas Jonasson, for which a page does exist in Misplaced Pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/Jonas_Jonasson). 83.32.174.248 (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's only because you (specifically you) didn't add it to the list. --Jayron32 18:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage and the persecution of Christians

Some Christians not in favour of same-sex marriage seem to name the suffering Church as a counterargument. For example, Justin Welby, the Archbishop-designate of Canterbury said in his opening statement: "We also face deep differences over the issue of sexuality. It is absolutely right for the state to define the rights and status of people co-habiting in different forms of relationships, including civil partnerships. We must have no truck with any form of homophobia, in any part of the church. The Church of England is part of the worldwide church, with all the responsibilities that come from those links. What the church does here deeply affects the already greatly suffering churches in places like northern Nigeria, which I know well. I support the House of Bishop's statement in the summer in answer to the government's consultation on same sex marriage. I know I need to listen very attentively to the LGBT communities, and examine my own thinking prayerfully and carefully. I am always averse to the language of exclusion, when what we are called to is to love in the same way as Jesus Christ loves us. Above all in the church we need to create safe spaces for these issues to be discussed honestly and in love." (Emphasis added.)

Can someone explain the line of argument that links the two, please? – Kaihsu (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

At a first guess, if you want tolerance towards your mores, you should show tolerance towards those of other people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nigerian culture is notoriously harsh on homosexuals, see LGBT rights in Africa, which shows that there is the death penalty for being gay in Northern Nigeria. Gay Christians in Northern Nigeria thus suffer in that they could be legally killed for being gay. As Anglicanism is a world-wide communion of churches which share a common history and theology (the Anglican Communion), and historically the Church of England is considered the "mother church" for all Anglicans, the actions it takes can have a profound impact on the world-wide Anglican communion. The article Homosexuality and Anglicanism has a bit on a schism between the Church of Nigeria and other Anglican churches over this very issue. --Jayron32 19:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

By "Northern Nigeria" do you mean the part where the Episcopalians run it as a religious dictatorship based on a strict interpretation of Leviticus? μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, not sure where you got that from, perhaps you could read some information about Nigeria first before making such statements. There must be some articles around here somewhere. --Jayron32 04:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think Medeis was being rather sarcastic... AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I think not. --Jayron32 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The question is rather clear, what is it about northern Nigeria that makes it so much deadlier to its citizens? Is it the Mossad? The Church Lady? The Mormon Tabernacle Choir? The aforementioned Episcopal Suppository Bomber? The mere difference in latitude? What is this hate that dare not speak its name? μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So, here's the deal for those of you who don't follow the strange twists and turns of Anglicanism. The bishops of the Church of England last summer came out with a statement opposing same-sex marriage. Welby says he supports that statement, while also claiming, incoherently and self-contradictorily, that he opposes homophobia. He then refers to the situation in northern Nigeria, where Christians of all kinds face violent attacks from radical Muslims. I'm not sure how that situation is connected to same-sex marriage unless one of the reasons these Muslims give for attacking Christians is that some Christians in Western countries support same-sex marriage, which is surely anathema to many Nigerian Muslims (as well as many Nigerian Christians). There really is no logical coherence to Welby's statement. It reflects the tortured position of the Anglican Communion, trying to appeal to the liberal congregations that are its financial underpinning, particularly in the United States, as well as to very religiously and socially conservative Africans, who are providing most of the Communion's growth in membership. Marco polo (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary Education in the United States

> I’m looking at one of your publications Primary Education in the United States which was reviewed in December of 2012 to the present. > > I appreciate the very highly detailed document with the remarkable number of facts about the education of young people in the United States, however, I am very interested in comparisons with other nations and the international exam or or competition you want to call it that examines such attainments for the years 17 to 18. Every year the results of this examination are in newspapers, and if I remember rightly the most recent one placed us 24th among the nations. > > Although I cannot say I’ve examined word for word everything that’s in your report, I have examined each section for content and cannot find any report of comparison with other nations. > > Have you made such a comparison? If not I think it’s a mistake to leave that out and one of the things that matters in our strength as a nation is the education of children. The fact that our young people at 17 to 18 perform in a way which is more characteristic of a less well developed country than ours concerns me and I would hope that in future documents you would bring out that exam. > > Could I ask you whilst also talking about education in the United States if you know of this famous yearly competition and if you do where may I obtain knowledge about it in greater detail than which I have from the newspaper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlschulz (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You may have come to the wrong place. This is Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit. We don't issue publications. We do have loads of articles for anyone to read (and edit), including an article called Primary education in the United States. -- Jack of Oz 20:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think they are probably talking about our article, just using slightly unusual terminology. --Tango (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspected so too, which is why I said "may have come to the wrong place". The article has existed since 2005, yet the questioner says "... which was reviewed in December of 2012 to the present", so I dunno what that's about at all. -- Jack of Oz 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

May be the OP means they read the article between December 2012 to now (probably fairly sporiadicly)? Nil Einne (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Programme for International Student Assessment may be useful to you. --Tango (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

January 7

She named a crater on Venus - but who was she?

The craters on Venus is named after different famous women in history, of which many has articles here. But who was the "M. A. Fernandez" who is listed under F in the List of craters on Venus? Her full name is not there, it only says "M. A. Fernandez, Spanish actress (18th century)". Does any one know? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is odd that all references online to "F. A. Fernandez" are from Misplaced Pages mirrors.

The information for the Fernandez crater derives from the International Astronomical Union (entry for Fernandez) which gives the source of the name as "List of famous women provided by the National Organization for Women". This does not help answer the OP's question, however. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 05:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is one possible answer: According to a poster here, the namesake of the Fernandez crater of Venus (the poster refers to Mercury, but check the context in the original article there) is es:María del Rosario Fernández (Spanish Misplaced Pages); the initials do not match perfectly. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 05:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ay Caramba!, I suspect this is it. -- Jack of Oz 06:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's the only 18th century Fernandez in the "stage actors from Spain" category at es.wikipedia. This is not my first encouter with imperfect documentation from the IAU nomenclature folks.--Cam (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't see Jack's link, thought he was referring to Hasirpad's candidate. Yeah maybe La Caramba is more likely.--Cam (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! This was excellent. Can we conclude that this is correct rather than simply very likely (though I suspect that it is)?--Aciram (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As I was given so good help, I should take the opportunity to ask if another woman in that very same list, Maria Lullin, have her name correctly spelled? She does have an article here, but it is not much bigger than her entry at the list and need to be expanded, and as I have not found much on google, I thought that her name was perhaps misspelled, or that she is more known under a different version of her name? Does anyone now? --Aciram (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like her name was actually Marie-Aimée Lullin. The "Aimée" part of her name is important to include, it's part of a two-part name like the "Luc" in "Jean-Luc."--Cam (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How accurate are home appraisals?

I am hoping someone can help me resolve a family dispute. My father passed away last year and we need to sell his house. We've had 2 appraisals done. The first appraisal said that the house is worth $256,000 and another appraisal said the house is worth $260,000. Two of our 4 of my siblings are insisting that the estimate is way too high, by over $40,000. One of these siblings has a conflict of interest as she would like to purchase the house. So, my question is, how accurate are house appraisals? I don't really know much about real estate. I've Googled it but haven't come up with anything definitive. Thanks. AnonComputerGuy (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
UPDATE 1: I live in the United States. The estimates were done by professional appraisers, not real estate agents. AnonComputerGuy (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is the obvious "we cannot give professional opinions, consult a professional" realtor... but, seriously? I can't see your house, you didn't mention who appraised your house... how can I tell you anything? You could have a hovel in the urban wastes of Detroit or a mansion in the Upper East Side of New York for all I know. If two independent (assuming they are) appraisals give you about the same value (which they have) it's a good bet they are accurate, more so than any a random stranger on the Internet can give you. If you had the appraisal done by a professional realtor, they do not stand to benefit at all by lowballing you because that means they collect a smaller percentage. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

AnonComputerGuy - you don't say where you're from. Where I live, Victoria, Australia, real estate agents have a reputation in some places for organising inflated appraisals. This could be related to trying to convince a potential seller to sell, and maybe to the fact that agents are usually paid on commission, so the bigger the selling price, the more they make. It's in their interest to inflate the value. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Does that reputation have any evidence to support it? Most people would only get an appraisal if they had already decided to sell, and the commission on a few extra grand isn't going to be a significant amount. Freakonomics covers this subject and finds very clear evidence (in the US) of estate agents understating prices, not overstating them. The goal being to get a quick sale so they can move onto the next property. --Tango (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Where I live in Massachusetts we have professional appraisers who just value properties but don't sell them. I would assume they'd have less of a conflict of interest. Hot Stop (Talk) 02:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

But only within a certain limited tolerance, HiLo. They know, better than anyone, that properties that are priced too high just don't sell, and end up being either dropped in price or withdrawn from sale altogether. Nobody wins that way. -- Jack of Oz 03:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The standard approach in such cases is to have your lawyer offer the sibling who wants to low-ball the estimate exactly what she says she's willing to pay to buy her out. She should be happy to get what she thinks it's worth, and you should be happy to underpay her. The difference might even cover your legal fees. Which makes me wonder who your lawyer is? Maybe what you really need is better legal advice than you can get from random people on the internet. μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This makes the huge assumption that the OP is in a position to buy out the complaining sib. If not, then the only way to settle it amicably may be to sell the house outside the family and divvy up the sales price. StuRat (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So long as I am giving free advice, the lowball sibling signs an agreement to accept the lowball amount once the property is sold at whatever price, within a certain period. If she's right, she gets a guaranteed better price than she could otherwise expect. The others should be happy to take that offer, sell for more, and pocket the difference. Or they could take your advice. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would the lowball sib agree to that ? I do like the concept though, like parents who refuse medical treatment for their kids, saying "Only God can decide who lives and dies". I'd like to shoot them in the head and say "God will decide if you live or die, not me". StuRat (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have heard of people using set procedures for things like this, like agreeing to taking three appraisals and taking the average, or taking the middle one. That works fairly well in England where sale prices are close to appraisal prices (estate agents are on percentage so don't want to underestimate, but want a reasonably quick sale), but in Scotland the appraisal prices are usually lower than sale prices. (Sale is by sealed bid with the offer price traditionally seen as a starting price I think, Scots feel free to correct me). Presumably they would have some sort of adjustment there, like average price +5% . -- Q Chris (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@ StuRat, maybe she wouldn't take the offer. But that's the whole point. In fact, I'd be surprised if she were to take it given how such dynamics usually work. The point is to force her to make a good-faith action, or shut up and stop bothering the other siblings. Unfortunately in a lot of cases like this the lowball sibling is more interested in the power of controlling the process than in actually settling for a lower amount herself. Offered the lower amount that she had said she would be happy to take she will reject it because she can't also force the others into a lower amount. Or she could be right in her estimate, in which case she should take the offer. But by making the offer they effectively castrate any spite and controllingness as a factor in the negotiations. (A good lawyer would know all this, which is why the OP should get one.) μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

St. Jude Children's Hospital

If it's totally affordable for anyone (the commercials say "No family is ever turned away because they can't pay") and high quality care, is there a long line of people trying to get in and do large numbers who want to get in not get in for lack of opportunity due to the long line? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

According to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, the hospital doesn't charge (above and beyond what insurance pays) for "medically eligible" patients. Presumably, children with a bad sniffle aren't admitted. AFAIK, St. Jude's isn't the kind of hospital that you just walk into and admit yourself; patients who are admitted are done so by referral from another doctor, and they usually have a type of severe illness that local doctors near where they live can't treat. That is, if there is a nearby hospital which can treat the illness, then the child probably wouldn't get sent to St. Jude's. That probably keeps the waiting list lower than the average emergency room. --Jayron32 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence the symbolism of Jude the Apostle. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"...nearby hospital which can treat..." Then that would give local Tennesseans preference? Lucky for them financially. "...medically eligible..." Now modulating in policy the level of rarity of cases for which patients are admitted such that the statistical incidence of said admissible diseases that happens to happen minus the number of other centers of excellence that can share the treatment load across the country is lower than the capacity of the hospital to treat seems pragmatic from a business perspective. Though I'm sure if some working class family living on $20,000 a year with crappy insurance has a child with a rare disease that needs a $250,000 operation but lives 500 miles away from a hospital that can handle it (but they'd have to pay) and 600 miles away from St. Jude's, the family's going to push hard for their doc to petition a referral to St. Jude's. With a population of over 300 million across the US, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that even rare diseases are happening to poor people (as well as more fortunate) regularly. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misread the title of this part of Misplaced Pages. This is the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk. What you want is the Misplaced Pages:Start a debate desk. --Jayron32 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm honestly interested in finding out how free high quality health care that could easily cost upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars is filtered down to organizational capacity. Anyways, I think I found my own reference answer from the source. You "win" a bed by being selected for one of their research studies. From the section "What if my child is not eligible for a St. Jude research study?" it says "...If your child is not eligible for a St. Jude research study, we can help you identify a hospital near you offering an appropriate treatment program and we can provide ongoing consultation with the medical team caring for your child at that hospital." So kids have to be "lucky" enough to be sick with something with an ongoing study in progress and eligible for that study. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you have an emotional connection to the issue. This board is designed as a dispassionate source of information, not as a place to express your feelings towards a particular situation. --Jayron32 04:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

My feelings regarding how normally very expensive things that cost more than some houses are offered at no cost would fairly be described as not dispassionate, but those of wonder and curiosity. I have nothing to do with hospitals or health care at all. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said you did. However, you're using language and writing like "scare quotes" and phrasing which indicates that you disapprove of something. This is not the correct forum to do so, even obtusely. --Jayron32 04:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll work on my writing style, sir/madame. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is communism still tried?

So one thing popped up in my head. So far, every socialist country that tried to transition to communism failed to truly implement communism (notably Kampuchea (now Cambodia) and China). Except for North Korea and perhaps Cuba (I'm not sure), all "communist" countries now have more or less capitalist economies, notably China, but also Vietnam and Laos. And of course, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia collapsed. Despite this, around the world, why are there still people who want to try communism? They've seen the failure of "communist states" throughout the last hundred years or so. Also, history, as well as several studies, works, and experiences, have shown that communism, while a laudable concept on paper, is just difficult if not impossible to implement in the real world. So why are there people who still believe in communism? Are they pursuing a utopian ideal? Narutolovehinata5 10:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

An interesting question. I read somewhere that the problem with communism is the implementation and control, ensuring that people do work for the common good and that they don't exaggerate their needs. I wish I can remember where I read this, because an interesting observation was that communes can work at sizes where everyone knows everyone else, so peer pressure is enough to avoid free-loading - I think they said that groups of up to 100 people were possible. Above this number you need a "privileged group" to organise and enforce, and every system seems to require that these be "self policing" as they have powers to give themselves disproportionate power and reward. In every practical case this has failed. I think for anyone to try communism again they would need some new method of enforcing motivation and fairness without having a class that just have to be trusted - which may not be possible. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say Cuba was a better example of a surviving Communist country than North Korea, which has long since veered off into a weird personality cult called Juche. Czechoslovakia broke up after the end of Communism, bringing an end to a political experiment that had predated it. Yugoslavia's more violent collapse had a lot more to do with the end of communism, but the unification of Yugoslavia was a monarchist project. Plenty of other political systems have failed in specific cases, and yet remain popular - democracy produced the Dreyfus Affair and McCarthyism, allowed the Nazis to gain control of Germany, and shores up one-party government in Singapore. France has so far had to scrap four republics, two empires, and two attempts to restore the monarchy. I think the lesson is that all forms of government are difficult. What people seem to want is a government as enfranchising as modern American democracy, as direct and transparent as ancient Athenian democracy, as spectacular as early Roman imperialism, as effective as Enlightenment-era benevolent despotism, and as effortless as the life of an Arcadian shepherd. Even the best form of government in practice will fall well short of this. I will go along with Winston Churchill's preference: "Democracy is the worst form of government that has been tried, apart from all the others." AlexTiefling (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is capitalism tried? Shouldn't capitalism be abandoned as soon as it becomes evident that the rich or powerful are able to subvert democratic processes? That the poor become a victim of for-profit prisons, are a product to be sold to lawmakers in the form of prisoners? If I can prove to you that the direct consequence of capitalism is that in ever capitalist country, private prisons (and analogous institutions) will jail innocent people by selling their services where not required, would you agree that in this case we should abandon capitalism? In fact, I disagree: although capitalism "doesn't work", it does not need to be abandoned. Like communists, I too believe in the system in which I have seen some measure of success - for me, this is capitalism. Naturally, communism only "works" for a few people. So communist leadership is usually chosen from these. Anyone else can see it's a fools errand, but these people can't. It really is not so simple as you suggest, by viewing yourself as my fellow capitalist in spite of strong arguments against capitalism, I hope you will agree with me. (That said, I may be to the left of you on many issues, and believe one in every ten service dollars should go to the state and be provided by the state, including for many basic things like schools, medicine, security, etc.) ----91.120.48.242 (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Capitalism isn't a system of government; it's more an attempt to run an economy through benign neglect. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the parenthetical last sentence while in edit conflict with you. If capitalism is benign neglect, then why do we still do it (to any extent) where it obviously doesn't work? (Such as lack of medical coverage causing early deaths where these same people would have easily paid for this up-front cost in taxes paid after the incident.) Arguably, many aspects of capitalism "obviously" don't work - yet we still do it. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The modern approach is kind of a mix of capitalism and socialism, retaining the parts of each that are considered to "work" optimally. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 -- It's an oversimplification to say that North Korea is "communist". For many years, Juche was more significant than Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, while in recent decades Songun seemed to be eclipsing even Juche. The newest Kim seems to be preparing for yet another shift; I'm not sure anyone but himself knows exactly what it will end up being, but it's unlikely to be a simple variant of classic Communist theory... AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• For an argument that North Korea's government uses a race-based nationalism, rather than Marxism-Leninism, to justify its control, see the book The Cleanest Race by B.R. Myers. Shrigley (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Communism provides a convenient excuse for brutal, power mad dictators to consolidate their power while pretending to care about the people they crush on their path to power. --Jayron32 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Communism is not unique that way, but it's funny how every Communist government has turned out to be like that. Definitely a trend. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The communist system, albeit in various forms, is alive after 103 years and working well in the Kibbutz movement. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Kibbutzes are small communities centered around communal agriculture, which has about as much to do with Marxist communism as an apple does to a motorcycle. --Jayron32 14:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The OP asked about "communism". Our article opens with this definition:

"a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production"

For many Kibbutzim today, the only element from that depiction that is irrelevant is the "stateless".

As such your hyperbole is incorrect. --Dweller (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a debate. I sometimes wonder why we bother. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dweller -- the more strictly communal aspects of Kibbutzim have tended to be somewhat in retreat in recent decades, and Kibbutzim never were fully "moneyless" in the first place... AnonMoos (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP would like to consider the state government in Kerala (a state on the southern tip of India) as an example of communism working. The state government alternates between the communist led LDF and the Indian National Congress-led UDF; since the 2011 elections the UDF has held power. Astronaut (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As usual, a discussion like this has produced a flood of words within a day, and as usual, I certainly can't contribute a referenced answer. Still, I have often discussed things with extremists, and spent a while listening to them. The question title asks why people still try communism, and the question text asks why people still believe. Slightly different. I'm only focusing on the second, which is easier (the first could do with an expert). Having spoken to communists, and read their opinions (mostly around uni) they are certainly aware of the failure of their system. Most would probably define themselves as "democratic socialists", which I know could be changing the question, but at the time, they struck me as essentially pretty close to communists. They related the problems to Stalinism, rather than communism. I have found some that promote revolution, but when you challenge them on this, they come out as a bit more moderate in their considered judgements. Apart from blaming things on Stalin, the only other concrete thing was that someone blamed the problems on the emergence of communism in just the Eastern bloc. He said his Socialist Alliance (I think that's what they were called) was promoting a worldwide workers movement, so we could all go communist together. Look up Socialism in one country for some background. In short, you could say that this means they have reflected on history, which does not make them necessarily less utopian. IBE (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The stated goals of communism are laudable, if it's ability to achieve them falls far short. And, in many cases, it was better than the alternative, which was a population virtually enslaved by a few rich families. Of course, better yet is a mix of capitalism and socialism, where people have an incentive to work to improve things, but we also put some limits on how badly to rich can abuse the poor. StuRat (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe your question can be divided into two parts: (1) Why do supposedly "communist" countries still exist? and (2) Why are there still people who believe in communism?

For the first part, when you have an established elite or order in a society (in this case the Communist/Workers' Party) who enjoy boons not accorded to the general population, they generally want to remain in that position. It works better if you try to disguise that with a positive ideology so the people will be less likely to try to revolt and overthrow you. I would argue that North Korea has abandoned mostly the ideal of Communism as Marx envisioned it (people generally aren't allowed to read Marx anymore, for that matter), while Cuba is trying to hang on and no longer actively pursuing Communism (though they remain a socialist state).

For the second part, Communism does sound like a good idea... in theory. I am reminded about something The Tiger Clemenceau once said (brutally translated), upon learning that his son had become a Communist: "Of course he has! If he had not become a Communist at twenty I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at thirty, I will disown him then." 72.128.82.131 (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that quote? Versions of it are variously attributed to all sorts of people , most commonly George Bernard Shaw . IBE (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Various sources actually, including several biographies of him that give it in different forms. I've seen the Frenc original but can't seem to find it. q:Clemenceau. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I get the feeling tons of people have said it, and made it seem like their own. Your link gives a very plausible suggestion of the original author, François Guizot. IBE (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sodom and its sexual interpretation (or lack thereof)

I understand that the Bible is a complex, difficult book. I checked the wiki article on Sodom and Gomorrah and looked into the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic interpretations. Apparently, the Islamic interpretation is portrayed as primarily about sex. The Christian interpretation has both sexual and non-sexual interpretations, and the Jewish interpretation seems to be very similar to the Christian interpretation, but is a combination of the sexual and non-sexual: that homosexual rape was an act of inhospitality during Old Testament times. How do scholars know that Sodom is about sex or not? What if the story is just a story without any deep meaning? Like one of those spooky stories that parents sometimes tell children at night? I think the Book of Proverbs is supposed to be educational. 140.254.226.244 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Proverbs has to do with anything. As to the rest, I think there's some merit to your suggestion. So much of the Bible has become enshrined in religious dogma over the years, that it's hard to stop and recall that much of it may only ever have been intended as history (whether literal or mythic) and not as instructional material at all. It's worth noting that the story of Sodom forms part of the story of Lot. Lot's narrative is one long disaster. Despite the attempts of God to get Lot and his family to help themselves, they stumble from one hair-raising tragedy to another: their home is threatened by a gang of rapists, Lot's wife disregards a warning and is turned into salt, and then Lot himself is made drunk and raped by his own daughters. Despite the occasional use of this narrative by critics of religion to demonstrate the badness of the Bible, there's nothing in the text to suggest that anything here is praiseworthy or positive. It's all just a miserable slog. This is placed in contrast to the story of Abraham, who accepts God's blessing trustingly, and duly prospers. That might be considered a lesson in itself, but it could just as easily simply be a dramatic device.

All I will say about the positive use of the story of Sodom for teaching is that it's very easy to get 'rape is bad' as a lesson from the whole story of Lot, including this bit; it's pretty easy to get 'the world is a nicer place when we welcome strangers instead of inhospitably trying to rape their house-guests' too; and it's really quite hard to get 'all male-male sexual contact is bad' from this passage alone. The text seems less judgmental about Lot's attempt to hand his daughters over to the rapists instead, too. But the text itself does not specify any of these messages. And thus scholars cannot reasonably know any of these things.

Of course, the use to which scholars and teachers of each faith put this text is rooted not just in the words themselves, but in the existing history of the text's reception by their respective faith communities. In some cases, this includes the testimony of other bits of scripture: Jesus, as might be expected from his as a rabbi of his era, teaches that the lesson of Sodom is against inhospitality. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is one of the most popular topics of all time here at the ref desks, and has been discussed as recently as last month. I suggest you read the archives and then let us know if you have any more questions that need a source to be answrered. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Like you said, it's a complex issue and it depends in part on whether you read the story in isolation or consider references to Sodom elsewhere in the Bible. One important passage that addresses the sins of Sodom is Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it (NASB)". The reference to not helping the poor and needy can be understood to imply inhospitality. On the other hand, the 'abominations' (תּוֹעֵבָה) (which apparently were the final cause of Sodom's destruction) could well refer to sexual sins (the book of Leviticus in particular uses this word for sins like incest, bestiality and homosexuality). In any case, it's not a matter of hard facts, there's a lot of interpretation (and sometimes speculation) involved. And you are right, I think, that sometimes too much is read into the story that isn't actually there. - Lindert (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think perhaps the most important thing in interpreting the Sodom story is the very similar one of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19-20. In this story the outrage is committed by the people of Benjamin, and the rest of the Israelites make war on the Benjaminites because of it, nearly wiping them out. The point of this story may have been to justify the eclipsing of Benjamin by Judah, in other words, politics. Richard Elliott Friedman thinks both episodes were part of the J Document, which was a Judahite text. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would speculate that Sodom and Gomorrah were real towns, destroyed by volcanism. Afterwards, in an attempt to explain it, the stories of it being a place of evil likely developed. However, it seem unlikely that everybody but one family would be "evil" in a pair of towns. No doubt, if San Francisco is destroyed by an earthquake, "Christian" fundamentalists will all claim it's punishment from God for homosexuality. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Easter

What would a typical Easter Sunday be like for a practicing Christian? After reading about the wiki page on Spring Break, I came to read Easter and then about Easter games, and I am trying to figure out how a person might cram so many things on one day. A person might prepare beforehand to finish all schoolwork/coursework/office work, so on Easter day that person might spend the whole day doing things related to Easter. Or that person might spread things out a bit during the whole Lent period, including Holy Week. It would also be important to do some grocery shopping BEFORE Easter, because on Easter many businesses will probably either be closed or open part of the day. The Easter games part might not seem very important, so those might be cancelled for a person's own schedule, but the church attendance would probably be strongly favored. How long is the church service anyway, and at what time do churches typically observe Easter? 140.254.226.241 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Which country? HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is easy enough for us to state which country we are talking about, and confine our answer to that. In Australia: when I was a Roman Catholic, church was just the ordinary length service, I think (maybe a bit longer, but unremarkable). I know a lot of very enthusiastic Evangelical Protestants, and it's about the same. I don't think they do much else. Generally, Good Friday and Easter Sunday are the main services. I've never heard of anything else going down. IBE (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How long is "ordinary length service"? 140.254.226.241 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Always in the ballpark of an hour, but now that I think about it, the Catholic one might have gone for two hours on Easter Sunday. It was certainly a bigger production, but that's all I remember. The Protestant one is also about an hour, no longer at Easter. Most of the time is taken up by the sermon. With reference to Lomn's post below, I would call them extra-low church (the minister wears jeans). They're not into ritual, just devotion. IBE (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

My typical Easter Sunday is that the church service runs about 15 minutes longer than usual. Due to (lack of) proximity to the church, I tend to skip the additional early (sunrise) service. For my experience (US Protestant, low-to-medium in terms of "high church"), that's about all that's out of the ordinary for a practicing Christian in terms of things specifically relevant to practicing Christians. That is, church attendance isn't out of the ordinary (though for many Christians who don't regularly attend services, it would be), and something like "Easter dinner" might be unusual but isn't particular to practicing Christians. — Lomn 20:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Usual time length? 140.254.226.241 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

For that category (US Protestant, low-to-middle church), normal service length is roughly an hour. Sunday school is additionally roughly an hour, but participation in that is at a lower rate than the service proper, and whether participation is the norm varies more widely within the US -- my wife grew up in a region where adult SS participation was functionally unheard of; I grew up with adult SS being at roughly the same participation rate as child SS. An Easter sunrise service length will have more variance, but 30-45 minutes is a reasonable estimate. — Lomn 20:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no single answer to this; Easter ceremonies vary from one local church to another, and more between denominations. My own experience as a High-Church Anglican is representative only of that tradition within that denomination; but it also reflects quite widespread practice within Roman Catholicism. So with all that said, here's how it works for me:

We begin before the start of Easter proper. Lent has been spent in self-discipline and prayer (in theory!), and Passiontide in contemplating the coming mysteries. (In Anglicanism, Passion Sunday is the Sunday before Palm Sunday, and in some places statues and pictures may be veiled from then on, and the colour of the vestments and altar cloths changes from purple to red.) On Palm Sunday there will be a procession - possibly through the streets, but just as likely to be round the inside of the church - with the people waving palm branches or palm crosses. If they use small palm crosses, these are saved to burn for next year's Ash Wednesday ashes. There may also be a dramatic reading of the Passion from one of the gospels, in which the narrator and the various characters are played by different members of the congregation, or if sung, by different choristers. I have seen performances where the priest played Jesus, and others where the priest played Judas. I prefer the latter; the Passion should challenge our expectations, not reinforce them.

Holy Week begins quietly. On Maundy Thursday, I aim to leave work at noon, and go to a lunchtime eucharist. When I was a British civil servant, I was helped in this by the traditional award of a half-day 'privilege day' on this day. The Maundy Thursday service is a much closer commemoration of the Last Supper itself than usual. After communion has been shared, the priest takes the remaining wafers, and ceremonially removes them in their pyx or ciborium to a small separate altar, generally elsewhere in the church, called the Altar of Repose. While this is done, the anthem Pange Lingua Gloriosi Corporis Mysterium is sung by the choir (if in Latin) or everyone (if in English). After the first four verses, the wafers should be in the tabernacle on the Altar of Repose. The priest then intones the first line of the fifth verse: "Tantum ergo sacramentum"/"Therefore we, before him bending", and the anthem is sung to the end while the priest and servers prostrate themselves. Then they return to the main sanctuary. Many of the normal closing prayers are not said. Instead, the choir sings Psalm 22 ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?") while the priest and servers strip the altars. Every last thing is removed, until the altar is bare, the priest and servers are in their plain cassocks, and the main tabernacle stands empty, open and unveiled. Only the Altar of Repose is left. Then the priest announces "The disciples forsook him, and fled", and the people 'depart in confusion', although in practice they may stop and eat hot cross buns on the porch. Some people may remain and spend an hour keeping vigil at the Altar of Repose, in commemoration of the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Good Friday is a bank holiday in the UK. Compared with how much happens on Maundy Thursday, church is comparatively restrained. The church remains stripped bare. One church I know has Mattins, the Litany and Antecommunion, none of which require a priest or any ritual objects. Some churches distribute the wafers from the Altar of Repose in a ceremony called the 'mass of the presanctified', but this seems to me to go against the general presumption that Good Friday is the most solemn day, and no eucharistic actions whatever should be performed. Another typically Catholic ritual is Veneration of the Cross, dubbed 'creeping to the Cross' by Protestant critics. In this, a single plain unveiled cross or crucifix is brought out, and members of the congregation go up one by one to make personal devotion: some kiss the cross, or the 'corpus' figure on it, while others simply make silent prayer. While this is done, it is customary for the hymn 'Faithful Cross' to be sung.

Holy Saturday is pretty much a day off in church terms. This will, for me, generally be the first opportunity to do anything except eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours.

In theory, nothing should now happen until first light on Easter morning. However, in practice, some churches have the first service of Easter sometime after nightfall on the Saturday evening. In this, a brazier or other source of fire is lit outside the church, and a new paschal candle is lit from it. This candle will be used at every baptism that church celebrates for the coming year. The light is brought into the darkened church, and other lights lit from it, gradually revealing the glorious white and gold decor which has replaced the barrenness of Good Friday. The Easter hymn, the Exsultet, is sung. This will be the first time that the word 'Alleluia' will have been used in the church since before Ash Wednesday. The service that follows is of a joyful character, with bold, major-keyed hymns and anthems. The gospel is usually the story of the empty tomb: "Early in the morning, while it was yet dark...", to match the theoretical timing of the service. If actually done at dawn, the light of the sun should illuminate the church more fully shortly after the paschal candle is brought in. New sacred elements are consecrated for communion, and there may be the 'great blessing of the waters', in which a font of water is blessed, and the people renew their baptismal vows while the priest sprinkles them with the holy water.

Later on the morning of Easter Sunday, there will be another communion service for everyone who finds the other one too early, either theologically or practically, which will follow the same basic model, but without the candle procession. Then it's time for lunch, and the afternoon off, followed by another bank holiday, for tourism or DIY or anything else.

I hope this is a sufficiently complete account of just one way to do it! AlexTiefling (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: Each communion service lasts about 1h15; the Good Friday services are shorter. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

AlexTiefling, you can't eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours? Not sure if there is a typo, or you really can't relax and sleep in 36 hours. Fasting is understandable, but sleep deprivation? That's like more than a day, and you'd be sleep-deprived by the end, if that were true and not a typographical error. Can you consume a large meal afterwards? 140.254.226.241 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No - I mean that those four things are just about all I do between lunchtime on Maundy Thursday and the end of Good Friday. Not a typo; please re-read. I don't fast strictly at any time, as my metabolism isn't strong enough. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"This will, for me, generally be the first opportunity to do anything except eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours."

Grammatically speaking, I interpret this as the ability to "do anything EXCEPT eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours." In other words, grammatically speaking, you can do anything EXCEPT (excluding, not including) eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours. It may be an English dialect thing. 140.254.226.241 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This may be a dialect thing. I parse it as follows: except does mean excluding, so 'anything except X, Y & Z' means all actions other than those things. And I say that this is the first opportunity to do anything except those things - in other words, that I can't reasonably do other things, but only those things, in that time period. I think it may be the anything/nothing bit, rather than the meaning of 'except', which is the problem here.

I'm also happy to answer non-grammatical queries about my lengthy narrative! AlexTiefling (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to add the this: the Saturday evening service in the Catholic Church is the Easter Vigil, which is a huge sprawling service lasting about 3 hours and containing all sorts of little ancient relics of Christianity throughout the ages, from the blessing of the fire and the Paschal Candle, to the Exsultet, to the epic Liturgy of the Word which is supposed to cover the whole of salvation history and the great Gospel Acclamation in several verses. It is supposed to start after dark, and so the beginning of the service is lit only by the candles that everyone holds: "the flame divided, but undimmed". If adults are being Baptised or Confirmed, this generally happens at the Easter Vigil, which has a special bit of liturgy set aside for it, including the full Litany of the Saints. This goes back to when Christianity was underground, and catechumens were slowly introduced to basic ideas before joining at the Easter Vigil, which would be the first time they were allowed to remain for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Of course, nowadays anyone is allowed to witness the whole Mass.

Also, I don't think Alex mentioned that the Maundy Thursday service usually includes footwashing, with the priest washing the feet of parishioners. And a wrinkle to the "Passion Reading" (the reading of an account of the Passion from a Gospel, with different people reading different lines) in a Catholic church is that normally only the priest or deacon reads the Gospel during Mass. For passion readings, lay people read the Gospel during Mass, but Jesus's words must be read by a priest or deacon. The usual parts are "Jesus", "narrator", "Other person" and "crowd" (everyone present). 86.162.70.193 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I had forgotten the foot-washing. Traditionally, the British monarch performed this at the Royal Maundy service. I don't know off hand if that is done any more. And yes, the Anglican Easter vigil is about half the length of the Catholic one. As to who may read the Gospel: in the Church of England, anyone may, but it is normal practice for a priest, deacon or licensed lay reader (a kind of minor order, I suppose) to do so when Holy Communion is celebrated. Consequently, it is possible for the lay reader to read the Jesus part, and for the priest to be the narrator or another character. Also, Anglican priests tend to sing the liturgy more often the Catholic ones since Vatican II and Novus Ordo, and thus in the case of a sung Passion, the priest may still be a strong enough singer to take a role. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me give an answer for the US. On the days before Easter, egg dyeing and egg decoration may occur (kids enjoy this). Some foods may also be prepared in advance for the Easter meal, like pies.

"Christians" will go to church, usually in late morning, for about an hour. In some communities, especially African American communities, women and girls often wear special outfits for the day, which include pastel dresses and large, floppy hats. Here's a toddler in such an outfit: .

After church it's time to go back home for Easter dinner (which often features a ham) and, if there's kids, perhaps an Easter egg hunt. StuRat (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

StuRat, why do you put "Christians" in quotes? 140.254.226.241 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Because many who profess to be Christians in the US don't actually believe in the teachings of Christ, such as pacifism. They believe in Old Testament, pre-Christian values. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would a pacifist ever recommend that people sell their cloak and buy a sword? - Lindert (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

See "Sell your cloak and buy a sword". Jesus wasn't perfect, and did have a few incidents of rage, such as overturning the money-changers' table at the temple. However, his core message was pacifism. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Jesus's core message was about love, not pacifism. I don't think love is the same thing as pacifism. Some parents do occasionally spank their children or scold their children, when their children do something inappropriate or wrong or socially unacceptable or socially unproductive. For back-up support that Jesus's core message is about love, please read Dr. Jeffrey B. Webb's book, "The Complete Idiot's Guide To Exploring God", which looks into many different religious perspectives of God, God's nature, and God's behavior in the world. In the introduction, the author confesses that he is a Christian, but attempts to portray the different religions in a good light and as accurately as possible. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

He can have more than one core message (belief in God would be another). Also, spanking isn't the same as violence, as spanking isn't designed to cause permanent damage to children or kill them. StuRat (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that use of 'Old Testament values' rather unfair to millions of Jews who use the Tanakh - Christians' Old Testament - as a guide to life? I'd suggest that the un-Christian behaviour of Christians has less to do with the Old Testament, and more to do with typical human ignorance and malice. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with believing in Old Testament values, those just don't happen to be the teachings of Christ. StuRat (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK... what do REAL Christians do during Easter? 140.254.226.241 (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There aren't very many of them, perhaps including Quakers, and the Amish/Mennonites. I'm not as familiar with their Easter traditions. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not try to sort the sheep from the goats ourselves. That way lies madness and the closure of this interesting thread. Suffice it to say that you will find 'real' Christians in pretty much the same places as the, er, 'less real' ones. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Can non-Christians participate during Easter vigil? If Christians renew their baptisms during Easter, then perhaps, during Easter prospective Christians are allowed to be baptized? Do churches baptize first-time non-Christian visitors? 140.254.226.241 (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, you can't be baptised by accident; baptism isn't any sprinkling with holy water, but (outside the small Jesus-only movement) is specifically having the water poured over you, or entering bodily into the water, while another person says "I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit".

I believe some places baptise willing converts between the blessing of the waters and the sprinkling of the congregation, but generally adults or older children who wish to be baptised will have preparatory classes - sometimes integrated with the church's Lent study group - and will plan their baptism. In some places, they will be asked to wait until Low Sunday (the Sunday after Easter), in order not to prolong the first service of Easter too much. Or else the sprinkling will be at the first Easter service, and the baptism at the second. (I think this is what my church is planning this year.)

So non-Christians are generally welcome to come for the Easter vigil, and participate in the lighting of candles, and get free Easter eggs, and so on, but will not be baptised, either accidentally, or deliberately but without planning. A Jewish relative of a regular congregant used to come regularly to our first service of Easter at my previous church; he basically ignored the splash of holy water, and enjoyed the show.

However, all of that being said, if someone approached a priest before the vigil and said "I've never been baptised - could you do me today, please?", the reaction would vary from priest to priest, but many would leap at the chance if the person appeared sincere. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If you said that to a Catholic priest, I think he'd want to talk to you at length about your desire to convert, and have you go through formal religious instruction to make sure you understood what you're getting into. To the question above about non-Christian participation, I've "read somewhere" (therefore it's true!!!!) that the Catholic Church approves of non-Catholics participating in the Ash Wednesday ritual where the priest rubs palm-leaf ashes into each person's forehead while reminding him in verse that he will die some day. But the rules strictly limit circumstances in which non-Catholic Christians can receive communion. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Receiving communion generally requires more than baptism: in most Anglican churches, it requires confirmation, and in most RC churches acceptance at First Communion. I take your point, but I think you are eliding the difference between baptism and other stages of church membership. And my speculation was, in any case, just that - speculative. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Norman Rockwell did a classic illustration on Easter Sunday for the cover of the May 16, 1959 issue of the Saturday Evening Post; see here... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What is a legacy payment system?

Various things on the web like this use the phrases "legacy payment system" and "legacy system" in ways that assume the reader knows what it means. Misplaced Pages seems to have no article about whatever this thing is. What is it? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That's because it isn't a specific thing. It's not a system for the payment of legacies; it's a payment system that's a legacy of some earlier time. Payroll systems are often left like this, but it can affect all kinds of corporate IT. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In this context "system" means "collection of computers, software, and practices that do a given task". "Legacy system" means "old-fashioned system we wish went away but on which our business really depends". A "payment system" is a system by which banks transfer money (or some magical money-equivalent) to and from one another, or to other entities like retailers or people. "Replacing legacy payment systems" means "behind our bank's fancy modern website there is a core of antique Tandem mainframes and clunky IBM minicomputers which do all the real work, whose function is arcane and complicated and understood only by ancient wizards who have all retired due to stress - so we're terrified to change anything in case our business implodes." -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd characterize it another way: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". That is, if some critical system works just fine now, even though it's old technology, upgrading to a new technology is rather risky, by comparison. StuRat (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As the PDF Michael linked notes, they still need to be able to change the legacy system (new banking laws, new markets, new types of business). Much as they'd like to leave the scary thing alone, outside effects mean they have to, but do so without breaking something. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, now I see that there is a Misplaced Pages article titled legacy system, and it's not specifically about payment systems. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A common joke around such systems finally being replaced usually goes along the lines of "Why is the system finally being replaced? The last remaining support person who knew anything about it has died/retired." Dismas| 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

January 8

Drawing conclusions from the wrong experiment-fallacy

As a libertarian I have to fight arguments along the line "we tried it, and obviously it didn't work" quite a lot in discussions. Examples are Dutch public transport and the Dutch health system which are both "privatised", and turned into a mess. (here I cut quite some lines as "this is not a forum". Just assume for the sake of argument that the Dutch health care system is all but a free market). My response would be to prove that the current state of affairs doesn't exactly resemble a free market because of this and that and such and so. Luckily, in this case, I happen to know about the subject. If I don't, the mere calling something "privatisation" and proving its failure means that it's me who's left with the burden of proof. I'd love an "official Misplaced Pages page" or even better a latin phrase saying: "If you're using the result of an experiment as an argument, it's up to you to prove that the experiment was carried out right". Joepnl (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Something else to think about is that one or two trials doesn't prove much (that number isn't statistically significant). So, you'd need a much larger "population" of privatization trials, like all that have ever occurred in the world, to draw a conclusion about whether they work or don't. StuRat (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been many such trials - and no, they rarely work- unless by 'work' you mean lining the pockets of a few, while leaving the rest of us with an inferior service. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd think it would depend on what is being privatized. Some things are natural functions of government, like the military, while others are natural functions of the private sector, like making shoes. If you privatize the 1st one, expect a disaster, while, if for some reason the government is making shoes, then privatization should improve things. StuRat (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the fallacy you are describing is a type of straw man. Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Like Looie, I think the question is more about the fallacy than about privatisation. All fallacies are non-sequiturs, ie. the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Here, some part of the problem is that the facts drawn as evidence regarding X are incorrect, in that they aren't even examples of X (in this case privatisation). It's a straw man if they really understand the facts, but misunderstand what privatisation is. As it stands, it may not truly be a fallacy. As a solution, just ask them what they know about X. I find the best way is never to put the hard questions to people. Ask them the dumb ones, and you will see quickly enough that it has more to do with ideology than logic. IBE (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What trivias about Tokugawa Ieyasu is verifiable?

Recently I noted a number of uncited trivias in the trivia section of zh:德川家康:

• Hobbies in late age：Mount Fuji, eagle and eggplant.He liked to go hiking in Mount Fuji and hunt with eagle, while eggplant is his favorite food; he described eggplant as "food of the conquerors".
• He was the wealthiest among the daimyos in Japan, prabably due to the support of Chinese merchant Li Dan.
• He was a master in the Bows, Swords, Cannons, Horses and Swimming; he learned from a number of skilled warriors.
• People he admired include: Liu Bang, Zhang Liang, Han Xin, Jiang Ziya, King Wen of Zhou, Zhou Gong Dan, Minamoto no Yoritomo, Ashikaga Takauji.
• His favourite books: Lotus Sutra, Azuma Kagami, Analects, Six Secret Teachings, Three Strategies of Huang Shigong, Records of the Grand Historian, Doctrine of the Mean, Book of Han
• Palmistry: He had a Single transverse palmar crease.
• Other hobbies: he had a wide variety of hobbies; he liked Sarugaku and learned Japanese tea ceremony and Go.
• He was a square man with height 156-160 cm and waist circumference 120cm.
• One claim says he died because of poisoning from sparidae tempura.

....

There are still some left inzh:德川家康#逸事 I have left not translated. See alsoja:徳川家康#人物・逸話, from which I believe the Chinese content is translated, but still has many unreferenced trivias.--Inspector (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As for the first one, It's just a theory of the origin of hatsuyume. As for his death cause, it was a popular belief in Japan, but it is denied today. Some of those trivia can be found at the ja article, and they might be the translation from the page. Some are sourced and some are not at the ja page. Some of the trivia at the zh page are different from the ja article. The ja article says he know, but he does not like the Japanese tea ceremony and he was a thrifty and left a large fortune, but there is no mention of the Chinese merchant. Oda Mari (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Pastafarian Minister Honorific?

I was recently ordained as a Pastafarian minister and I was wondering if anyone knows of an honorific I can be referred to as, officially, rather than "Mr.". 99.246.195.34 (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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