This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs) at 23:38, 7 February 2014 (→How do you plead?: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

February 2

Machine-gun firing squads

Jang Sung-taek was executed a couple of months ago, soon after being purged from a top position in North Korea's government; according to at least one South Korean analyst, it's likely that he was killed by a machine-gun firing squad. Some of his associates had been purged and executed not long before, and a similar method of execution was used. What's the point of using a firing squad of machine guns? I can't remember hearing of multiple machine guns being used for any purpose, except of course on the battlefield where multiple guns can cover more ground, provide redundancy, scare the enemy more thoroughly, etc., but none of those is particularly applicable when you've got just one target at close range who can't move or fight back. It would also seem silly because a group of guys with rifles is generally sufficient, and one machine gun would definitely work as well: you wouldn't have the difficulty of bringing multiple machine guns into a building or the increased risk of one of the many rounds ricocheting off the walls, or if it's outside you'd have a reduced risk of one of the rounds ricocheting or being fired in a weird direction and causing havoc. It just doesn't seem to be the efficient solution I'd expect to be employed in this kind of situation. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The main point of execution by a normal firing squad is to disperse the responsibility. Guess a machine-gun squad is the North Korean regime's idea of turning a normal firing squad up to 11... AnonMoos (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, chances are that a lot more machine gun bullets will hit the victim, so it would be even less apparent who really killed him. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Turning it up to eleven what? Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

(This). 71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In years past, they formed a circle around the victim. That tended not to work out very well. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That was actually part of what I was wondering. Bring a group of guys with rifles, or one guy with a machine gun, and you should be all right; but a group of guys with machine guns might run the risk of a gun going in the wrong direction (e.g. through recoil) and accidentally shooting another shooter. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a (very old) joke, son. But you raise an interesting point. The only depiction I can think of just now is in The Great Escape, where the Nazis use a machine gun to mow down some escapees whom they had recaptured. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

NK has also reportedly executed generals by placing them at the aim point of a mortar. That's certainly not efficient, but that's not the point. It's a (morbidly) theatrical gesture pour encourager les autres. Acroterion (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, a machine gun firing squad would be just as safe, provided they use it as intended, i.e. supported on the ground or some kind of raised support. Holding a machine gun against your shoulder only supported by your arms would indeed be dangerous, much in the same way as firing a rifle holding it with one hand at arm's length like a pistol. Sjö (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This article says; " recent military history, Russian, Japanese and Chinese firing squads all had real bullets, no blank rounds were issued. It is thought that this is because they didn't care less about who thought what about who, and who did what, where and when. Even today, Chines firing squads all have real bullets..."'. I'm not sure how reliable a source it is, but it makes sense. Alansplodge (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A WW2 vet I know scoffed at the notion of a member of a firing squad being spared the knowledge of whether his rifle fired a blank or a bullet, and said it was easy to tell the difference from the recoil of an M1. But they wouldn't know until they pulled the trigger, so they might be less likely to balk, and more willing to point the rifle at the victim and pull the trigger. See also Straight Dope. One problem with overkill such as mortar fire or a corpse torn to bits by machine gun fire or hungry dogs or lions is that it does not leave an identifiable corpse, and it would be possible for there to be a fake execution staged, if the condemned had sympathizers among the force charged with the execution, with someone else killed instead. Think of all the stage illusionists who have been apparently killed. Edison (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

About the recoil thing, see Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 October 4#firing a blank. Note that while the removal of the statement from our article about remembering the bullet as blank was probably appropriate considering the lack of sources, I think it is fair to say people are often good at 'remembering' what they want to 'remember'. So it wouldn't surprise me if multiple experienced shooters in a firing squad thought they had fired a blank if they'd been told one round was a blank even if none of them were, in cases where it mattered to them. Nil Einne (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There's also the issue of something akin to plausible deniability. Since no one except one shooter knows for sure who had the blank, every member of the firing squad can tell their friends and family that they didn't fire a killing bullet. It might ease the minds of those around them and prevent some criticism against them. Sjö (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a depiction of a machine-gun execution in Thailand in the mini-series Bangkok Hilton (can be seen on YouTube, but is perhaps not for the squeamish). I have no idea how accurate it is. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you do a search for something simple like 'machine gun execution' on the internet, you should find two things.

1 is a claim that the NK execution didn't just use a machine gune but an anti aircraft machine gun. I have no idea on the accuracy of the claim and think it's wise to treat any claims about what goes on in NK with scepticism. In fact you'll probably also find claims the execution was done using hounds .

Another is thing you should find are links to videos allegedly depicting real machine gun executions in Syria, Libya and I think Afghanistan. (I haven't looked at any of the videos so can't confirm they depict anything.)

Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

My source is msn.com. As far as I recall the message from NK was that the condemned was thrown into a pit with dogs that were kept hungry for five days. Where did you get the firing squad story? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That specific case (Kim's uncle) is a rumor. All that's known to the outside world for sure is that he was executed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Really?    ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the Thai Corrections Museum's website and the Thai Misplaced Pages, executions by firearm in Thailand were carried out with Bergmann MP18 submachine guns from 1935–1977, and HK MP5s from 1977 until lethal injection was introduced in 2003. Only one executioner performed the duty. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think some Brits were executed by Nazi regime machine-gun firing squads in the part of the Second World War in which the USA did not participate, and also possibly some British and/or Americans after the USA did join the war, but I leave finding the details and references to others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Who is the celebrated "Rudpiki"?

Hi all,

I was reading Walter Scott's The Talisman, and there is a reference to a 'celebrated Rudpiki', who or what is that. The reference is like this:

"He was thus greatly perplexed, and undecided how to act; and it was in a tone of hasty displeasure that, at length breaking silence, he interrupted the lay of the celebrated Rudpiki, in which he prefers the mole on his mistress's bosom to all the wealth of Bokhara and Samarcand."

Cheers Gulielmus estavius (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A lay is a narrative poem or a song, such as a ballad.
Sleigh (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And Rudpiki seems to be a name that Scott dreamt up for the singer of the song. I wonder if the p was meant to be a Thorn (letter) (þ). -- Jack of Oz 20:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

According to this glossary, Rudpiki was a Persian poet. I have no idea about the novel, but maybe Scott was referring to Rudaki? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Here the quote (from Chorasmia, attributed to Hafez): "If that Shirazi Turk heeds my heart's call for love, I would sell even the jewel cities of Samarkand and Bukhara for the Indian mole on her cheek." Legend has it that Tamerlane sent for Hafez regarding this verse and asked angrily: "Are you he who was so bold as to offer my two great cities Samarkand and Bukhara for the mole on thy mistress's cheek?". "Yes, sire" replied Hafez, (...) --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Creativity and Innovation

My friend is currently pursuing a marketing degree and is looking for materials that will help him to highlight ways in which innovators and people who make creative things and the marketing methods that people utilise to showcase their creative accomplishments. External links would be helpful, particularly ones which focus on the various methods used --Andrew 20:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Global Economic Inequality and the Law

The world is divided into rich developed countries and poor developing countries. There is a big inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries. There are very rich countries and very poor countries. Has this inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries got anything to do with the law? If so, then what? What does the law think about it? Great Time (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that as a request for references rather than a soapboxing invitation to debate? This is not a chat forum, and you've asked substantially the same question four days ago. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What law or laws are you talking about? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The lack of rule of law in the "developing nations" is definitely a contributing factor. That is, nobody wants to invest in a nation where their investment can be arbitrarily taken away by the government, rebels, or whoever else is in charge at the time. Not to mention that the owners might be arrested or killed when they visit their factory. See the case of Mohamed Bouazizi for an example of how corrupt governments make it impossible to operate even the most basic businesses, because everything is illegal there, unless you know/bribe the right people. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent comment, Stu. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"What the law think about it" is kind of meaningless. Equally, your assumptions about the division into rich and poor are dubious at least. In the same vein, there is no way of guessing what do you mean by 'the law.' International law? National laws? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Great Time: You might want to check out the article Economic inequality, which lists a number of factors, many of which have legal aspects. -- Beland (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Global Economic Inequality, International Law and Justice

The world is divided into rich developed countries and poor developing countries. There is a big inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries. There are very rich countries and very poor countries. Has this inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries got anything to do with international law? If so, then what? What does international law think about it? Has this inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries got anything to do with justice? If so, then what? What does blindfolded Lady Justice think about it?

Great Time (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

In sentence order: Incorrect assumption. See Gini coefficient, World systems theory, comprador elite: your assumption is again incorrect, many people in developing nations also live disgustingly opulent lives on the backs of the working class. Incorrect assumption. No. See World systems theory, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Late capitalism. Social relations don't think, and you can't give them human characteristics like thought. No: this isn't a world of justice, son, this is a world of force. Then you ought to do basic research on International relations and political science before you spam this answer again. Again, personifications, social relations, and institutions aren't capable of thought. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't double post your questions, please. StuRat (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your question is so misguided that's difficult to start unraveling it, although StuRat (on your last question) tried to put you on track. Apparently without success, despite his very good answer, which is well complemented by Fifelfoo's answer. I wonder whether you are aware that Lady Justice is not actually a woman who thinks about the state of the world. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Rather than dividing the world by income, and seeking an explanation in law, why not divide the world by the quality of legal systems (perhaps using the anti-corruptionTransparency International measures), and seek an explanation about wealth?DOR (HK) (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism and Anti-Communism in India

America is a very capitalist and anti-communist country. What about India? Great Time (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I give up. What about India? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Economy of India, Politics of India and Socialism in India might be useful starting points here --Andrew 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I am confused about your question. It's like you are asking "Kangaroos hop. What about cows?". Regardless of how much Kangaroo hop or not hop, it has no impact on cows' ability to hop. So why make a statement about the Kangaroos in the first place? 202.177.218.59 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither term describes India very well. After its independence, it followed a path of non-alignment and implemented some socialistic reforms. 1975 began increased free market reforms. India has tried to implement what it feels are the most useful aspects of both, while trying to stay clear of the extreme violent aspects of both and wanting to live in peace, both internally and externally. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe the OP was inviting comparisons. Well, here's one. In some areas of India, it's not at all surprising or unusual for avowedly Communist candidates to win election to state legislatures. In the USA, this doesn't really happen. (I think the Communists actually sometimes win control of some state legislatures in India, but that's from memory so it's a .) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

February 3

UN parade with US troops from Korean conflict 1952

October 24, 1952- was there a UN parade including troops from the participating countries? If yes, any details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.251.251 (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

October 24 is United Nations Day. The Keith Highlanders Pipe Band, Seattle claim that they represented "the United Kingdom at the United Nations Day program in 1952", presumably at an event in Seattle. The town of Lubbock, Texas held a United Nations Day Dinner complete with a UN birthday cake. I also found this 1952 British newsreel clip which just says; "Remember October 24th - United Nations Day", so presumably it was commemorated in the UK as well. If you could tell us a particular location, it might make the search a bit easier. Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright assertions by dead people

I've seen this sort of thing before, but the oddness of it just struck me. I've just finished reading Under the Sun, the letters of Bruce Chatwin. In the legal stuff at the front is this statement:

• Bruce Chatwin has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.

He died in 1989, and this book of collected letters was published in 2011. How could a dead person assert any such thing? Do they mean the executors of his estate have asserted the right on his behalf? If so, why do they not say that?

It also contains many footnotes and explanatory texts about Chatwin's travels and writings and personal life, to help put the letters in context and explain the non-obvious references in them. These were written by the co-editors, his widow Elizabeth Chatwin and his biographer Nicholas Shakespeare. As were the Preface, Introduction and Acknowledgements. Do they not get to claim any part of the authorship? -- Jack of Oz 10:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• As author of the letters, he still maintains copyright, despite being dead. The UK recognizes copyright for 70 years after the creator's death, not publication, and these letters would have been considered automatically copyrighted. Not sure about the footnotes etc. though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes, introductions or similar stuff on a text won't make anyone a co-author of the main work. Although they are probably protected by their own copyright, independent of the main work.

I am not sure that the long claim "Bruce Chatwin has asserted his right" is in any way different from the short form "© Bruce Chatwin." It seems like a standard formulation, which is probably required by law, and not the case that Bruce personally asserted that, or had to do that. Possibly, this claim is simply a moral right of an author of being considered the author. Many works are surely automatically covered and some rights can not be waived. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand the moral right concept, and that copyright survives an author's death. I'm assuming that the "Bruce Chatwin" in the sentence is not to be interpreted as the physical person - because he was cremated shortly after dying 25 years ago - but the legal entity which is the owner of the copyright, and which is very much extant until 2059. If, in 2060 or later, someone comes up with previously unknown letters from him, they could presumably publish them as their own work and not Chatwin's. Is that the case? Or at least get to keep all the royalties and not have to share them with his estate? Why would the moral right cease to exist at 70 years, or ever? -- Jack of Oz 17:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The economic rights might expire 70 years after the death of an author (other clauses and special cases apply, so this is a general rule). However, the moral rights, o be considered the author, to avoid distortion of his work, and damage to his reputation, for example, last at least the economical rights expire (also, in general also 70 years). You probably can't publish something that you found, claiming that's yours. After copyright expires, then, you can keep the royalties. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. So, for example, I could publish an edition of Hamlet and keep all the royalties because Shakespeare's been dead for far longer than 70 years, but it would still be fraud/misleading conduct for me to claim I wrote it myself. Separate issues. Thanks for the enlightenment. -- Jack of Oz 19:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Could Woody Allen be indicted?

The rules of WP:BLP apply to the ref desk, please observe them. Criminal accusations are defamation per se. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the accusations against him are more than 20 years old. So horrible as it might be, isn't there any statute of limitation for things which are not murder? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It actually isn't unheard of that crimes besides murder, such as child sexual assault has no statute of limitations. That said, if I understand correctly, the statute of limitations in Connecticut for childhood sexual assault occuring in the 90s is likely to be "up to 30 years after the victim reaches age 18 or up to five years after the victim reports the crime, whichever is earlier" which concurs with these sources that the statute on any of the historic allegations which have flared up again likely expired 15 years ago (5 years after they were reported) . I'm not 100% sure what happens if allegations are made that weren't reported before and obviously if any allegations are made covering activity in another state then this is all irrelevant. Either way, to emphasise the earlier point, as I understand the source and also + , there it no statute of limitations on sexual assault commited since the amendment in 2002, by an adult (or anyone more than 2 years older) on someone under 13 years of age. (In other words, if everything but the laws were moved 10 years later, there may be no statute of limitations.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at Statute_of_limitations#Heinous_crimes_in_the_United_States? ManOfTeeth (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not clear whether sexual assault is heinous or not. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Unfortunately that paragraph is unreferenced, and in any case doesn't specifically mention any crimes other than murder. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like he could, in theory - but given what this article says, there was unsufficient evidence 20 years ago. So unless there's new evidence, it could be a problem. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In reference to Medeis' comment above, it's important to keep the discussion to what has already been published. On TV shows where they talk about some particular case, they often go into what could be called "abstract mode", where they talk about the various laws and such in general terms rather than zeroing in on a specific individual. As to the OP's question, "could be" can be answered, "yes, could be". That doesn't mean "will be". There's no indication of what, if anything, the legal system is going to do with these resurfaced allegations. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Did any of you attempt to even research an actual law? Or do you like referring to a {{CN}} two sentence section in an already badly referenced article as though it were canon. Federal law has a very specific statute 18 U.S.C. § 3282 (generally chapter 213... there are some novel exceptions, like for art theft, that might surprise people) that addresses this, with a few exceptions scattered throughout the Code. State law varies a lot. I've seen more misunderstandings of SoL on here than any other singular topic. Shadowjams (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And did you read my answer before effectively asking if I 'attempt to research an actual law'? I posted before anyone else and didn't link to any of our articles. And I provided a direct link to what appears to be the most relevant Connecticut law, a link to an amendment which introduced one of these laws, a discussion from the Connecticut government explaining the law covering similar offences a bit (while concentrating on the situation in 1971, it does try to explain the law at the time it was written and how it changed as well), and 2 refs which quote the state attorney involved saying the the SoL expired a while ago. State law may vary a lot but discussing the situation Connecticut makes a lot of sense here.

I'm not sure if allegations have covered any other state, but I tailored my answer to be general, mentioning using the Connecticut example that both possibilities exist. Since as I mentioned under the law in 1992 the SoL has likely expired for the historic allegations but if similar allegations covered activity in 2002, there may very well be no SoL. (Which I thought the OP would be smart enough to recognise means it's possible that this could have been the case in some other state in ~1992 as I implied at the beginning of my post although as I also mentioned the actual laws in Connecticut are irrelevant to any other state.)

IANAL and never in any way indicated I was one so I also mentioned that I wasn't totally sure what would happen if new allegations surfaced which weren't really mentioned before (I didn't give an example but I thought it would be obvious there are many possibilities, e.g. if a sex act is alleged which wasn't before). Not mentioned but I thought it was obvious, my intepretation of the law could be wrong (although as I mentioned it seems to concur with the state attorney involved) and there could potentially be other provisions of Connecticut law the offences would come under which different SoL. (The links I provided to mention some additional stuff, e.g. the DNA provision which I didn't bring up since it didn't seem likely to be relevant in this case.)

I didn't mention federal law because I wasn't sure if the alleged offences would be covered under any provision of federal law and thought someone else would mention if they were.

Unlike perhaps some of my others, I don't felt my original post is particularly long, perhaps some would prefer one of two more paragraphs even though I personally feel it's fine as is. Either way you're obviously free to ignore it before replying except that you shouldn't if you're going to disparage all previous answers in a blanket fashion.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Jack Cornwell VC shell splinters

I thought that I would have a go at improving our Jack Cornwell page (we're both from Leyton), as large chunks of it are unreferenced. The "Battle of Jutland" section claims that the gun shields on Cornwell's ship, HMS Chester, were too short and many of the gun crews suffered severe leg injuries as a result. I'm struggling to find a source for this; Jutland, 1916: Death in the Grey Wastes by Peter Hart, Nigel Steel has several eye witness accounts of the carnage on the deck of HMS Chester but no mention of short gun shields. The Imperial War Museum's page says "...the forecastle received a direct hit as a result of which every member of Cornwell’s gun crew were either killed or wounded"; presumably the explosion was behind the open-backed shield. Can anybody shed any light on this? I have posted the same question on the article's talk page, but it doesn't seem to be very busy. Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail ("the open-backed gun-shields did not reach the deck to give protection") and the Boy Scouts of Western Cape ("The gun mountings were merely open backed shields and did not reach the deck. Splinters were thus able to pass under them or enter the open back when shells exploded near or behind.") both think so, but for a really definitive answer, it would seem that the Imperial War Museum is the best place to ask, seeing as they have the very gun at which he served. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that I might go with "some sources suggest" unless I can find anything published by the IWM. The open-backed shields seem to have been the main issue; the Royal Navy persisted with these until the 1960s, because they're much lighter than fully enclosed ones. Alansplodge (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wealth and Divine Reward

America, Australia and Secular Republics

Is America a secular republic? Is Australia a secular republic?

Great Time (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Read America and Australia and report back. I'd love to know. -- Jack of Oz 23:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The USA is certainly secular. There are occasional minor encroachments of religion, like inserting "under God" into the pledge of allegiance, but there's a huge difference between that and a theocracy. StuRat (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Australia most definitely is not. Whether or not it's secular depends on your definition, but it's not a republic for sure. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops: There is an obscure animal called a crowned republic. Our article gives Australia as one example. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

PS @Beland below: Australia´s head of state is, of course, QEII. She is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (17.1% of the population). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Great_Time -- The United States is a secular republic, modified by Ceremonial Deism, granting tax-exempt status to religious bodies (without discrimination by denomination), and declaring Christmas to be an official federal holiday. It's up to you to decide whether this meets your definition of "secular" or not... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither have a state religion, which is a good metric. -- Beland (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hey, we also have the article secular state which goes into a bit more depth worldwide. -- Beland (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

February 4

Nellie McClung

My husband is a great nephew of Nellie McClung and is very familiar with her life and works. In your article you list a 17th book attributed to her "The Morning After Dawn" (1950). We own the complete collection of her books (16) and a list of all the articles written by her, many of which are housed in the Sipiweske Museum at Wawanesa, Manitoba, where she grew up and went to school. We have been unable to find any mention of the book listed in the article, nor does it appear that she wrote an article or essay under this name. Also, have researched it in Victoria, B.C. where she resided prior to her death and there is no mention of this book. We are wondering what the source of this information is and, frankly doubt that a book or article under this name was written by her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.27.243 (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss the publication and the authorship of the book right away. It could perfectly be an anthology of her previous work, in the same venue as Baraka (]) and not an original work. The number of books would remain then 16, consistent with your information. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Appointed discussion area is Talk:Nellie McClung... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at second-hand book websites brings up no mention of this title, so I would be tempted to delete it. If anyone else comes up with a reference, they can always restore it. --Viennese Waltz 09:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The two bibliographies I found, while they disagree with each other (added to the article), don't list The Morning After Dawn either, nor was I able to find anything other than Misplaced Pages mirrors, so I took it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Added a third bibliography source. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the user who added that title to the bibliography made another factually incorrect edit on the same day. --Cam (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

article help

What factors caused Las Casas to renounce his holdings and devote his life to defending the interests of Spain's Native American subjects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsoccer4 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

According to this article, Bartolomé_de_las_Casas it was while reading the Sirach. I assume you are looking for something more than that? DanielDemaret (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oliver Sipple

Hi, the man is deceased but I'm not sure how to confirm his actual middle name. It could be William or Wellington, I see both used and reported but it would be nice to confirm it and add the reference(s). Any ideas? Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ancestry.com has 'Wellington' for his middle name, sourced to 'California, Death Index, 1940-1997': but I don't have subscription to verify. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I do, and it does indeed say "Wellington". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll add the reference now. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Name of a painting (and artist)

Does anyone know the name of the painting (and of the artist who painted it) displayed from 01:00 onwards in this YouTube clip. Thanks! 59.167.253.199 (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is The Love Letter by François Boucher - (see ) - Nunh-huh 23:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

February 5

Private surveillance questions

The willingness of many Americans (and others, I presume) to accept private surveillance is difficult for me to understand. A few questions:

• The ADT Corporation frequently advertises a video home security system service, for which people actually pay, by means of which activities in the home can be monitored remotely by the user on a mobile phone, and which will also lead to police being contacted in various emergencies. Question: when are they watching and when not? How often does a homeowner get busted for something seen on these cameras? Does the ADT Corporation have a legal duty to watch for certain types of crimes to report when possible? (domestic abuse comes quickly to mind) I won't ask if the NSA gets a copy of the information, only whether they've admitted it. Anyway - if anyone understands these issues, please sing out, or point to some sources.

• Speaking of ads... ads about surveillance. Why do so many companies publish television ads that hint, not very subtly, that their products are spying on their users? An example that sticks out: an ad by Epsom Epson in which an actress representing their printer scans and copies documents, then pauses her activity to literally 'phone home to mother'. Or car ads like 'You talk, Sync listens'. What is their goal?

• In general, why do products with serious surveillance or security issues not have more trouble in the marketplace? I would think that, for example, the very serious security vulnerabilities in cars would have provoked an angry rejection of modern models, yet I see no evidence that consumers ask or companies offer cars that are free from surveillance and indeed even lethal sabotage. To the contrary, OnStar is offered as a ... feature. Consumers lined up to get the Xbox One. Why?

I just don't understand this huge disconnect between the public which says it opposes being spied on, and the supposedly free market that sells them ever more ways of being spied on. Wnt (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note... I believe you're looking for Epson. They make printers. I'm sure many fine printers have come from Epsom but they're not really known for it. Dismas| 09:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Wnt (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A typical response (mostly OR, but easy to find in online discussions) is that americans don't want the government to be spying on us. At the same time they opt in to corporate data-gathering schemes (most striking to me is Facebook) because they accept it as a tradeoff for a service which they want. Staecker (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

People are concerned about the Xbox One "spying" on them. See e.g. here , or just google it. In that case, hard-core security types won't buy it, and millions of others will. I think the fear is far overblown, in that a paranoiac security-and-privacy-conscious consumer can simply unplug the system or sensors when not in use. Also, I'll mention that anything that records any form of information (text, audio, video, etc) can potentially be used to "spy" -- it all depends on your threat model. For most of Xbox's market (it seems) the ability to play exclusive games with the latest motion capture is a big incentive. While you're on the topic, have you considered how many people pay top dollar to carry around "tracking devices" in their pockets? They mostly think it's quite handy to have mapping and navigation systems on their phones :) My point is, there is no way to have a motion-capture entertainment system (or personal always-on GPS) that cannot be used for ill, and to potentially harm the owner. Call it a necessary evil if you will, but most consumers just want the cool new stuff. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) (P.S. I assume that you only ever send or read encrypted email, right? How else can you be sure your mail provider isn't spying on you ;)

Actually, that's another example. There's no reason why a phone couldn't come with a GPS unit that is only activated by the user (even with a physical toggle switch) so that he can find where he is but not be tracked all the time. Instead, what I hear about are people carrying around phones that have GPS, for purposes of the government, but the poor saps using them don't even have access because they "don't have the software". I'd be curious how many of those there are. I mean, there's all this out and out bullshit about the Free Market and how the Free Market perfectly satisfies consumer demand, and when I look at things like this, I don't see the slightest evidence that the Free Market even exists. Wnt (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of the ads you mention and I don't know what the products do, but from your question about ADT ("Does the ADT Corporation have a legal duty to watch for certain types of crimes...") it sounds as though you think that they employ people to watch video feeds from customers' homes. In reality I think it would be a huge scandal if any employee was ever found to be doing such a thing. If the word "monitoring" in the ads means anything, it's that they have 24-hour call centers that are notified if a window is opened or a motion sensor trips, at which point they call the home and/or the police to check that everything is okay. They are marketing to people who feel more comfortable if their homes are being "guarded"—or "watched", if you prefer, since guards are also called watchmen. That doesn't mean they want a guard peering in their windows. Some of them want to be able to peer in the windows themselves, remotely, if they're afraid something awful is happening, and that's the service ADT advertises for their Internet-connected cameras.

The phrase "You talk; Sync listens" doesn't sound all that ominous to me. I dare say people associate it with a more positive image, like a friend who's a good listener. If you think your interpretation is more rational, consider that marketing slogans in ads have no impact on a company's legal obligations re privacy or anything else. If you judge their privacy practices from their ads, you're as foolish as anyone else who is swayed by advertising.

In general, what you seem to be asking is why people don't demonstrate their commitment to privacy by staying in their homes all the time with the blinds drawn and no telephones or internet-connected computers or any other link to the outside world. The fact that people try to have a life doesn't mean that they don't care about their privacy. I'm old fashioned enough to still believe that the government has the job of safeguarding people's rights, and if you can't safely use any technology that might theoretically be used to spy on you, then the government has completely failed to do that. And maybe it has, but if so that's the problem that needs to be fixed, not Kinect. -- BenRG (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Benemerent Metal

I just read an article dated Sunday July 7th, 1996 in the Morning Star from Vernon, BC, Canada. The article shows Mrs. Grace O'Keefe receiving the Benemerent Medal from Pope John Paul in June of that year. She received the medal for amazing service to St. James Catholic Church. Would you please post this on your site. Thank you. Linda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.53.34 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

For anyone to help you here, they would need to know in which article and which context do you think it might be notable enough for it to be posted.

Perhaps you could post it yourself where it is relevant? DanielDemaret (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added Mrs. O'Keefe to the list of recipients on the Benemerenti medal page under the John Paul II heading. I haven't added the reference though (Morning Star) because it would be out of step with the rest of the page.

Flarp (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If anyone's up for it, that page can do with a thoroughgoing vacuuming and cleanup. For starters, we can get rid of the multiple repetitions of "awarded the medal to". -- Jack of Oz 19:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

End of inheritance estates

When does an estate (law)#inheritance end? In other words, when does property stop being owned by the dead person's estate and start being owned by the heirs? For example, why does Bruce Chatwin still assert anything in 2011, instead of his heirs asserting things about him? I would assume that the answer is "it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction," so I'm actually looking for a summary of different laws or a list of links to them. 2001:18E8:2:1020:BD3D:A881:330A:64B5 (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To start with, there will be at least 50 different laws in the US. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I know. That's why I said "looking for a summary or a list of links." But perhaps different U.S. states have enacted the same provisions, so it could be somewhat less than 50 for the U.S. 2001:18E8:2:1020:BD3D:A881:330A:64B5 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Estates exist as such through the period of probate as directed by the executor so there's no necessary reason for them to end existence at some arbitrary cut-off point if they are managed properly. Basically what happens is they either self-liquidated by the distribution of assets to real persons or other entities, or they evolve into charities or trusts and other corporate-type entities as set up by their provisions. A judge will oversee this process in probate court. In the meantime, estate taxes as applicable and lawyer fees will eat up the capital, as will sales tax on assets and commissions of liquidators. See also estate sale and estate liquidation. Foundations set up by estates and properly managed have no set lifetime. See for example, the trust set up by Benjamin Franklin, which was liquidated in 1990, on his direction, 200 years after it was set up. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this legal the way this guy is filming this "drug addict" in Vancouver?

wwww.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGkJXh-xRU

Venustar84 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That would depend on the laws in Vancouver and/or the province of British Columbia and/or the nation of Canada. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what evidence there is for him being a "drug addict" ("crack head" as the video puts it). I mean, he's talking like a drunk, he's holding a bottle, he's talking about times he's been thrown in the drunk tank ... that pretty well convinces me that he's drunk. I would be surprised if someone on crack acted like that. Wnt (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Once again, we have no reliable evidence of any criminal or other behavior, and imputing such accusations can lead to liability for defamation per se. So let's follow WP:BLP and drop the speculation about a private person. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Olympic sports

Is there a ranking somewhere of Olympic sports by maximum number of spins or flips (or spins plus flips)? I want to compare. Which sports beat any Olympic sport? 184.152.47.209 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about figure skating? There are various required elements for the various categories. That might a factor in a few other sports as well, such as mogul skiing or snowboarding. Not so for events based strictly on speed and/or distance. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I can also think of diving, gymnastics vaulting, trampolining.. Skydiving and NASCAR and maybe some extreme sports must beat them all. You only need to build the halfpipe bigger (than the current one) to beat the snowboarding Olympic record for example. Yes, I don't expect to see swimming or equestrian on that list either.. 184.152.47.209 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in the summer games. The connection is that any event that involves judging is likely to have some required moves. In men's single in skating, for example, there are points for the number of revolutions on various spins and jumps. There's no "maximum" as such, but no one has yet successfully landed (or even tried, as far as I know) a quadruple axel. But some other types of jumps have quads. The scoring for each rotation goes up almost exponentially, so it's advantageous to land jumps that have more rotations. Having said all that, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Are you trying to compare different sports with each other? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I want to compare different sports with each other. 184.152.47.209 (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, what's been achieved in the Olympics is the current maximum until someone beats him. 184.152.47.209 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

...or her. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh right. I was thinking of snowboarding and aerial skiing and most other Olympic sports where men currently have the advantage (talent pool and a 10% or so top-flight strength and speed edge) and forgot about womens' rotational inertia and interest edge in gymnastics and trampolining where I'd be very unsure which sex holds the record without checking. 184.152.47.209 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following this thread. Many world records beat Olympic records. That's why when someone breaks an Olympic record it's not necessarily a new world record. -- Jack of Oz 00:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

With flip and spin records there should be fewer of these though, because records are set in half or even full turn chunks, and many won't be improved by tech any time soon the way a bigger halfpipe or clap skates on speedskaters did. 184.152.47.209 (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the new Winter Olympic sport of Slopestyle skiing will be right up there as an answer to this question. See this video. Pretty spectacular. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Health insurance and employers

I'm not sure how it is in other countries (I'm only vaguely familiar with socialized medicine, eg Britain, Canada) but here in the US many people get their health insurance through their employer. I've been wondering for a while now why this is. I don't go through my employer for my car insurance, electric bill, or any other service besides my 401k, which makes a bit of sense since the money comes straight from my paycheck, but health insurance has been tied to employers for years. Why did this develop? I don't see why it didn't start from the beginning that I would get paid by my employer and then go get health insurance like I do car insurance, i.e. on my own. So how did this develop and why has it not changed for... well, ever. Dismas| 22:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The article Health insurance in the United States has some enlightening comments about the rise in employer health plans since WWII. In a nutshell, it seems that unions pushed for this because it was impossible to get Congress to take any action toward establishing a national health insurance plan. And as you see, even 65 or more years later, it still meets strong resistance. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm Canadian and have supplemental health insurance over and above the government-provided healthcare. This is provided at a price, shared with my employer. This is vey common, probably as common as in the US. It covers some supposedly non-essential costs including dental, prescription coverage and other services that aren't covered by our regular care. Mingmingla (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Also consider it from the employer's point of view. If you can't get car insurance, you can get public transport or someone can give you a lift. If you can't get home insurance, then it's unlikely to stop you working (in fact, if something does go wrong, you'll probably want overtime to make more money). If you can't get health insurance, then you're going to have a lot more days off sick, since the point where it is costing you more to visit the doctor than to lose a few days of wages (once you've exhausted any free sick days) comes much sooner. As an aside, many British companies, especially in higher end jobs, also offer private health insurance to their employees, presumably for similar reasons, but related to getting the employee seen to faster, and therefore working faster. MChesterMC (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) One reason mentionned sometimes (at least by my company) is that they value good health for all their employees. Whereas they don't value their employees using loads of electricity in their own home, an employee that feels good is more productive, especially if they get regular health checks and if they are is not worrying about becoming helpless because he is too sick and cannot afford the cost of getting better. Regarding why your company does not pay for your car insurance, well, in theory your company should value you having good means of mobility, but also in theory you could take the bus, or buy a house next to work and walk, so paying for everyone's car insurance would mean those taking the bus don't get this particular benefit, so it would be unfair to them to pay the car owners this little extra. --Lgriot (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

February 6

Jus solis vs. jus sanguinis principles in running for president in the U.S

I know that a person who is a U.S citizen by the principle of jus solis is elligeable to run for president of the U.S, but what about a person who is U.S citizen by the principle of jus sanguinis? Is he or she elligeable to run for president as well as if he or she would have been born in American soil or does the Natural Born Citizen clause of the U.S Constitution only applies to jus solis Americans? Could Ted Cruz for example, who seems to have presidential ambitions and is trying to renounce his Canadian citizenship, be eligible to run for president by the principle of jus sanguinis given that his mother was born an American citizen, or again, does the Natural Born Citizen clause's application is narrow enough to exclude him from running for president? Another example....A minority of people have made the false claim that President Obama was born in Kenya when he was actually born in Hawaii, but let's say that he was born in Kenya for the sake of the question. Again, would Barack Obama still have been eligible to run for president by the principle of jus sanguinis given that his mother was born an American citizen by the principle of jus solis like Ted Cruz's mother, or would the Natural Born Citizen clause's purpose and definition have been narrow enough to exclude him from running for president? Again, I know that he was born in Hawaii. I'm just making up a scenario for the sake of the question. Willminator (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The answer is that we won't know until a case comes up before the Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution is a short document relative to those of other countries. Much is left open to interpretation. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Why then does Ted Cruz and others believe that he is 100% qualified to run for president of the U.S even though he was born in Canada? Why would the birthers, on the other hand, say that Obama being born in Kenya according to them is not qualified to run for president even though his mother is American-born like Ted Cruz's mother? If a person was born an American national by means of jus sanguinis, how would it violate or not violate the Natural Born Citizen Constitutional requirement to run for president or vice president? If so, would that mean or not that a person can be born in another country and still be able to run for president or vice president of the U.S? Willminator (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The answer is we don't know because the issue has never been tested. Ultimately, the U.S. is a country with a common law legal system, where the interpretation of law by courts through the means of precedence is supreme. A statute means nothing until a court interprets it, and where there is no precedence, there is no means to adjudge it. It's ambiguous, and until there is a test case, it will remain ambiguous. There are of course unambiguous cases (i.e. we're sure that someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger could never be president). But with the "edge cases", the question is unanswerable until the courts decide, or until a more explicit, unambiguous law is written. Since we don't have the latter, and we don't have the former, we don't have a way to answer for those edge cases. --Jayron32 18:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I also read that children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory would not be natural born citizens even if born in the U.S. What if a foreign diplomat was married to an American-born citizen and gives birth to a child? Would the child, because of the American-born parent, be a natural-born citizen and if so, would the child be eligible to run for president? Willminator (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As Jayron says, we don't know for sure until it happens. But the general sense among those in the know seems to be that if you're entitled to US citizenship from birth, you're a natural-born citizen, no matter why you're entitled to it.

By the way, it's not clear that it would be settled in the courts. It might be a political question and therefore not justiciable. The Constitution provides for Congress to do the actual counting of electoral votes and presumably Congress is the court of last resort for all these questions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What about the product of the rape of an American woman by a member of a hostile invading foreign force? -- Jack of Oz 23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Can't tell if that's serious or not, but if it is, Trovatore's comment stands: "But the general sense among those in the know seems to be that if you're entitled to US citizenship from birth, you're a natural-born citizen, no matter why you're entitled to it." Mingmingla (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly serious. I was just responding to Willminator's ...children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory would not be natural born citizens even if born in the U.S. That seems to be in stark contrast to what you and Trovatore are saying. -- Jack of Oz 04:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if both parents were hostile occupiers, I think that might apply. Or just the mother, who came over to engage in hostile occupation while pregnant by a non-American man. Or two foreign diplomats, or a pregnant foreign diplomat, or ... I think you get the picture.

The key phrase is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". --Trovatore (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I was considering the case of a male foreign occupier who rapes an American woman. She goes full term and gives birth in the US. Is the child an American citizen? -- Jack of Oz 19:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think so — born in the US, and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by virtue of his mother, I suppose. The phrase is mainly about diplomats, I believe — they didn't want the child of some ambassador and his wife being automatically burdened with US citizenship. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

precedents ≠ precedence. —Tamfang (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

By the by, Ted Cruz is not very good at renouncing his Canadian citizenship. It's not a difficult process. Mingmingla (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an amusing argument to be made that the problem relates to the documentation supporting Cruz's claim to U.S. citizenship. Canada has an obligation to ensure that Cruz is not rendered stateless; in principle, a significant amount of documentary evidence could be required to ensure that Cruz actually does meet U.S. requirements for citizenship. Specifically, if the Canadian government were particularly sticky, Cruz could be required to prove that his mother lived in the United States for at least ten years prior to his birth (including at least five years after she turned 14)—something that might actually be relatively difficult to establish, given that the relevant period was more than forty years ago. (Curiously, the birther movement seems remarkably quiet on this issue.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

They're too busy creating fake Democratic Party websites. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That five-year rule, by the way, is (I'm told) why Obama would be disqualified if he were born abroad: his mother had not lived in the US for five years after age 14, as she wasn't yet 19 when he was born. (I believe that rule is relevant if only one parent is a US citizen. I could dig out my own papers and see; I was born overseas about the same time, and my not-exactly birth certificate – issued by a consulate – quotes the relevant law.) —Tamfang (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

For some interesting reading: . There was a Senate resolution in 2008 declaring the opinion that John McCain was eligible for the presidency despite having been born in the Panama Canal Zone. Additional complications come into it in this case, because the Canal Zone was under US administration but not part of the US for most constitutional purposes. People born within the Canal Zone at that time did not automatically receive US citizenship. Laws were later passed extending US citizenship to those who had been born in the Canal Zone, but since legislation was required it was not clear whether this qualified as "natural born". The article mentions several other candidates who could have tested the "natural born" requirement for various reasons had they won. --Amble (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I understand there is some debate about whether he was born in the CZ at all, as opposed to in a nearby hospital in Panama proper. I don't know whether there's any credibility to that or whether it's at the "Obama born in Kenya" level of "debate". --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Citing and Reference

If I am using Wikepedia as reference for geographical names, do I have to create reference as to where I got the names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.142.58 (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Only if the geographical names are not well-known to most people and if the names are hard to find. Willminator (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

2 notes played at the same time question.

What happens when i play a note with the frequency of X hz and Y hz at the same time. The "resulting note" will be a note with a frequency of (x +y)/2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.127.74 (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's known as a "chord", and you get resonances, not frequency averaging... AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

See chord for the music-theory description. Beat (acoustics) has some nice graphs of how the waves combine for nearby frequencies to produce a wave that has two major audible components - the average frequency, but also half of the difference in frequency. Katie R (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ads

Are ads on Youtube just random or based on searches you've done? Pass a Method talk 13:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly they are related to your searches and browsing, unless you've opted out of interest-based ads (which it's possible to do). More here . --Viennese Waltz 13:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is done through the use of "cookies", right? I've noticed that youtube and google images and such not infrequently post things that have nothing to do with what I'm searching for at that moment, but have searched for in the past. For example, looking for an old sports clip and seeing stuff about the Marx Brothers popping in there randomly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's cookies so much as they keep a record of your browsing history. --Viennese Waltz 14:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I went to that link you posted above. It appears the database is at Google's end and the cookies just retain the opt-out checkmarks. So I'll see if that makes a difference. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Slightly relevant: You can see your search history at Google.com/history Dismas| 18:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Requires an account. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Receiving immunity

All of this talk about Governor Chris Christie and the Fort Lee lane closure scandal made me think of this question. Several people are seeking immunity from prosecution; the idea, of course, being that (in return for immunity) they will reveal information that the prosecuting authorities want and/or need to enable the prosecution of some other (usually higher-ranking) individual. So, here is my question. Let's call the person seeking immunity "Person X". The basic idea is this: Prosecutor says, "If you give up the information, I will grant you immunity from prosecution" and Person X says "OK". So, at this point, removing the prospect of prosecution is entirely contingent upon Person X revealing their information. Now, before he is assured immunity, Person X does not want to "spill the beans" on what information he knows. He will not want to disclose his vital information until and unless he is guaranteed immunity. (He does not want to forfeit the "big" bargaining chip that he holds in this negotiation process.) So, how exactly does this play out? In other words, the Prosecutor will not know what "juicy information" Person X holds until Person X tells him what that information is, exactly. But, Person X will not reveal that information until he is assured immunity. The prosecutor, presumably, is not going to guarantee immunity unless the information is good, helpful, and significant. In other words, the prosecutor will not grant immunity only to have Person X subsequently offer up some non-important, trivial, and insignificant information. So, my question is: how do the two parties get over this seeming "impasse"? The prosecutor wants to find out what information Person X has, and the prosecutor will not guarantee immunity until he feels that the obtained information will be "worth it". Meanwhile, Person X holds this information close to the vest; he will not reveal the information until and unless he is promised immunity. It seems like a standstill. It seems both parties are at an impasse. How is this typically worked out and resolved ... so that both parties obtain what they want and do not "screw over" the other party? Another way to ask this question is: who makes the first move, without putting himself at a disadvantage and at the mercy of the other party? If the prosecutor offers immunity first (without hearing the information first), then the prosecutor runs the risk of having offered immunity for worthless and unhelpful information. If Person X reveals the information first, Person X runs the risk that the prosecutor will now have that information and (now that he has it), he will not offer the immunity. Thanks for any insight. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe the prosecutor can offer immunity "contingent upon the defendant providing material information which leads to a conviction". So, if the info provided is useless, the immunity is withdrawn. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that is my whole point. Person X says "OK, this is the info that I have to offer ... (provides details) ...". After getting the information, the prosecutor can then say "Oh, that info is really not material or helpful to me, so I don't think I will offer immunity after all." But, now, the prosecutor has the info (that he didn't have a minute ago). How does Person X protect himself against this? Side note: you stated that the material must lead to a conviction. I cannot imagine that to be true. Person X can offer up tons of info (that he has), but he clearly has no control over whether the jury ultimately decides to convict or not. I can't imagine this (a successful conviction) being a part of the deal. What Person X would ever take that risk? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The process, formally called a "proffer", and informally "queen for a day", is described here. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The key point, as Wisenberg observes, is that you don't proffer unless you really have to. But there are so often more than just X and the prosecutor - the prosecutor wouldn't be talking immunity if there were only one possible defendant. Say there's there's not just accused person X, but their alleged co-conspirators Y and Z too. The prosecutor needs a conviction, but he'd rather convict two people than none; he'd like three convictions (and so rather than immunity he might only offer a reduced charge to whoever cooperates). The whole thing is a high-stakes prisoner's dilemma - X,Y, and Z each have their own lawyers, and each is saying that the others are the prime movers and that they're just a pawn. If Y or Z cuts a deal with the prosecutor, X is SOL, so there's pressure on X (and thus in turn on Y and Z too) to cut a deal, even if that involves the risks of proffering. In a case like that, the prosecutor is in the catbird seat, as he can play each off against the other and bargain each to give more and accept a crappier deal in exchange. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

To: Finlay McWalter – Thanks for the information. That was very interesting. The link you provided (Wisenberg's website) was very helpful. Also, in my original post above, it was implicit that there are other defendants (or, at least one) besides Person X. Otherwise, there would be no issue at all. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It isn't just up to the prosecutor. Ultimately a judge is going to make a decision about whether the agreement applies. Looie496 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The decision of whether or not to prosecute lies in the sole discretion of the prosecutor. If he decides not to prosecute, there is no legal proceeding whatsoever; hence, no judge ever enters the picture. Right? (Or no?) If, on the other hand, we are talking about a plea agreement, then, yes, the judge will enter the picture. And he will accept/approve that agreement (or not). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone ever actually been found and rescued thanks to their Breitling Emergency watch?

I ask this in the humanities section instead of the science or computing because I am interested in any news references (if any) telling of people being found and rescued because they used their Breitling Emergency watch (a high-end wristwatch that puts out a radio signal when activated). It seems like the odds are against you if, say, your aircraft goes down in a very remote region. First, search crews would have to be in range of the little watch's propagating signal, and second, they'd have to have equipment tuned into whatever frequency that thing puts out on, and all of this within the time period the watch's power reserves last (hopefully, they notice you're gone and come looking for you close enough to where you are in that window). 75.75.42.89 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like that watch has a Cospas-Sarsat beacon in it. Those certainly work, and are widely deployed in aviation, maritime (e.g. on lifeboats), and sometimes land use by people on foot in the wilderness or in ski/avalanche emergency beacons. You can find pocket-size ones (about the size of a packet of cigarettes) for a few hundred quid online (e.g. Amazon) - much less than the $16,000 Breitling. Given they can reduce it to that size, there's no reason to suppose the Breitling would be worse, although it doesn't have as much space for batteries. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

For example, this PDB (which someone on Amazon Marketplace will sell me for £246) has GPS (your location is encoded in the distress signal) and a bright emergency flashing light. As far as I can tell, the Breitling has neither. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I see. So the signal gets to a satellite and operators are listening in those LUT stations.75.75.42.89 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Breitling has sold about 40,000 previous versions of the emergency watch, which has helped to save more than 20 people, Girardin said." source 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

February 7

Wealth, Justice, and Superpowers

If all people are equal before the law, why are rich countries more powerful than poor countries? For example, the reason why America is the superpower is because it is rich. Great Time (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

In reality people are not equal before the law; rich people can afford the best lawyers, for example. Also, whereas national law is enforced by the state, international law does not always have such power behind it and if a strong state chooses to conquer a weaker one, then international law remains a scrap of paper with all the power that parchment possesses i.e. none. For example, the states of Europe (including Germany) were bound by treaty to preserve the independence and neutrality of Belgium. This piece of paper was incapable of preventing German troops from crossing the Belgian border. Only force persuaded the Germans to evacuate Belgium and it is force that really governs: it's the eternal law of nature. Wealthier countries can afford to equip their armed forces with more (and better) weaponry and are usually therefore more powerful than poorer states who cannot afford to successfully defend themselves. It's always been this way and will always be so.--Britannicus (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"The law, in its majestic impartiality, forbids both rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges"... --- AnonMoos (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about others but I see the question as a non-sequitor. The first half talks about people and the law but then the second is about countries and power. Dismas| 13:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the minor premise is false. Is there any jurisdiction where all people are equal in law, even formally? —Tamfang (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

For example, the reason why America is the superpower is because it is rich.

Great Time (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I can't address wealth or justice at length. But, as for superpowers, there are many explanations. Shin Hayata gained his superpowers when he was killed in an accidental collision with an alien who merged with him to become Ultraman. Ka-El's powers as Superman derive from the effect of our sun on a native of Krypton. Batman's superpowers are, in fact, a product of wealth and effort, rather than, say, midi-chlorians, which give the Jedi their power through The Force. Whatever the source of America's superpowers, they may have to do with Captain America. Other nations, like Belgium, may have to look elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

American Empire

Is America an empire?

Great Time (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Read our article on Empire, and decide for yourself - it is a matter of opinion, and we don't answer requests for opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 26#Question. —Tamfang (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

American imperialism is a pretty decent article on the issues. The question is always what you mean by Empire. One can use the term to refer to a specific form of government and state organization; or one can use it metaphorically to describe how a state behaves towards other states. How you define your term determines what the answer to your question is. --Jayron32 17:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

And of course, don't forget that America did have an Emperor at one point. He even has a Bridge named after him. --Jayron32 17:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You may find the premise of A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny interesting. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Origin of surname

What is the origin of the surname Bagchi in Bengal region of Indian subcontinent.What is the history of this particular surname.Where from the people with this surname originate in ancient and medieval times.Who where their ancestors, where was their original homeland and what was their profession and what was their economic and social status.I want an answer in detail.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.254.109 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this a homework assignment? If you want a lot of detail, you should do your own research. Happy to get you started though: have a look at the articles about Kulin Brahmins and Varendra. --Canley (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with homework assignment.I just want to know out of personal curiosity.I could not find much in the web.I wonder that you believe that this kind of things will be asked for homework.The two pages that you mentioned does not shed any light on my query.I expect that give your properly if you can and dont be arrogant.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.230.115 (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! By the way, the article Bengali Brahmins mentions the name, and has more detail—as I alluded to above, the Bagchis are Kulin Brahmans from Varendra. --Canley (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness" origin

MSNBC has been using the phrase "It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness" in it's promos recently, attributing it to JFK, but I'm not convinced this is the right source. It's also the motto of The Christophers who say it's a "Chinese proverb" but this seems more suspect. One site says it's actually from Peter Benenson (founder of Amnesty International) at a 1961 Human Rights Day ceremony, but AI's website also gives "Chinese proverb" as the source. Google also lists sites attributing it to Elenor Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson. Given all this conflicting information, what I am looking for is a source with some convincing evidence to back it up. It's possible that Kennedy, Benenson, and Stevenson all used the phrase in the early '60's, but did one of them actually make it up or were they all just quoting a phrase that was popular at the time? The problem I have the Chinese proverb source is that it's so difficult to verify; it's easy to say "There's an ancient Chinese saying that ..." when really it's something you just made up. It's the kind of thing the writers of Charlie Chan movies did all the time. Thanks in advance. --RDBury (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This (1998 reprint of a) 1941 book mentions the proverb. Assuming the reprint is a faithful copy, it predates the Benenson usage by quite a way. (As a child, I was always confused by this proverb, because I took it to mean "...than to wish bad things to happen to the darkness" rather than "...to blame the darkness", and lighting a candle seemed to me to be a way to wish bad things to happen to the darkness.) Marnanel (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

And this from 1907. Marnanel (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Wiktionary acknowledges William Lonsdale Watkinson as the first recorded user of the expression in 1907, and that was the conclusion I came to when I researched it a few years ago, though we don't know whether he heard it from someone else. Dbfirs 13:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a Biblical expression about not hiding one's lamp under a bushel, which would seem to be at least a cousin to the same idea. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the Watkinson quote in context is "But denunciatory rhetoric is so much easier and cheaper than good works, and proves a popular temptation. Yet is it far better to light the candle than to curse the darkness." Watkinson tends to use a lot of quotations in his work, some from the Bible and some only vaguely attributed, so it still seems likely that he was getting the expression from somewhere else. But at least we can dismiss the JFK nonsense. It seems more likely that The Christophers got it from the sermon than the Chinese, just speculation on my part though. --RDBury (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

According to this listserv post by a linguist, it actually is a Chinese proverb, but probably derives from Western sources. Nobody seems to have traced it back further than Watkinson. John M Baker (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It says the Chinese attribute it to Anna Louise Strong, but since she postdates Watkinson, and from her bio it appears that she would likely have read Watkinson, it seems like she would have gotten it from him. It's interesting how the modern version has the slightly different meaning than Watkinson's. His meaning was more like "Don't sit around criticizing others when you can do something constructive." Now it's more "Don't complain about a problem if there's something you can do to fix it." --RDBury (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you plead?

In most English speaking countries, at least, an accused person is innocent until proven guilty, right? So how come they're required to plead either "Guilty" or "Not guilty" - which makes no mention of the default assumption of innocence - rather than either "Innocent" or "Guilty"? Verdicts are also rendered as either "Guilty" or "Not guilty". No mention of innocence there either.

Is "Not Guilty" qualitatively different from "Innocent"?

Another way of putting it is, why don't we say that a person is considered "not guilty" until proven "guilty"? Either way, why don't these two things match up? -- Jack of Oz 11:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"Not guilty" is not perfectly synonymous with "innocent" - a person can be found "non guilty" for many reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with being innocent. A not guilty verdict can be due to insufficient evidence, investigator's misconduct, procedural errors, etc. The expression "freed/got away on a technicality" is commonly used in the media when someone who really did do the deed is found not guilty. Innocent on the other hand means the accused definitely did not do the deed - proving a negative can be extremely difficult if not impossible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Scots Law also has the Not proven verdict, the history of which is relevant to your point. Dalliance (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's not confuse the plea with the verdict... defendants in Scotland do not plead "Not Proven". The plea is essentially a question... the judge is essentially asking the defendant: "Are you guilty?" To which the two appropriate answers are: "Yes, I am guilty" or "No, I am not guilty". Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If they're blootered they'll likely plead "not proven". Thincat (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The intermediate plea is Nolo contendere... AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

One way I've heard it put is, a "not guilty" plea is not an actual assertion of factual innocence. It just says "I don't waive the requirement that the government prove its case before convicting me". --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

On a slight tangent, it is a very common misnomer that at law a person is "innocent until proven guilty", and it certainly does not help that the popular and constantly rerun American television show, Cops, has announced the expression this way ("all suspects are innocent until...") at the top of every show for the past 25 years. The actual doctrine is that a person is "presumed innocent until proved guilty." It might seem tacit but it leads to real misunderstandings by the public.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the The Percy Anecdotes?

Is it kind of collection of stories? and if yes, what is it's genre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inloopas (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did you hear of it? Marnanel (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

, I want to know what kind of book is this?Inloopas (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

From Joseph Clinton Robertson#Works: 'a collection of "gobbets" suitable for social small-talk, or what in modern parlance would be a bluffer's guide to appearing well read'. See also Thomas Byerley (journalist) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all anyway... but I need more than extant information which available on Wiki...Inloopas (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Percy's anecdotes and pay for Scottish soldiers

A question previously asked on the Ref Desk about "Percy's anecdotes," a collection of moral anecdotes from 1826. I found one volume of it at Google Books at but I have a question about "Scottish loyalty in the American war (Vol 2, 1826, p169 ff)" It says that patriotic nobles ruling Scotland, as well as Scottish tradesmen's associations, raised various regiments and companies to fight in the American Revolution, and the book praises them for giving (the Duke of Athol) not only two guineas to each recruit, but to "maintain the families, if they need support." This sounds like paying soldiers or their families during a war was an exception. Were the recruits not paid anything but the "two guineas" for their overseas service, likely of several years' duration? Did they get periodic pay in the field, where they might spend it on necessities or frolic, but were unlikely to be able to sending a draft of money back home? The Guinea (British coin) was officially worth 21 shillings at the time of the American Revolution per the Misplaced Pages article, so the enlistment incentive of £2 2s in, say 1776 would amount to £239.00 today using the retail price index. or £3,020.00 using average earnings, per Measuring worth.com, which does not sound like it would support a family very long. What pay did Scottish (or British) soldiers in that war actually get during or after the conflict? Thanks. Edison (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

How can i find the question in previous archives of Ref Desk? could you help me please?Inloopas (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The question is immediately above this one. The book can be read at the link provided. Edison (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

OH! yes! I had asked that one! and I thought there was another one asked before. :D Inloopas (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See the King's shilling, which was the daily pay (before living expenses) of a British soldier, so 42 shillings was six weeks' pay as a lump sum. I couldn't find information about civilian pay in Scotland, but FARM WAGES AND LIVING STANDARDS IN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: ENGLAND, 1670-1850 by Gregory Clark, Department of Economics, UC-Davis (Table 5, page 17) says that the winter agricultural wage in the north of England in 1780 was 11 pence per day, a penny less than a shilling. Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Who was the first female Lutheran pastor?

I found that Elizabeth Platz became the first woman Lutheran pastor in North America when ordained by the Lutheran Church in America in 1970, but the qualifier made me wonder who was the first female Lutheran pastor, period? In Europe, Asia, etc. The article about Ingrid Bjerkås says she was ordained in Norway as a Lutheran pastor in 1961, but the article does not address the question of whether a woman was ordained previously as a Lutheran pastor somewhere besides Norway. It seems important enough to mention in Pastor Bjerkås' article if she was the first femal Lutheran minister to be ordained anywhere, as opposed to just in Norway. A Lutheran Church Missouri Synod book opposed to such ordination says (image 3, of page 90) "Norway permitted the first women pastors in 1938" but that seems to be permission from the government, rather than an ordination. It says "It was not until 1961, or twenty-three years after the law was passed, that a woman was ordained in Norway." It does not mention the name of Pastor Bjerkås. Is it synthesis to state that she was the world's first woman to be ordained a Lutheran pastor? says Bjerkås was "the first female Lutheran priest." Is that a sufficient source to make the claim in the Bjerkås article, or might they mean "the first in Norway?" Edison (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

April 10th 1960 the first three women were ordained as priests of the Swedish Church, which is a Lutheran church. Elisabeth Djurle , Ingrid Persson and Margit Sahlin according to the article Ämbetsfrågan_i_Svenska_kyrkan in the Swedish wikipedia. I do not know about other countries, nor do I know anything about the difference between a pastor and a priest. DanielDemaret (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Orignin of surname Or Shahar

Can anyone give the meaning or origin of the surname Or Shahar / Orshahar? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If it's Hebrew, it could mean "light of the dawn", I guess (אור שחר)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That's cool (I had assumed it was Hebrew). Is that literal, AnonMoos? Or in doubt (since you say "could mean")? Might it be a recently assumed name, or would it be one of long standing? The family I know of that bears it is Hasidic. μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, "the light of dawn" ? Does that mean they're not too bright now, but hopefully will become so, as time passes ? :-) StuRat (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

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