This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paulscrawl (talk | contribs) at 19:43, 16 January 2015 (→Sought: study on a certain group of entries (fiction): link to directory of WP Projects in Language & Literature & exemplary study of cross-Misplaced Pages cultural coverage). 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

January 11

Apotheca - is it part of ancient roman houses?

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

All I can tell from Latin dictionaries is that an apotheca (a Greek loanword, by the way) was a storage room, especially one for storing wine. I don't know why smoke would help wine (as opposed to meat)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's explained here as a way of accelerating the ageing process by the application of steady heat, rather like the estufagem process in Madeira winemaking. The smoke was just a by-product if this author is to be believed. --Antiquary (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Jose Serrano 22nd amendment?

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

He told this website in 2009 that he does it because he doesn't believe in limited periods of office for anyone. He's not the only person to propose such changes as Snopes makes clear. Nanonic (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It was passed by Republicans in order to prevent another FDR situation. During Reagan's term, some Republicans talked about repealing it, but nothing happened. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"It was passed by Republicans" is a considerable oversimplification. In order to get out of Congress it needed a 2/3 vote in both houses, that is 64 out of 96 senators and 290 out of 434 representatives. The Republicans had a majority in both houses in 1947 but that still included only 51 senators and 248 representatives. It then had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, that is 36 out of 48 states. It was actually ratified by 41 states and while I haven't tried to find out how many of them had Republican-controlled legislatures at the time, I would be surprised it it was as many as 36. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the article and note the hyperbole of Thomas Dewey about what a "threat to freedom" it was to allow the people to keep their president more than two terms. Also, it took four years to get ratified, so they had to do a persistent sell job. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources on a historic U.S. bank

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

Do you know what its name was? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It concerns the Centennial National Bank. I'm happy to do the research myself, I'm just not familiar with sources in this field. Knight of Truth (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust & the Kadoshim

Hi.

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

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

Pretty sure "yes". Even converts in the other direction -- they were killed for their religion too, even though they'd renounced it. Check out this. --jpgordon 16:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

By whom? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the "naming" was done by the State of Israel in 1952, so their opinion is the only one that matters. --jpgordon 19:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That may be what the OP meant, but the use of kedoshim as a term for "religious martyrs" or "Jews murdered with anti-Semitic intent" dates to medieval times and is not dependent on the State of Israel's formal definition. (That being said, Israel does not (yet) recognize Reform conversions, so why would they accord them a Jewish-specific title?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Because their murderers did not care by which method they became Jewish? I'd like to see the 1952 declaration; haven't been able to find it yet. --jpgordon 20:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

True, but the question implies interest in the Orthodox point of view. I doubt Orthodox sources would use a term implying Jewishness in reference to people who, according to Orthodox Judaism, were never Jews in the first place. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

USA politics

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

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

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

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

On the first point, maybe the GOP got a "tailwind" for this past fall's election, from (1) the economy improving, along with (2) too many apathetic Democrats not voting, which vaguely addresses your second point. There were enough incumbents turned out that I don't think your third point works. And finally, if there were no "spoilers" it probably wouldn't matter much, because apathy would still lose. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno about that point 4. If there hadn't been third party candidates, Al Gore would have been elected in 2000, and GHW Bush would likely have been re-elected in 1992, and Humphrey might well have won in 1968 (a lot of the Wallace voters were drawn from the ranks of yellow-dog Lincoln haters.) --jpgordon 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Are you starting a debate, SMW, or asking for a reference? See Have you stopped beating your wife for the problem with your questions. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, if I got references I would either swear to God to only read the non-referenced writing or believe them over the references if I did.</sarcasm> I've noticed that a lot of the third party votes since '92 have been to stuff that right of center people would be interested in and wondered if this would hold true where it mattered (i.e. majority of swing states counted by electoral college votes). I didn't realize that that Green party guy was the Independent when Bush was President both times. My mistake, I should have said that this is why I wondered (4).

Come on isn't it a reasonable guess that last minute undecideds who still chose to vote would probably not choose change on a whim for no reason?

I did not have a guess for (2). One has to be first.

It is well known that when times get real good people become greedy and don't want to pay as much taxes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And going back to 1984 it appears to be 5 to 3 for my guess going just by the nationwide results in the articles so my guess might still hold. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

1980 and 1976 agree, too. 1972 still had a racist conservative Democrat splinter party so that's about when what is a Democrat/Republican starts to become muddy and paradoxical (for us young'uns). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

We can't really make any assumptions about who (if anyone) the third-party voters would have voted for if there were no third parties. Consider the 2008 Senate race in Minnesota. The incumbent Coleman and the challenger Franken each got about 42 percent. The third-party candidate Barkley got a bit over 15 percent. Had Barkley not been in it, there's no way to know how the vote would have fallen. Any number might have voted for one of the other two, or not voted at all. All we know for sure is that on election day at least 57 percent didn't want Coleman, and at least 57 percent didn't want Franken. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay but over 1 million people voted for the Libertarian Party last time (despite Ron Paul telling them to vote for the Republicans I think). I think it's reasonable that many libertarians wouldn't vote at all if Lib. wasn't available but I really wonder if more would choose Obama over Romney thus helping Obama. I don't think it changed the outcome this time though or would've made a bigger fuss about it. Maybe they're young and hip enough to know about vote pairing sites. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It would depend on which states they voted in and whether it would have made any difference in the electoral vote for those states. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Some third party vote splitting situations are easier to guess than others. That's probably the term that should be used because spoiling only implies successful (unintentional) election sabotage (like '92, '00). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The presense of third party candidates can also influence media coverage, donors, campaign decisions of the main candidates and so on, so saying what would have happened without third party candidates isn't merely a question of what their voters would have done otherwise. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Name of non-monetary transaction

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

Paid in Kind? Uhlan 22:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree, consideration-in-kind sounds right. St★lwart 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. Brandmeister 00:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Nope. The word is barter. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, barter typically involves exchange of one good/commodity for another instead of money, whereas in kind payment may involve services in exchange for goods or other benefits. Brandmeister 09:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The in kind article that you linked to says that both terms, "in kind" and "barter", can be used for goods or services. Barter says that as well in the first line. Dismas| 09:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There's also the fact that barter describes the transaction as a whole, whereas payment in kind regards payment in something other than cash, LIke Atticus Finch being paid in chickens. Finch didn't show up with chickens in order to win your case for you. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What Should She Have Said?

Read this excerpt from the Loaded Question article:

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

Madeleine Albright: "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it."

She later wrote of this response:

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

• Madeline Albright clearly wanted to say something different, so my question is, what should she have said? Thanks, Uhlan 23:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The elided part of the quote is telling; "nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people." That's what she says she should have said and that's what Loaded question leaves out. --jpgordon 01:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's rephrase. What was wrong with the question in the first place? Uhlan 01:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out that too. Perhaps a read of Albright's book might clarify, since Loaded question says Albright claims to have answered a loaded question, but does not provide enough context to show where she made that claim. --jpgordon 01:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Her other options appear to me to be limited to a) repudiating the .5M claim, and/or b) repudiating the connection between sanctions and any additional deaths in the period. --01:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• What source are we looking for? There are ethical theories that hold all sorts of ridiculous ideas, such as that the blame for the death of innocents lies on the shoulders of those who instigate a war of aggression, not on those who end one in self defense. What exactly is the request here? μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What was wrong with the question was that it blamed those who placed the sanctions on Iraq for the horrific outcome rather than blame those who felt the horrific outcomes of the sanctions. Like the Germans placed the blame for German actions on Lidice, Albright places the blame for American actions on Iraq. She believes Iraq chose to cut off imports of life sustaining goods. 174.95.40.40 (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Imposing sanctions on a country always poses a moral dilemma, because we seek to punish the government, but it's the common citizens who suffer. But they also suffer under the rule of their dictator. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There's also a couple ways the sanctioned nation may intentionally kill it's civilians, and blame it on the sanctions:

1) If there aren't enough food and meds for all, they may make sure that those minorities they want to kill off anyway get the brunt of the shortages, rather than spread the shortage evenly, so all would survive. I believe North Korea used this method during sanctions over their nuclear weapons program.

2) There may not be shortages at all, but they keep the food and meds in warehouses to reap the PR benefits of dying civilians they can blame on their enemies. I believe Saddam used this method during sanctions. Specifically, the oil for food program was designed to prevent civilian casualties, but the Iraqi government used it to enrich themselves instead.

StuRat (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your account directly conflicts with the relevant articles on Misplaced Pages; perhaps you should add your sources to the articles. 174.95.40.40 (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Saddam did all manner of stuff to the citizens of Iraq. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the question is that it contains extraneous and gratuitous information. In responding, Madeleine Albright should have started out by stating that she knows what the number "half-million" means. She then could have asserted that it is unfortunate and that it grieves her deeply if it is correct that a half-million children died in Iraq as a result of UN sanctions against Iraq. And finally she could have restated the original reasons for the sanctions, including possible dangers to human life posed by the brutal and expanding regime of Saddam Hussein. The suggestion that a "half-million" children in one time and place is equivalent in every respect to a "half-million" children in another time and place should not have been accepted by Madeleine Albright. This bears a relation however imperfect to the legal concept of "leading the witness" insofar as it "puts words in the mouth" of a person to which a question is posed. Madeleine Albright should simply have started out by saying that yes, she knows the significance of the number 500,000. Doing so would have put the questioner on alert that she would not readily accept the comparison, but she could have then responded to the question on her own grounds. Bus stop (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The wording happens to touch on one of my pet peeves. (I'm the Crazy Cat Lady of language peeves.) To me, "X is worth Y" means "the value of X is equal to or greater than the value of Y." Literally, then, Albright said that the price (half a million children's lives) equals or exceeds "it" (presumably meaning the benefits resulting from the sanctions). What's shocking about that? —Tamfang (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Murder Most Contradictory

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

Conspiracy (criminal). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In the UK both can be done for murder - see Common purpose (aka Joint Enterprise). Here's a contemporary story on the issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, criminal conspiracy and probably felony murder as well. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou all. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

January 12

Rob Fisk

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

For those who want to research this but need some basic info, our article is at Robert Fisk but I don't know which book OP might be talking about. Fisk has apparently written several. Dismas| 07:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If I understand the question; I very much doubt that Fisk ever called for an invasion to remove Saddam. That - in my estimation - would be a most un-Fisk-like thing to call for. If I hve you wrong, please clarify the question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The book is almost certainly The Great War for Civilisation, against which the American right wing has long held a grudge that elevates it way above its actual importance. As Tagishsimon almost says, even if you can find a source for Fisk calling for an invasion it's almost certain that your source is wrong - Fisk has always been a hard-line pacifist. Mogism (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(adding) If this is a more general "how do pacifists respond to the charge that war is sometimes necessary to prevent a greater loss of life" question, see Just war theory and the links it contains for the various viewpoints on the matter. Mogism (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What i mean is, the only reason saddm would have been removed is through war. The west couldnt have just said ″could you please step down from power and stop oppressing your people please?″ So if robert fisk says that saddamm is so bad, why doesn't he support the invasion that toppled him.? 49.226.193.133 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If I understand you rightly, you think that Fisk's opposition to Hussein should mean that he would want to see him actively removed, and that he'd support war because there was no other way. Are you familiar with the concept of "the ends justify the means"? Many people hold the opposite perspective, i.e. the final result doesn't necessarily justify the way of getting there; it's entirely possible to say "It would be wonderful if this thing were to happen, but we mustn't accomplish it by doing X, since X is wrong/not the best/an outright bad idea". Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you I do see what you mean. Its just the vibe that i always got when reading Gret War for Civilisation was that he wanted something to be done about sdaam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.227.200.98 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

image of Muhammad

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

Usually because of the context, and maybe the caption (if any). These are caricatures. They don't actually have to be a perfect representation of the person they are drawing. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 07:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In medieval Persian miniatures, Muhammad's face is never shown, but he's generally the center of focus of the piece, sometimes shown with a flame-like halo, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have any "contemporaneous images" of Jesus, but everybody knows what he looks like. See Depiction of Jesus. Alansplodge (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he was definitely a white European 1960s hippy-style, despite being from the Middle East. We all know this, because God speaks English and he's his son. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite; he has an appearance derived from convention rather than authenticity. I believe that he only acquired a beard in the 4th Century (rather than the 1960s). However, take a look at this Chinese Jesus! "The head of every man is Christ" (First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch.11: V.3). We digress. Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't take 400 years to grow a beard - I can do that in a week - that's no miracle (it's more of a miracle getting rid of it, with my cheap ASDA blunt blades). I was talking about his long hair and his travelling lifestyle, occasionally attracting huge crowds to say 'blessed are the ' (blessed by whom? and what's that going to do for them?), whilst singing 'American Pie' or something. Come on, a child who 'turns water into wine' must be an alcoholic. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There may not be contemporeous images of Muhammad, but there are detailed descriptions of his appearance in Muslim sources. Look for example at this website. Now I cannot say if these sources are authentic or reliably transmitted, but it's definitely plausible that one might attempt to draw Muhammad based on the best information we have. Whether cartoonists actually bother to look for that information is another matter, of course. - Lindert (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Our own Depictions of Muhammad article has images of him (not just cartoons). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, there are no accurate representations of Muhammad from his era, nor of anyone else for that matter. It's not a question of whether it looks like Muhammad - it's that merely the attempt at depicting him is now considered blasphemous, regardless of the artist's motivations for doing so. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So trying to depict this specific prophet is blasphemous? Or is it all prophets? Is blasphemy considered a crime? If so, since when? And if so, shouldn't then death penalty be reconsidered back? Akseli9 (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It might well be a crime under strict Islamic law. And in places where strict Islamic law is observed, there is no hesitation to apply the death penalty. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to the "Depictions of Muhammad" article linked above; "there is disagreement about visual depictions. The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures." Like Christianity, there are many strands of Islam and some have different standpoints to others on this point. A Bangladeshi restaurant in East London that I used to frequent, had its walls decorated with images of Muslim saints. Alansplodge (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the commandment Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image covers this. Not that it ever stopped Christians from making likenesses of Jesus, Mary, etc. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, lots of Christians thought it should do - see Iconoclasm. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Is blasphemy considered a crime? It depends on the jurisdiction. See Blasphemy law in the United States for the fact that some states retain prohibitions on blasphemy, although they seem to violate the Constitution. Not a crime in the United Kingdom since 2008. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Technically, a law which violates the Constitution is still as legit as any other. It only becomes unconstitutional after a judicial review says so. Many laws never even start the process. The Netherlands' constitution has a part that says "The court shall not enter into the assessment of the constitutionality of laws and treaties" (in Dutch, of course). I guess it prefers to somehow stand up for itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, January 13, 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, many traditions which consider depictions of Muhammad as generally unwelcome (as has been said, this isn't all traditions), also consider depictions of other prophets unwelcome (also God/Allah which is actually AFAIK the one most forbidden). Some movies and other media depicting Moses, Noah and other prophets in Islam (from a Christian or Judeo-Christian POV) have been banned in various countries at least partially for this reason, see e.g. . Jesus seems to be one exception, in that many allow Christian depictions at least for Christian usage. Of course, as our Aniconism in Islam mentions, some go as far to consider all depictions of humans or other sentient beings as unwelcome, although as that article mentions given the proliferation of TV and cameras nowadays that part seems largely ignored. That article also mentions how Muhammad seemed to allow some depictions of Jesus (and Mary), perhaps another reason why depictions of Jesus tend to be ignored. Depictions of Muhammad do tend to cause the most controversy by far, as their final prophet and also one not recognised as a religious figure in any way by most religions, I guess there's greater concern over potrayals of him. (And realisticly most depictions are at least partially thinking of Islam, whereas this is often not the case with depictions of the other prophets of Islam.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Depiction of the Prophet Muhammad

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

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

With that background information, here is my question. What if anything in the image makes it specifically a depiction of the Prophet rather than simply an image of a male in Middle Eastern looking garb? Thank you, CBHA (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in the image, only in the context, and in the description of the image by the cartoonist who drew it. Keep in mind that at least one person is currently in jail for threats against cartoonists who drew a man completely covered head to toe in a large bear costume and said it was Muhammad... - Nunh-huh 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the frequently ambiguous status of Islamic iconography, there's no "conventional" representation of Muhammad; even in Western art, he's rare enough that he didn't acquire a standard representation. Absolutely nothing of the artwork itself (as opposed to the captions) suggests that File:Giovanni da Modena - The Inferno, detail (Machomet).jpg, File:Mahomet.jpg, and File:La.Vie.de.Mahomet.jpg all depict the same person. It's radically different from Christian iconography of Christ (who, being God, naturally gets depicted as ruling everything/everyone), or even from Christian iconography of the saints, who routinely appeared with the same items to help the illiterate know who the depictee was. Saint George pretty much always wears armor and is generally sitting on his horse while spearing the dragon, and the text of our article on Saint Lucy notes that she routinely holds a plate with two eyeballs on it. There was no comparable need for Westerners to know about Muhammad (he was just another non-Christian foreigner), so Westerners didn't have a reason to develop a routine way of depicting him. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

well, Christians eventually decided he was a non-Christian foreigner, but initially conceived of him as a Christian heretic... - Nunh-huh 00:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

True, but he wasn't popping up in the artwork at the time. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There's good reasons from customs of the time there to think Jesus was clean shaven and early images were of him with short curly hair and no beard - nor any halo. Dmcq (talk)

Dmcq -- In Jesus' time and place, if you wanted to be perceived as a mature responsible adult male (as opposed to a callow youth) and as someone who identified himself with the Jewish community and its traditions (as opposed to someone who assimilated to the surrounding Greco-Roman culture), then you were highly likely to grow a beard. To me, a clean-shaven Jesus suggests more a gentile interpretation than a historically-accurate interpretation of someone who claimed authority as a Jewish religious leader. AnonMoos (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You might be right but it looks to me like at that time they thought the bit in Leviticus was an injunction to not shave off sideburns - not beards. Dmcq (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, in the end, all portraiture is just some splodges of colour that happen to look a bit like a certain person from a particular angle. The question is one of the artist's intent. Of course we have no idea at all what Muhammad looked like; so you can draw any person who looks vaguely Arabic and you're fine, until you communicate in some way that it's meant to be him. Draw an Arab sitting next to an oasis and you're fine; draw an angel speaking to him and title it, 'Muhammad receives his revelation' and you've got a very different kettle of fish. GoldenRing (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Draw an obvious Jerry Falwell screwing the unmistakable Porky Pig in what is clearly a Walmart parking lot, you're untouchable. Call either of the unbearded Caucasian swine "Muhammad" in the caption, suddenly you're holding a "depiction of Muhammad", instead of a thing that could not be understood as factual. It doesn't even have to be a sentient being or the least obscene. Say a drawing of a kettle or mailbox is of the Prophet, that's as valid a depiction as any, though a poor illustration. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, January 14, 2015 (UTC)

20 year employment and capital stock projections

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

No. It's utterly absurd to think you can accurately predict the state of the economy that far in advance. Think about what happened in the last 20 years. We had the Internet boom, housing bubble collapse, several wars, the rise of China, etc. All of this affected the economy. So any prediction of the current state of our economy 20 years ago would have been way off. This requirement is a purely political ploy so Republicans can tweak the numbers and say anything they want is good for the economy and anything Democrats want is bad (since Republicans are the majority now, they will ensure that the people chosen to come up with these "projections" will do as they are told, by Republicans). StuRat (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not willing to rule out the possibility that in many cases we can get some idea of what a legislative change will do to economic situations a decade out. I'm probably with you on two decades though. But I'm sure people must have tried, somewhere. Any idea where? EllenCT (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Another problem is that the business cycle has a variable length, so 20 years from now we could be at the height of a boom or in the depths of a recession, and there's no way to tell that now. StuRat (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

OMG, trickle down is not dead yet? They found another name for it and even made it seem like a new level of economic scientificness? But isn't it weird that 2011, 2001, 1991, 1981, 1971 and 1961 were all bad economies? Also 1941, 1931 and 1921. (or was the hyperinflation 1922?). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say (1) this will not give them trickle-down, (2) it will force Republicans to support Keynesian stimulus, but they won't call it that, (3) the Republican leadership is well aware of this and they know exactly what they're doing, (4) because decades of kowtowing to Grover Norquist has painted them into a corner and they don't want to shoot off their feet for 2016, (5) as evidenced by their need for populism in an off-term election with more gerrymandering than ever. EllenCT (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You said it, but I'll remain a bit skeptical regarding your idea of a Keynesian stimulus; it shouldn't be that much difficult to draw a 20 years projection starting with the current figures regarding oil production, what's your opinion ? --Askedonty (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems like only a few years ago peak oil was a serious thing showing up in all the Fortune 500 annual reports, and fracking was just some weird experiment that people who liked to fish with dynamite were trying because their wells had dried up. With fracking and renewables price and production trends, I think the Saudis might be right about oil never going over $100 again. EllenCT (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. We've gotten a reprieve, but we are still using up petroleum far faster than it is being produced, and that will inevitably lead to shortages. As for renewables, the low petroleum prices will stop development in those areas, since they can't compete with cheap oil. StuRat (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It also works with music. c. 2010: dubstep, electro, dance. c. 2000: trance, I'm Blue by Eiffel 65, Vengabus, dance. c. 1990: "I've Got the Power! "-type music (called techno at time), In a Dream (Rockell) type stuff (a remix of something 1989), dance. c. 1980: Funkytown, dance came a bit early (disco). c. 1970: Popcorn by Hot Butter, Plugged-In Switched-On Bach, rock with new effects like that (Johnny Cash?) buzz thing played in Apollo 13. Top 40 suddenly has a fad of the most high-tech sounding electronic pop they could think of at the time and it dies out after a few years. They all sounded futuristic at the time and dated after 2 cycles. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to subscribe to your newsletter. EllenCT (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, though I would've put Daft Punk for 2000 if I'd remembered them. And Moog synthesizers goes under 1970. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

These aren't projections of absolute conditions, they are scores for proposals based on their relative effects, "all else being equal." (Which brings up the issue of proposals which would both be expected to work by themselves, but not together, for instance if they depend on the same scarce inputs. For example, if you have one bill to use all the excess capacity for an employment program, that's okay, but if you have two laws that depend on the same amount of excess capacity, they are both likely to come up short. Proposals do not exist in a vacuum.) EllenCT (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

But that "all things being equal" assumption is a bit like the spherical cow model. Over a 20 year period, you can be certain that all things will not be equal. For example, an economic policy that makes sense during peace may be a disaster during a major war. StuRat (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why so many believed the Japan dominance thing. Japan's population was barely 100 million, the US's 200 million and growing faster with no end anywhere near. Japan grew at a snail's pace by the mid-90s, dropped below -0% soon after and started within a few million of 125 million till now. This should be a demographic slam dunk to predict back then. The Japanese to American ratio increases every day. Were economists seriously believing the average Japanese was going to be over 2 1/2 times richer than the average American? The American model of a country with a continent of resources + more people = #1 GDP and the Asian model of each product being Made In ever poorer/faster growing (population/economy) Asian countries until full industrialization should be a clue. >2 billion Africans dominant economy 2200s, yo! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's just human nature to see a skyrocketing GDP in Japan and think that would continue forever. I'm sure China's GDP will also level off, but the population size there means that they might very well dominate the Earth economically, politically, and militarily by then. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

January 13

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

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

"The Duke" was nickname for John Wayne (much better than his real name, Marion). StuRat (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

His birth name was Marion Morrison, and he was going by "Duke" even before he adopted the stage name of John Wayne. His early film credits say "Duke Morrison". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No wonder the name consistently appeared in connection with Wayne...I've added a next to "Duke" in the first quote that mentions him. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Bravo. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Like Indiana Jones, he was named after a dog. —Tamfang (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

funny or else

If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you. —Oscar Wilde

If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you. —Billy Wilder

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

The following is from a blog source which purportedly cites several other sources (which theoretically could be checked). Apparently, Wilder "borrowed" from George Bernard Shaw, who is credited with: "If you are going to tell people the truth, you’d better make them laugh. Otherwise, they’ll kill you"; whereas Wilder: "If you’re going to tell people the truth, be funny or they’ll kill you". —Source:  ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

—P.s.: The blog is from Barry Popik; which our article suggests would be a reliable source for this topic. 71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

He only says that it's attributed to G. B. Shaw (along with many other people). I think that if there were evidence that Shaw actually said it, he would have mentioned that. -- BenRG (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a discussion of this quote at q:George Bernard Shaw#Disputed from which it seems that it's also attributed to W. C. Fields and Charlie Chaplin. They cite some vaguely similar quotes from GBS: "My way of joking is to tell the truth. It's the funniest joke in the world", (John Bull's Other Island), and " has to put things in such a way as to make people who would otherwise hang him believe he is joking", (no source given). Possibly one or the other is the origin of all this. --Antiquary (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The quote about Mark Twain is pretty securely sourced to Shaw's conversation here. --Antiquary (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

See WorldCat. Its entry for the magazine will list libraries that subscribe or subscribed to it, sorted by their distance from your location (be sure to specify your ZIP code, since it depends on your IP address, which is sometimes far from your actual location), and it links to the library catalogue so that you can check whether or not they currently subscribe. It's not a widely held publication in this country; I'm in metro Pittsburgh, and the two closest libraries that get it are Michigan State University and Indiana University, 250 and 350 miles away respectively. Of course, libraries generally won't let you check out a periodical, but you can view it. You can also request an interlibrary loan; with a magazine, this usually is accomplished by the owning library scanning or photocopying a single article, because they generally don't send the whole issue. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for a reply, I basically just want to own it though, or get it framed. Shii (tock) 06:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Should have grabbed it when it was only $130. CNN Money says they're between $190 and $595, straight up. You know those auctions will soon make those prices look relatively sane. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, January 13, 2015 (UTC)

Or no, wait. That was the other, less relevant issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, January 13, 2015 (UTC)

These people have decided to print the next edition in 16 languages and are smart enough to print enough copies in English to fulfill the immediate demand. Keep an eye on the web, and my guess is that the price will come down in days to come. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This article says there will be 300000 copies for foreign markets instead of the usual 4000, and 3 millions copies instead of the usual 60000. It also says among those who usually don't receive it, the US and GB are already included. Note that the last Luz green drawing showed (forgiving Prophet Muhammad holding a sheet of paper stating "Je Suis Charlie") is not necessarily the next Charlie Hebdo front page. Akseli9 (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

No, this is not what they support. And racism of course not. What they support when it is attacked by totalitarian-minded people, is the right to say or draw anything you like or don't like. You are free not to buy and not to read a cartoon hebdo that usually sells only 35000 copies or so, and issues only between 45000 and 60000 at most. Akseli9 (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Insulting Muhammad, even if that's what they're doing (which it isn't), is not racism under any definition of "race". --Bowlhover (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of the cartoons have been "insulting", but that's the nature of satire. The closest to being "racist" is the stereotyped Arab in the cartoons. I don't think that's the main reason the murders were committed, though. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is insulting, and Charlie Hebdo doesn't pretend it isn't. The message is that the magazine forgives the attackers, and still holds Islam in no lower regard than any of the other religions they lampoon. In a way, it's one of the least bigoted things ever said about Muslims on the front page of a major global English paper (which this apparently is now).

But yeah, it also appeals to audience looking for the brave hero, defiant against adversity. The phrase "plucky Frenchman" gets thrown around a lot. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, January 14, 2015 (UTC)

You gave one interpretation of "Tout est pardonné", among several possible interpretations. Another interpretation is that it's Prophet Muhammad who forgives the cartoonists, now that they are properly punished, and now that it is good to be seen with a sign "je suis charlie". Akseli9 (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Any bets on whether the terrorists will buy your interpretation? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

:) Yet a third interpretation could be, now everybody forgives to everybody, and that would include terrorists? :) Akseli9 (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be the nice thing to do. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:49, January 14, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be ideal. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

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

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

January 14

Coins and their colours/colors

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

Yes, it's just based on their relative values. Of course, gold is more valuable yet, and then there's platinum. I suppose pennies could have been made out of small nickel coins, and 5 cent pieces out of larger copper coins. Also, there were steel pennies during WW2, in the US, due to a copper shortage. So the whole "brown money cheap, white money valuable" idea breaks down all over. StuRat (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In the current US coins, as per their articles here, cents are made from copper and zinc, and all the other denominations are made from copper and nickel. No more silver. So at this point their sizes are merely traditional. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sizes, yes. But what about color? Dismas| 06:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That's also tradition. The common coinage metals in all the three countries were copper-based alloys for the lowest values, silver for middle values, gold for high values (although after the Canadian dollar was established, gold coins were used in Canada only for a short period). Later the US decided that its smallest silver coins (3 and 5 cents) were inconveniently small and substituted a fourth, cheaper metal, a 25% nickel alloy, allowing the coin to be larger; Canada eventually copied this change, introducing 100% nickel coins instead. And since then the sizes and colors have generally been kept even though the content of the coins has changed. Small coins are colored like copper, middle coins are silvery colored like nickel or silver (with the 5-cent denomination in the US and Canada larger than the 10-cent because it used to be nickel). Large coins more or less dropped out of use as paper money became preferred, but after inflation led to their reintroduction, a lighter yellow color suggestive of gold was used. (Not necessarily the actual color of gold, but still.) Note that euro coinage uses a similar color pattern as well, although the actual coins only appeared in 2001 and do not relate to specific coins in earlier countries. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Dismas -- Historically, the U.S. quarter and dime contained some silver, and the quarter still weighs 2.5 times as much as a dime. The U.S. nickel and penny were base-metal coins even before silver was phased out, which is why both are bigger than the dime, and the penny is copper-colored. The penny really doesn't make too much sense as a circulating coin nowadays... AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Now you've introduced another question to my mind though. What does the type of metal have to do with its size? The last two responses have alluded to the nickle being larger than a dime because of the metal used but you haven't really explained why that makes a difference. It's like you assume I know that part of the puzzle. Could you flesh that out more? Thanks again, Dismas| 10:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Because with their original metals, the sizes were roughly in proportion to the values of their metals. More silver = more value. Nickel less valuable than silver and more valuable than copper. Now it doesn't matter. Their values are what the government says they are. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ — Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah! Yeah, okay. That makes sense then. Thanks. Dismas| 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To explain a but further, the original idea was to have each coin contain metals with a value exactly equal to the face value of the coin. But, this would mean if you used the same metal for each, then a quarter would need to weigh 25 times as much as a penny, and a $20 coin would have to weigh 4000 times as much as a half penny ! This wouldn't be very practical, so cheaper metals are used for less expensive coins and more valuable metals for more valuable coins. The advantage of using such a system exclusively is that it pretty much stops inflation, as coins can't go down in value, unless the metal they contain goes down in value, since you could always sell them for their metal content. However, the problem is that this limits how much money the government can produce, since the supply of precious metals is limited. A side effect is that shortages of those metals are produced. Issuing paper money, backed up by precious metals (that you could exchange for gold or silver) got by the problem of having to haul heavy bags of money around, but the government still needed to keep lots of precious metals (much at Fort Knox, in the case of the US) to back up the currency. Because of this, they switched to a fiat money system, which means the money isn't backed up by anything, and inflation then became a problem.

Many of our coins are now adulterated with cheaper metals, but a penny still costs more than one cent to make, so expect them to be discontinued at some point. This adulteration also makes it less profitable to melt them down for more money. StuRat (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

They've been talking for decades about phasing out the one-cent piece. As long as we continue to use hard currency and insist on net prices that work out to penny amounts, there will continue to be resistance to phasing it out. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Canada has tossed the penny. Electronic transactions continue to be accurate to one cent while cash ones round up or down to the nearest five cents. 184.147.128.97 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The American public would be fine with it if they always rounded down. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Except for the part of the public that owns the stores themselves. They don't like getting shorted 4+ cents every transaction. --Jayron32 01:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't be 4+ every transaction in any case, but the stores could adjust their prices to fix the pennies problem. --Onorem (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Or the states could have the sales tax round down. Then both store owner and customer would be happy. (If the state's not happy, they can raise the rate slightly, to make up any shortfall.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

A hot potato question, but I'll bite, sidestepping generalities about denominational culture and ethnicity. In the US, the major division, in terms of number of adherents (adherents.com has the somewhat dated statistics), is between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) - those Misplaced Pages pages have links to official sites, with histories, doctrinal statements, and comparisons to die for. ;) Academic comparisons begin with Frank Spencer Mead and Samuel S. Hill, editors, Handbook of Denominations in the United States, which has objective information on these and another half dozen less populous Lutheran synods in the chapter Lutheran Churches (clicking "page>>>" on the first snippet and scrolling up a couple unnumbered pages to "Lutheran Churches" should allow you to read the whole chapter via Google Books). A seemingly well-sourced - and mercifully brief - comparison posted by two Lutherans of each camp (copy and pasted from LCMS & ELCA pages) is the first of many results you get when searching Evangelical Lutheran Church in America vs. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Hope those sources help you answer your questions, but for getting a real feel of church culture nothing can beat visiting a couple of representative churches yourself. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hackers and Internet Security

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

I'm going to assume good faith for this question even in light of your other edit. That said, you're not really comparing similar things. I'm guessing you're referring to the recent hacking of Twitter and YouTube accounts. That's not the same as, for example, the President's email address or the computers at NSA headquarters. Yes, the Twitter and YouTube accounts are government operated but are by no means under the same security as the other examples I mentioned.

And people try to protect their computers because there are different levels of hacker ability, for lack of a better phrase. You might as well ask why banks don't leave their doors unlocked at night if there are still going to be bank robberies. Protection keeps the amateurs out at the very least. Dismas| 07:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Or "Why should I eat my vegetables when I'm certain to die?" InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, January 14, 2015 (UTC)

Trying to understand Western views on Charlie

Hello. I am a young non-Muslim Singaporean. Here non-Muslims and Muslims live together peacefully, usually get along. Today I discussed the Charlie attack with a group of friends, including both non-Muslims and Muslims. Together, we are outraged that Charlie continues to post insulting Muhammad cartoons with support from French society. Of course, we are sad that people died and dislike violence. Here we believe that such extreme racism, if not stopped by the goverment, will lead to violence, which is what happened in France. The West thinking different and support freedom of speech. They say insulting Muhammad is not racist but in France most Muslims are not French race. So I am asking some questions (sorry for bad English) to understand Western views and so the West can understand views from the other side of the world.

1. How racist is French society?

2. Does freedom of speech include being very racist and blasphemy?

3. Does freedom of speech mean that victims of racist and blasphemy speech cannot retaliate?

--Orang Perancis Adalah Perkauman (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You must be the IP (175.156.188.218 (talk · contribs)) that posted roughly the same question earlier. Your premise is grossly flawed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And now 219.74.60.146 (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Being called a troll by a troll is something of a badge of honor. >:) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again "How racist is France?" is a loaded question and irrelevant to the Muhammad cartoons. Pointing out that we have multiple users editing a question might be better placed at talk, but it's not an attack, and doesn't need hatting. And personal experience and a satirical movie don't count as "references". μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to elaborate on "Does freedom of speech mean that victims of racist and blasphemy speech cannot retaliate"

- you correctly point out that freedom of speech (in the USA at least) is about governmental interference or retaliation. And of course the rule of law disallows murder. But here is an example where it's perfectly legal and perhaps even ethical to "retaliate" against someone who says bigoted things. The guy on the TV show "Duck Dynasty" said some very anti-gay things. The shows producers didn't like that, and fired/suspended him. This is described at Duck_Dynasty#GQ_Interview. Now, some people defended the guy, saying that he has a right to free speech and his homophobic views. And they are right. However, the TV producers also have the right to fire anyone they want, for (mostly) whatever reasons they want. So, while we have the right to say whatever we want in the USA without fear of governmental action, private people and businesses can still react in any legal way. So firing someone for saying horrible things is legal, while killing someone for saying horrible things is not. If someone gets fired for saying racist things, that is not a violation of their free speech rights. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you get to speak for the OP. I was using the normal English definition of the word "retaliation", and trying to correct what I see as a common misunderstanding in the USA, while elaborating on your good response. Put simply: some people seem to think that getting fired for saying something inflammatory is a violation of free speech rights, but it is not. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's probably only reported there that Charlie is anti-Muslim, while in reality they satire all religions, including Christianity. This is protected free speech, and many others do this, too. See the piss Christ.

We should also explain exactly why the West believes in the Freedom of Speech and what the limits are. First, some history: Martin Luther expressed his extreme displeasure with the Catholic Church of the time with his 95 Theses. The extremely corrupt Pope tried to have him arrested and executed for this, but much of Northern Europe agreed with Luther and protected him, starting the Protestant Reformation. This led to the idea that you shouldn't be able to kill people who disagree with your religious views (Freedom of Religion) or who state those views publicly (Freedom of Speech). The formation of the US, in particular, was in part due to people who would be persecuted due to their religious views if they remained in Europe.

Another reason for Freedom of Speech (and Freedom of the Press) is to expose government corruption, and hence end it. You will find that nations without these freedoms have more corrupt governments, and anyone who opposes the government ends up in prison.

But what are the limits on Freedom of Speech ? Generally, encouraging violence is not protected. For example, prior to the genocide in Rwanda, a radio station called for it to happen, and they were put on trial for this.

The overall view is that we all need to be more tolerant of those who differ from us, and not try to kill them for any differences we have. In the case of Muslims in countries that don't hold these views, you not only get them killing non-Muslims, but also each other, like Shia versus Sunni, Sunni sects versus each other, and more strict Muslims versus more secular Muslims. If there's no Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion and Freedom of the Press, bad things happen. Look at what ISIL does, and how the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Other respondents to this question have given their opinions, but it is important to recognise that those views are not necessarily shared by everyone in "the West". There are many strands of opinion in "the West" - by no means a homogeneous entity, of course - as to whether magazines like Charlie Hebdo should publish material that can be interpreted as racist or blasphemous. For example, one range of opinions - in a broadly left-wing British newspaper - is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope that the original questioner realises that your personal opinions are certainly not 'shared by "everyone in the west". Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the Eastern IP's claims about Western thought are certainly incorrect. 70.53.70.99 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the idea that 100% of people of a very large population share a certain ultimately fairly narrow idea is almost always nonsense, as it is here, unless you're following a No true Scotsman argument. There is of course a big difference between a possibly very large majority and everyone/100% which may have been missed by the IP (who deleted their comments in a huff, but not apparently because they realised they were wrong). The funny thing is it isn't even particularly hard to prove here it's nonsense. The perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo attack were born and raised in France, somewhere widely accepted to be part of the West (and in light of this question, surely so). They may have been influenced by people who may be considered having came from the West, and apparently had some feelings of connection to places which aren't part of the West, but it's offensive to suggest they weren't people from the West. Clearly they didn't share that view otherwise they wouldn't have undertaken their horrific attack. Okay, they're dead now so you can say they aren't an example of people in the West who have that view any more, even if they were about a week ago. But it's ridicilous to suggest they were the only people in the West to have that view (I suspect you can find people in prison who have that view and can be considered to be from the West for example). I'm not denying that's a fairly extreme example of a counter view only shared by a tiny minority, but it's a moot point in response to the IP's claim. And reading more (like with links already provided) will easily prove there are other's with a less extreme view but who do have more nuanced views of freedom of speech. Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I was reading something somewhere to the effect that there have been plenty of religious organizations unhappy with Charlie, including the most vocal voice of support for the Catholic Church in America. The difference is that they "retaliate" to "blasphemy" with words rather than bullets. And the other day, Bill Maher got himself into another swirl when he declared that "hundreds of millions" around the globe approve of the shootings. Which may not be far off the mark. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. As a young non-muslim Singaporean, there is no way you would have heard about a French weekly cartoon newspaper that issues only 60000 copies at most (more often 45000) and that sells about 35000. Except if you travel to France. That you can be offended there in Singapore, on the other side of the world where they don't even speak French, because of one single obscure publication that only 35000 French people buy and read and only in France, in itself asks many questions, I think. Akseli9 (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Another aspect that may be strange for non-Westerners is the idea that the state will not enforce or in any way even give recognition to religious "laws". See Separation of church and state. Acts such as blasphemy are not a crime and the idea that any such rules can apply to non-believers is regarded as absurd. A person's religious beliefs are regarded as personal and private, if I blaspheme against my god it's my personal problem. My religious community/congregation might have something to say about it but they cannot punish me in any way that affects my life outside of the congregation, so for example I can be barred from attending religious occasions or entering the church/temple/mosque but they cannot tell my employer that I'm a terrible sinner and should be fired. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And note that the approach taken in many Muslim countries requires that you have a homogeneous population that all believes the same thing. In the modern world, this is becoming less and less possible. People themselves now move all over the world, and they can't expect that people wherever they go will have their same beliefs. This seems to be the problem with many Muslim immigrants, or even converts, who then expect the society they live in to adapt to them, rather than them adapting to where they live.

Then there's improved communications, which means now people around the world see what others are thinking and saying. There was a time when people living in a tribal region of Yemen didn't hear anything that would upset them from around the world, but now they do, and so decide they must kill anyone who does anything that upsets them, no matter where they are. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that racism is only realized in the west when certain groups are targeted. So you are free to stereotype ethnic groups as murders or claim racist conspiracy theories of domination so long as pick the correct groups to hate. 70.53.70.99 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie has also been complained about by the Catholic Church for mocking Catholicism. Is that also "racism" and "blasphemy"? Or is it that you're not Catholic, so you don't care about it? Also, guess what you can do to combat the "stereotype" of Islamists as murderers: Stop them from murdering. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be cool, but would perpetuate the stereotype that "they" are "ours" to stop. Or start. Or lead, revolutionize or otherwise control. Murder stops when people stop themselves from murdering. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

In the case of the French terrorists, what would have motivated them not to commit murder? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Happiness, generally. I don't know, specifically. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

What if they think they are happy and "acting in good faith", to coin a phrase. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Then murder won't completely stop. Still, less murder is cool. I suppose murdering one person to save two or more will have to do for now. But a hundred million hippies can't be wrong about world peace getting here someday. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

No, "everyone" is NOT "fine" with blasphemy. The Catholic church organization in America has vigorously criticized Charlie. And how do you imagine Bill Maher is regarded when he says "all religions are stupid and dangerous"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

His name's Pope Francis and he's here to say, respecting all religion is the only way. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Goes beyond ethnicity. Here are "5 Everyday Groups of People Society Says It's OK to Mock". Thankfully, they left out the Amish, because that joke's as old as electricity. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, January 14, 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of East/West balance, here are "5 Things You Learn Hanging With the Taliban". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, January 14, 2015 (UTC)

There is a great quote from Voltaire which more or less describes the ideal of freedom of speech in western society: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." Many of us in the West do have serious reservations about the types of things media of all types do here in the West. This includes several Christian groups, I think largely Catholic, which seriously object to the depictions of sexuality and other matters in the media. But, at the same time, for the most part, these Western groups will support the right of the media involved to do that, even if they themselves disagree with it. The idea of state (or any other) absolute control over media is more or less very much looked down on in the West, given the number of religious wars, including many associated with the Protestant Reformation, that we have had and the slanting of media during them. But, to add my own appendix to Voltaire, many of us would not only disagree with what someone has to say, but be willing to defend their right to say it, they would also request that others similarly defend their right to criticize those who make what in their eyes stupid statements, and defend to the death their right to take appropriate action, not to the point of impacting the rights of others, to seek to get those who are expressing those opinions to change them, or, at least, to change the way they are presented and how often they are presented. This would include the effort mentioned above to terminate the individual from the Duck Dynasty TV show and other, similar acts of basically peaceful ways of expressing discontent with the offensive statements of others. John Carter (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to cite the exact same quote. Unfortunately, it's apocryphal, but it's still an excellent expression of the sentiment. Since you've used it up now, let me quote a more recent writer, both famous for offending and for defending the right to offend: "My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, anyplace, anytime. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass." Not being offended is not a human right. Being able to speak freely is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just as a point of language, as the questioner may be honing his skills: not all bigotry is racism, and not all prejudice is racism. Racism is specifically discrimination against a race, not against a nationality or a religion. So there is no "French race", and prejudice directed against a religion is not racism: there's no Muslim race or Islamic race. I would also note that some Western nations are more advanced than others in their support of free speech, and none are perfect; I think, for example, the fact that Britain permits private prosecutions for blasphemy is quite scandalous. - Nunh-huh 23:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Blasphemous libel as an offence was abolished in England and Wales with the passing of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The laws of Scotland and Northern Ireland are different, but in practice the Human Rights Act 1998 would make further prosecutions unlikely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that the OPs username translates roughly to "French people are racist" Nil Einne (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the French for "the OP is clueless"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A user that labels himself "French people are racist" is not likely to be operating in good faith. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The last question, question 3, reads: "Does freedom of speech mean that victims of racist and blasphemy speech cannot retaliate?" Certainly, retaliation is permissible. But shouldn't that retaliation be limited to speech? Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, even if you AGF that the question is genuine, which isn't something my comment touched on anyway, it doesn't mean the translation of the OPs username should be hidden. At the very least, if the OP does request an unblock or comes back under a different username (as they were blocked in response to BB's UAA report), it will help people to understand why. It will also help people to understand why the OP is currently blocked and why their username was deleted from the edit log. More to the point, as I've also explained, this specific username may also be a key point of information in understanding the OP even if you believe the question was in good faith. Ultimately of course, AGF only requires that people behave in a certain way if they choose to respond. It doesn't force people to respond to a requests for volunteers if they are unwilling to AGF (and this includes giving a far lesser answer than they would have if they were fully AGF). It's entirely resonable people may wish to know that a person choose such an offensive username, even if they masked it by writing it in a different language (intentionally or not). And it doesn't even require people don't AGF anyway. A person is entitled to ignore or respond in a lesser fashion to a question from someone they feel they don't wish to deal with, such as one who chose a username which may be offensive to them or their friends or family or whatever, even if they feel the question is genuine. Remember this isn't some sort of WP:outing, or even a contrib history issue. This is entirely relating to the username the OP used to post this question, including to sign the question. In any case, you've also succeeded in detracting from the question much more than my simple message (and BB's admitedly somewhat pointless reply) ever could, and likely ensured people who never would have seen my comment anyway saw it. And yes, I'm perfectly fine with AGF that you genuinely felt you were helping, even if you're actually made things worse for the OP and their question. Nil Einne (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

if you guys blocked OP congrats, you went from having a chance to learn from someone who politely starts "Hello. I am a young non-Muslim Singaporean. Here non-Muslims and Muslims live together peacefully, usually get along" then clearly explained "Today I discussed the Charlie attack with a group of friends, including both non-Muslims and Muslims" -- from a largely islam culture -- which is insanely rare and useful in the present context, and went on to state the world's most reasonable "So I am asking some questions (sorry for bad English) to understand Western views and so the West can understand views from the other side of the world" and followup questions..... to not having this opportunity. You can take a handful of daily newspapers reporting, and not have this kind of cultural access to someone young and willing to learn about our culture and explain their perspective. Well, you've blocked that opportunity. yay for you. Looks like I'm the only one around here who actually wanted to learn something. I've deleted my own contributions and answers from the above in protest. (Including hats I had helpfully added to keep things on topic.) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You wanted to learn from someone whose username is "French people are racist", you were bound to be disappointed. I can guarantee that if you travel around the world and talk to people from other countries, 99.9% will not start by accusing everybody in your country of racism. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

he started by stating "Hello. I am a young non-Muslim Singaporean." 212.96.61.236 (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And his questions were shady, as they made predetermined assumptions on the order of "are you still beating your wife?" And he was blocked for his username. Most blocks are placed on the user behind the username, so if a user then edits under a different name or an IP then they are evading a block, which is against the rules. Username blocks are a bit different. Usually someone blocked solely for an offensive username is free to create a new, non-offensive username, and can resume editing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

we'll just have to agree to disagree. I thought interacting with him was fine and found his question well-written and not leading. The fact that other constructive editors also responded with further interesting and good references shows this as well. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

All three questions, and the username, carry the same basic allegation that the French are racist. That does not qualify as "good faith". You're right that some of the responses are useful. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

AGF is a prescriptive policy, not a description of what qualifies as good faith. For example, this is why no matter how hard you troll when you're bored, we continue to treat all of your questions at face value (despite any level of evidence to the contrary). This isn't just people being nice - it's official Misplaced Pages policy and we have to do it. There really aren't limits, and it's not about interpreting something. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If some new user came along with the ID "Malaysians are racist" or "Hungarians are fascist", would you consider that to be OK as a user ID? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course, I would never comment on it. It's just a username. On Reddit for example people typically pick very obscene and offensive ones, even the ones leaving civil comments and participating normally. A good solution would be to put in large red letters on the registration page that User Names should be inoffensive and encyclopedic, and that content submitted by editors will be judged on the basis of their user names, with the contributions of editors using unencyclopedic names being removed or blocked. This would solve this particular non-issue. Feel free to submit this comment to the appropriate area - I've instituted good updates like this to Wikiepdia in the past but don't have time to track down the right area just now. Thanks. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I created my user ID, but I'm fairly certain it indicates the rules about what cannot be used for a username. And you might not report it to WP:UAA, but there's a good chance someone will. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I always "assume" good faith, until the editor demonstrates otherwise - which, in this case, didn't take long. And you should read Misplaced Pages:AGF is not a suicide pact. If it were, no one would ever be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

you totally misunderstand. AFG isn't about trying to guess whether someone's intentions are pure. It has nothing to do with this. It's a prescription about doing so. For example, woudl you say AFG applies to considering whether some of your specific edits are in good or bad faith? No. It's not about judging your intentions (which are obviously in many specific cases in bad faith unambiguously). We still assume good faith because it doesn't matter that you demonstrate bad faith. You should try to understand the policy better - stevebaker explaiend it very well somewhere, and he is an excellent contributor. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That stuff DOES matter, and that's why we have WP:UAA, to report unacceptable user ID's. And why we have WP:AIV to report vandalism, and WP:ANI to report user misbehavior, and so on. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to learn something, perhaps it would be helpful to check out Demographics of Singapore. While I can't speak for the OPs specific background and culture, Singapore isn't "a largely islam culture". According to our article, the percentage of Muslims there is about 15% which I suspect is about right. Because of history and other factors, Islam has a bigger influence there than you may expect solely from their percentage of the population, but I don't think many would suggest Singaporean culture is "largely" Islamic.

BTW, you seem to forget that I spent a big chunk of my life (still a majority, although that includes years when I was too young for it to be of significance or remembered) in a country with many similarities to the OPs, and a far more Islamic cultural influence (although my secondary schooling years included only a few Muslim peers and actually little interaction until my final two years).

I can't comment on what goes on at Reddit or elsewhere, but the reality is in most places giving yourself a highly offensive bigoted username is likely to lead to a block and most people with much experience with the internet (or life in general) would know that. Yes there may be some gray areas which will be acceptable in some places, but not in others, but a username "French people are racist" is far from that.

If instead, you believe it's normal for Singaporeans not to appreciate that calling yourself "French people are racist" will generally cause strong offensive and is liable to lead to people ignoring or blocking you, you're quite mistaken and actually that's far more offensive than anything the OP did.

I can't and am not ruling out the OP not appreciating that the username is offensive since the may be a small minority of Singaporeans who wouldn't, even if the alternatives seem far more likely (whether trolling, a misunderstanding of free speech resulting in boundary testing or an attempt to prove hyprocricy or what, intending to cause offensive, an outlet for their anger, or whatever).

None of this means that you can't learn something from the OP if you wish, but the lessons you learn are likely to be flawed if you don't understand the OP isn't necessarily representative of Singapore culture or beliefs. (I'm not actually saying anything the OP said may be far from the sentiment in Singapore, more the need to be wary and in particular, not make bizzare and offensive assumptions about Singaporeans.)

And let's not forget the OP can come back at any time if they wish to, it ended up being a username block so all they need is a rename or new account.

P.S. The username creation page does link to our username policy although only in a fairly indirect way. The primary purpose for wikipedia is to create a free encyclopaedia and that's fundamental and never going to change, so all our policies will always be based around that. The fact that we use the CC and GFDL (both of which have attribution requirements) is also linked from every edit page. The fact we have a publicly visible edit log which shows the username or IP, is of course also fundamental, as it is with most public wikis and mentioned in our terms of use linked from every page.

So beyond the fact that as a collaborative project that needs interaction and therefore wishes to avoid excessive immediate offensive between contributors and also wishes to allow people to address one another without having to repeat offensive things, it shouldn't really be surprising that highly offensive usernames just aren't suited for a project like us which aims to create free content albeit with attribution requirements that may require said usernames (although you only need a link, people ultimately need to be able to see the usernames).

Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A few notes on the posters country: They are 150th in the Press Freedom Index. Extensive censorship usually goes hand in hand with the ruling party being declared the overwhelming winner of every election. This is no exception. In the latest parliamentary election the People's Action Party got 93% of the contested seats, and that was their worst result in 50 years. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The right of free speech is something that is difficult for non-westerners (and indeed many westerners) to fully grasp. Not only do publishers like Charlie have a fundamental right to say (or draw) something offensive... there is (intentionally) no protection against being the subject of such offensive speech (or drawing). No one is exempt. No topic is "off limits". MOST French people find Charlie's cartoons extremely offensive (and not just the ones that feature Mohamed). But they also strongly feel that Charlie has the right to publish them anyway. Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often mis-attributed to Voltaire) summed it up well... "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's it, don'cha know. Those who were raised in highly authoritarian countries are used to conformity, and are baffled by the apparent anarchy (i.e. "Freedom") allowed in countries such as France. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

They don't have much of a sense of humour either, they banned Disneyland with the Death Penalty ;-) Dmcq (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where the OP is coming from. Are they really saying Muhammad would be insulted to be shown as being against the terrorists? Not showing him is just some convention Muslims have, it doesn't appear anywhere in the Koran. Would he really wish to not show himself in this circumstance? Dmcq (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

To understand just why "freedom of the press" is so important in America (and thus in France as a result of a 1789 event) one needs to understand the case of John Peter Zenger. Collect (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hence the old saying: "Never sue - they might prove it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Just how old? —Tamfang (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

To answer the questions simply

1. How racist is French society? Some French people are (too many), but not those who draw the cartoons, they were very well-known for their anti-racism. They criticize Islam because it is an idea (the idea that Muhammad speaks the word of God). Islam is not a race.

2. Does freedom of speech include being very racist and blasphemy? Freedom of speech in France does not protect you if you are racist, it is illegal to incite racial hatred, but it covers blasphemy, yes, because religions are ideas, they are not "the truth" (otherwise, how could they possibly all be correct?). Also Freedom of speech covers criticism of all historical characters (do you have freedom of speech if you cannot criticize the great conquerors of history like Ceasar, Muhammad, Napoleon, etc?) and all imaginary characters (like Greek gods, Hindu gods, Norse gods and more Abrahamic gods).It also covers living characters, as long as you don't lie about them.

3. Does freedom of speech mean that victims of racist and blasphemy speech cannot retaliate? Retaliation is permitted, and supported and is considered healthy, as long as it is with words, drawings, publications, debates, speeches, peaceful protests, even strikes, etc. Retaliation using death threats or actual physical violence is punished by the law. --Lgriot (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Best (survey-type) phrasing to self-select out non-respondents

Sometimes in forums I would like to post a question in the format, "do you know of an (x,y,z)." How can I phrase this so that those for whom the answer is "no" do not write me multiple paragraphs about why they do not and what they do know (I could do the same). For example, suppose I wanted to know whether anyone knows of the existence of a laptop I can buy that has a 15-hour stock battery life in some configuration, perhaps with a battery in an expansion bay (instead of disk drives, etc). How could I phrase this so that people do not respond "no, I don't" but in 5 parapraphs? (but simply self-select out of answering). What is the best standard phrasing for achieving this effect? (E.g., "If you know ____, please respond" would be quite a direct way of stating it but I don't know if that's best.) Thank you. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd think you'd need to explicitly list those things you don't want to discuss. You have to understand that many people ask questions based on incorrect or incomplete assumptions, and it's part of our job to root out those underlying assumptions and correct them. For example, perhaps carrying multiple batteries with you and swapping them out is a solution to your question that you hadn't considered. If you have, and can't do this because your application means you can't turn the laptop off to swap batteries, then you need to state this explicitly. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually wasn't asking this about here (the Misplaced Pages Reference Desk) at all, I was interested in general phrasing for another forum. e.g. survey methodology, if you don't want people to respond if they don't know. I agree that listing the things that are excluded (that you don't want to discuss) keeps people from responding with them. But you cannot guess everything that doesn't match your criteria. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In an electronic survey, you can have a check box, and only ask follow up questions when they pick Yes. For example, many restaurant surveys say "Did you experience a problem during your visit ?". It you say yes, then they ask you to explain the problem you had, and if you were able to resolve it. If you say no, then they don't.

In a forum, the best you might be able to say is "If yes, then please answer the following...". That, along with explicitly excluding things you don't want to discuss, should at least cut down on extraneous answers. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Apology

I apologise for the comment I made on the 'Thanks' section in this reference desk. It was a stupid thing to do. 49.227.209.174 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It didn't survive long, but good on you for seeing the error of your ways.

Now for your penance, say 10 Hail Mary's and 9 Glory Be's. Go in peace, my child, and sin no more. -- Jack of Oz 19:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Also 8 Days a Week, The Magnificent 7, At 6's and 7's, 5 O'Clock World, 4th of July, 3 O'Clock in the Morning, Tea for 2, 1 Is the Loneliest Number and Christmas at Ground 0. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, but I never apologize.... :) KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ranzo?

In The Wild Goose Shanty there's a chorus "Ranzo, Ranzo, weigh hey!". What/who is Ranzo? I know there's a city in Italy by that name, but that seems to be entirely disconnected from the rest of the shanty lyrics (You can see lyrics here ) Zarnivop (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe to do with a song called "Reuben Ranzo"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That looks like it's the same character, as for the name "Ranzo" ... in his Shanty Book, Richard Runciman Terry wrote: "Who Ranzo was must ever remain a mystery. Capt. Whall suggests that the word might be a corruption of Lorenzo, since Yankee Whalers took many Portuguese men from the Azores, where Lorenzo would have been a common enough name. " (Well, Lourenço would have). "Capt. Whall" is Captain William Boultbee Whall, author of Ships, Sea Songs and Shanties (see also List of works by Veronica Whall).

Terry later mentions Ranzo as an example of the sailor's "mythical heroes" ---Sluzzelin talk 00:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My thanks, hearties! Zarnivop (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

January 15

Who was the "Prince of Braganza" involved in 1938 Brazil coup?

According to a somewhat removed source, someone styled as "Prince of Braganza" was involved in a failed coup d'état against Getúlio Vargas. The timeline doesn't seem to match up with any of the generally accepted Brazilian pretenders so just wondering who he was. On a less serious note, I'm somewhat disappointed Hollywood hasn't got to making a movie with a president personally fighting off rebels with a machine gun. Hack (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Pentagon has a finger in American war movies. The President has a finger in the Pentagon. The President has better things to do than justify to the public why he's not out fighting bad guys, like the cool President does. Seriously though, I've never heard of this guy, either, and it's bugging me. We'll get to the bottom of this. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

There's this Princess Braganza. You might want to Google Translate that. She seems to have annoyed a lot of slaveowners. An older relative, perhaps. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Lot of (probably better) clues at House of Braganza, if you haven't been there yet. And I just noticed the aforementioned Elizabeth is also an Isabel. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Just as an aside, the source for the Vargas machine gun story is an anecdote in The Accidental President of Brazil. Hack (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This Prince João Maria of Orléans-Braganza seems a bit shrouded in mystery. Could be him. Seems like the sort of thing that would have been remembered better. If it happened at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

An even more removed source suggests that the "prince" was killed in the incident, identifying him as "Prince Don Pedro Braganza". Hack (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of Pedros, but that narrows it down. Maybe Pedro de Alcântara, Prince of Grão-Pará? He died in January 1940, apparently of nothing at all. Might fit. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Probably not him. This says the mystery prince was the "second son of the Pretender to the throne". That narrows it down a bit more. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Something doesn't add up. A prince being killed in a fascist plot should have attracted more attention than a regional US paper and a couple of wire reports in an Australian newspaper. Hack (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should be looking into this "Frank M. Garcia" from the New York Times. If I was a reporter before people could Google, I could see how lying might be tempting. Many still do it, habitually. All I can tell is he died at 71 on June 21, 1958. The rest is paywalled. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the Portuguese WP article on the incident and those of the protagonists don't mention anything about a prince. Hack (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A (historically) great man once said "For all I know, our navy was shooting at whales out there." What purpose would be served by including a pretend pretender? Maybe just spice. I don't know this general stage of history well. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Reading the NYT report in full, a Prince John of Orleans and Braganza was supposedly leading the charge. Hack (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

An obituary of Prince João Maria of Orléans-Braganza places him in Brazil at the time. According to pt:João Maria de Orléans e Bragança, he was the guy, though the entire article is unsourced. Hack (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Dom João's life in the family of the exiled Imperial family of Brazil and as a pilot is well-known. It is the stuff of swashbuckling romance even without the "royal revolutionary" angle, although that legacy was in his blood as a descendant of the regicide, Philippe Égalité. He was a great-great-grandson in the male line of the Citizen King, Louis Philippe d'Orléans, who was banished from the throne of France in 1848. João's grandfather, Gaston d'Orleans, Comte d'Eu, was sent in 1864 to Brazil to marry the younger daughter of Emperor Pedro II but, having caught the fancy of the elder daughter and heiress, Isabel of Braganza, the Princess Imperial swapped her own intended for her sister's and both couples lived happily ever after. Almost. Pedro II was a model monarch, but while traveling abroad left Isabel as regent who, in a spasm of religious remorse, couldn't resist the opportunity to free Brazil's slaves -- alienating both the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie of the empire. Thus there was nobody to defend the dynasty when the monarchy was overthrown in 1889, so the Orléans-Braganzas took up exile in the French Republic. Isabel and Gaston's eldest son was Pedro de Alcântara, Prince of Grão-Pará, who renounced his claim to Brazil's defunct throne in favor of a younger brother to marry a Bohemian countess in 1908. Their elder son, Pedro Gastão (1913-2007), would move to Rio and offer himself as a candidate for the throne until Brazil belatedly voted in 1993 not to restore the monarchy. Meanwhile Pedro's younger brother, Prince João (1916-2005), in 1949 married Fatima Chirine (1923-1990), an Arab aristocrat who was the widow of Prince Hassan Toussoun of Egypt and the mother of an adulterine daughter by King Farouk of Egypt, from whom she had fled into her Brazilian prince's arms. So Dom João's primary claim to fame is his creation of a royal trifecta of continents: Brazilian prince of French dynasty weds Egyptian sharifa. His handsome son and namesake became popularly known in Rio as João the Surfer, and was widely regarded as the odds-on favorite Braganza to become emperor had the 1993 referendum gone the other way. Compounding the senior João's Muslim/Catholic dynastic merger were the marriages of his sisters Isabel (1911-2003) and Francisca (1914-1968), to the respective pretenders to the thrones of France and Portugal. FactStraight (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

singing totally different roles

I was wondering if we had an article on large transpositions between vocal performances by different performers. (e.g. soprano-type women singing elvis, etc). why is it not very common? In instrumentals it seems more common, but I could be wrong. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing could be a problem. Certainly all of us could come with anecdotal examples (such as Robert Merrill singing "Yankee Doodle Dandy"), but a list is liable to be inherently incomplete, and even an article on the general subject could suffer from an insufficiently precise definition. Specifically, it's possible we might already have an article, but what would its title be? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, I was thinking along the same lines. So we don't really have such an article? I can think of a lot of specific examples as well, such as, for example Fitzgerald singing the same song Armstrong does! But is this more common to certain styles? (like jazz)? I looked for male versions of Rolling in the Deep, but the ones I found were high - it was transposed, but not down to a lower (baritone) role - why not? It would be perfect, it's very jazzy and deep for a woman, and would work well for a man the same way. I put in 'rolling in the deep cover male' and saw a cover by John Legend. What about others? Likewise, why are transpositions between tenor and baritone pieces not that common? Are people just very used to the way they were written?

Where did you find the Merrill "Yankee Doodle Dandy" thing? That is an interesting reference. I couldn't find a version on youtube though... 212.96.61.236 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have it on a CD. Here it is on youtube. Did I mention he sings it with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? (And I didn't have the title quite right - sorry.) Although as you discuss Ella vs. Louis, I'm not sure this is exactly what you had in mind. I was thinking more of singers performing stuff that's outside of their normal genre. Like if Black Sabbath were to sing some old standards in the style of Bing Crosby. (Or like something I actually saw on TV once - Ethel Merman singing "Gentle on My Mind".) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

One example that occurs to me is Tom Jones' cover of Prince's "Kiss". Prince sings it in falsetto, Tom sings it an octave down in his baritone range. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a bit of a problem for those staging 17th and 18th century opera such as Gluck's Orfeo ed Euridice, since the leading male role was often written for a castrato. There are a few countertenors that can do the job, but the choice is usually between having a woman dress up as a man and sing the part as written, or transpose it for a modern tenor. If you go for the former, you end up with a woman singing "What shall I do without Euridice? Whither shall I go without my beloved?" Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a recording of Dame Clara Butt singing that lovely aria. I rate it just as highly as my other recording, by Tito Schipa, and that is very high praise indeed. -- Jack of Oz 20:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that what I was getting at (in an attempt to address "why is it not very common?") was that many songs have lyrics that suggest that a man is singing to a woman or vice versa, and so having a member of the opposite sex sing the same lyrics requires either a change in the text or a willing suspension of disbelief, unless a same-sex relationship is implied, something that has only been acceptable in the mainstream in the last couple of decades. Simply a hypothesis; I can't find a reference to support it. Alansplodge (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There's an old Scottish tune called "The Gallant Forty-Twa", whose lyrics suggest it's being sung by a woman, but all-male groups such as the Clancys and the Irish Rovers had no hesitation in singing it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

In the early years of phonograph records, songs were often written to make the verse imply that it's a woman's words, and then the man goes ahead and sings those words. It seems funny today, but was not unusual then. The public was not really "gay-aware" as they are now. A couple of examples are "You'd Be Surprised" and the similarly-themed "Charley, My Boy" (which musically refers back to the first one, though different composes), both sung by here Billy Murray ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And Eubie Blake's composition, "I'm Just Wild About Harry", which he himself would sing while playing the piano. (As did the presumably male character Daffy Duck in one cartoon.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Has any male person, other than a drag queen, ever sung "I Enjoy Being a Girl"? -- Jack of Oz 07:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Who knows ()? Thanks many Baseball Bugs for the youtube link to the Victor record of Bill Murray, which is revealing the true existence of something like a genre of, it seems, a musical caricature. Nothing probable under the rule of Hi-fi electronics --Askedonty (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A number of songs by Steeleye Span and the like switch roles. A more modern example is Steve Goodman's "Ballad of Penny Evans". —Tamfang (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

insane multiphonics (whistle-hum)

I was looking at this video -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoWN-_Ue4wk

I don't understand this technique. The result is incredibly impressive for an obvious amateur. In this csae though, why isn't this something that others can do? (For example he's a very poor singer.) Is this specific performer extremely unique? Why can't I find people doing this who are more honed? (Just as you can find performance whistlers.) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There's not a lot to it. He's creating sounds from two sources simultaneously -- his whistle and his larynx. Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull does a similar trick with flute, singing while playing. I've done the same thing on trumpet, emulating the great Bubber Miley. It's called growling when done on an instrument. --jpgordon 05:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's not a lot to it, it's all the more surprising that I can't see more videos on youtube of even the amateur quality he shows. I mean that for an amateur, parts of the clip are really good, it's a lovely effect. He doesn't sing well, though, so if it's simple, why don't we have more clips like this from slightly more accomplished singers? It seems kind of like an incredibly obscure thing (this specific combination of whistling and humming.) Is it incredibly difficult mentally - similar to juggling 7 balls or something? That would explain the number of clips of even this quality, which is low. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I can do it, but I don't have very good control over the laryngeal hum - I have trouble keeping it in key, and certainly couldn't hum a baseline. I honestly don't know if, with practice, I'd be able to better control the hum - I imagine so, to some extent. But doing this for more than a couple of minutes starts to hurt, as one is blowing harder (to facilitate the whistle) than one would otherwise. And it never sounds good, so it doesn't seem like a skill that's terribly worth practicing. 146.200.0.182 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at Mongolian throat singingTuvan throat singing. It's what they do over there. Also Overtone singing. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Does Eagleton ever refer to Spinoza?

Does Terry Eagleton ever refer to Baruch de Spinoza? --193.196.166.161 (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

yes. Paul B (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are Scottish Sheriffs (Judges) overpaid?

Sheriffs in Scotland are on the same salary as English Circuit Judges. But whereas an English Circuit Judge (sometimes called a recorder) sits in judgement on Murder, Manslaughter (culpable homicide in Scotland), Rape, and Serious Fraud cases, with the same sentencing powers as an English High Court Judge, who tends only to be appointed to those types of case when there is a complexity or public interest element that warrants a trial by a more senior judge (High Court Judge) than a Circuit Judge (Crown Court), his/her Shrieval (Scottish Sheriff) counterpart is not allowed to sit in judgement on those more serious cases, which are exclusively reserved for the Scottish Criminal High Court with Scottish High Court Lords of Justiciary presiding. And furthermore, a Scottish Sheriff's sentencing powers are limited to 5 years imprisonment, with the option to refer higher sentencing recommendations to the High Court. I know the judicial systems of both countries differ quite dramatically and have done for centuries, but I can't help wondering why the lower courts of Scotland are salaried at the same pay level of Crown Court Judges in England who exercise much more authority in much more serious criminal trials. 77.97.208.118 (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What governing body decides their pay scale? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me a rather odd way of setting pay scales you have in mind, based on the length of sentences they can hand down. I'd look at their work load and required education and experience, instead. (You might assume they have a lower workload, since they pass on more serious cases, but there might be fewer of them, so they could have an even heavier work load.) StuRat (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP may be assuming that everyone works 40 hours per week as per their contract / the laws of employment in Britain, but some have more responsibility. --Lgriot (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

To answer Bugs's question, it is the Senior Salaries Review Body. As far as I can see, they set (or at least, advise the government on) the salaries for senior officials in the whole United Kingdom, so there must be some common scale between the separate Scottish and English/Welsh systems. According to the page that I have linked; "Research carried out in 2008 by Professor Hazel Genn showed that many highly qualified lawyers were put off applying to join the High Court because they could earn up to three times more in their current post than they could as a judge!" Make of that what you will. Alansplodge (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

How did tofu become associated with vegetarianism and veganism in the western countries?

Did knowledge about tofu after the mid-20th century coincide with the spread of Buddhism, and for that reason, tofu, in western eyes, would appear like a vegetarian alternative to meat-based dishes, even though tofu has never been considered vegetarian or vegan in China and the China-influenced countries? How did strict vegetarian Westerners receive their protein before that time? From milk and milk products? Did veganism exist prior to the mid-20th century? 140.254.136.154 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't comment on the cultural perspective, but surely Chinese people knew that tofu was not a meat product and that it had relatively high protein, right? As for the rest, we have a good article on Vegetarianism, and also on History of vegetarianism. Veganism#History puts the coinage of that term and concept in 1944. Here's a nice article on the history or Tofu in the USA , mentioning that at least some people had access to it in the 19th century. Some other info at Tofu#History. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But vegetarianism is the abstention of eating meat and meat products, which may or may not include eggs and milk. It is a lifestyle. Many Asians do eat tofu, but it's not like they avoid meat. They may eat it with meat. 140.254.136.154 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's hardly unique to tofu. Other sources of vegetarian protein are also commonly eaten with meat, like beans (pork and beans) or nuts (cashew chicken). StuRat (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I gather what the OP is trying to say is that tofu may be commonly seen mostly as a meat substitute in Western countries (although I think this is getting less common). This is not the case in East and South East Asian countries. There it may be known and recognised and used as a meat substitute for those who are vegetarian like some Buddhists and perhaps the general population will recognise it as a possible meat substitute. But it's also resonably common part of the diet of many (at least those rich enough), used in desserts, meat dishes and general dishes (which may be eaten with meat dishes) among the general population who aren't vegetarian and who aren't eating or thinking of it as a meat substitute (or even if they are, probably for cost reasons). Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The answer, I'd venture, is Seventh Day Adventists. To be a vegetarian and travel in the US before the '80s meant seeking out Seventh Day Adventist restaurants in smaller towns, or be stuck with little other than grilled cheese sandwiches. Adventists started using tofu in the US long before other non-Asians caught on to the stuff. --jpgordon 20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

How did Seventh Day Adventists find out about tofu? Did they have Asian-American friends or something? 140.254.136.154 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

One could glean a lot of useful information from