Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 13

Nuclear first strikes *near* countries

The recent North Korean threat to nuke the ocean 25 miles from Guam strikes me as potentially rather intelligent. I didn't find the original wording, but if this is true I take it the area suggested is not US territorial waters - I don't know if it is EEZ.

The trap seems to be that if the U.S. angrily responds that any nuke fallout on its island is a cause for nuclear retaliation, then China may say the same thing about nuclear strikes on North Korea itself.

But this seems like the sort of thing that ought to have been sorted out in Cold War times. Is there any convention on how close to a country you can set off a nuke and have it counted as a "nuclear first strike"? Is there an agreement on how much fallout is not a cause for retaliation, and/or on payment of compensatory damages for lower/more distant quantities of fallout? For a bunch of nuclear powers to keep setting off bombs just off each others' shores would seem like a highly undesirable series of escalations someone would have made a treaty to ward off. Did they? Wnt (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It isn't intelligent - potentially or otherwise. Nuclear fallout happens no matter where the bombs land. See The Conqueror (film)#Cancer controversy and Downwinders#Health effects of nuclear testing for examples of the horrors that have already occurred. MarnetteD|Talk 00:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And therefore the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was passed signed to ward off setting off bombs off anybody's shores. By the way, this whole scenario is hypothetical because the DPRK hasn't actually said anything new about using nuclear weapons near Guam, just testing missiles. You should be able to read the statement yourself, though the Rodong Sinmun site isn't working for me right now (Ankit Panda has written a good summary). As they point out, the US routinely launches missiles across the Pacific in their direction to Kwajalein. And if the Kim regime were going to murder large numbers of people, I suspect they'd prefer to murder them in Japan. Matt's talk 02:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought NK said that because they can't actually hit Guam, if they only have the accuracy of a SCUD. Also, I wouldn't expect the missile to have a nuclear weapon on it, as they don't have that miniaturization technology ready quite yet. And, they may realize that the US could play it's last diplomatic card, a total boycott on imports from China until China cuts off all trade and aid to NK. That would be a game-changer, especially if the EU joined in. China wouldn't want that to go on long, both because of the immediate economic cost and because other nations would soon take over production of the products that China exports now, leading to long-term economic costs, even after the boycott ends. StuRat (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

A total boycott of imports from China would cause massive economic damage to the US and the EU, on a similar scale to the 1973 oil crisis. And Just-in-time manufacturing means the effects would be felt more quickly by consumers than by workers. No more smartphones, no more tablets, no more laptops, no more Christmas decorations.... Can you imagine the electoral fate of the politician who stole Christmas?! 60% of the world's buttons and 80% of zips are made in Qiaotou: the West literally couldn't do up its flies without Chinese imports! It's not a remotely credible threat. Matt's talk 02:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

1) It probably wouldn't last long, as China would be hurt far more and would do whatever it takes to end the boycott.

2) There are many other nations that can provide cheap labor (cheaper in fact). They may lack the technical infrastructure to design such products, but that can be done in more high tech nations, like Japan, with the production done where labor is cheap, like Malaysia.

3) The economic damage from a US and EU held hostage by an NK that can nuke them at will would be far greater. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

As Matt's talk also indicated, I'm not aware of any evidence North Korea has threatened to nuke the waters of Guam. They've threatened to launch ballistic waters to the waters near Guam but given zero indication they will be nuclear armed. Most experts seem to think them being nuclear armed is unlikely both because of the risk to North Korea from doing so and also because of the low reward for that risk [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and I presume also because North Korea hasn't generally used it in their rhetoric.

In other words, we don't know how serious North Korea are with these threats but even if they are serious, it seems very unlikely they'd put nuclear warheads on them without making it a key part of their rhetoric. Probably the fact that even if North Korea has some warheads they can put on these missiles, all indications are they don't have that many, is also a factor again such possibilities. In other words, if they wanted to actually do it they'd either at least try to hit someone, or if they felt they could spare one and wanted to show they were capable, they'd do it in a slightly less provocative fashion and just use one, as with their previous ballistic missile launches. I.E. It would be separate from these Guam plans.

Incidentally, I'm also not aware of any evidence that North Korea is saying this because they are basically admitting they couldn't hit Guam if they wanted to. All evidence is that they are saying it because they are claiming they could, but are aware attacking someone would be seen as an act of war so are instead going to intentional hit the waters near Guam to show their people and the imperialists that they are capable of defending themselves. Frankly North Korea admitting in any way their missiles are too inaccurate seems very unlikely.

North Korea's plans seem provocative but I'm not sure even they would be willing to intentionally strike Guam at the current time, so their current plans do make much more sense than saying they are going to strike Guam, regardless of accuracy of their missiles. Bear in mind even China has basically told North Korea if they actually attack the US (and this would almost definitely include any attack on Guam), they can't count on China to help them but haven't given any indication this would apply if North Korea just hits the waters of Guam, regardless of them clearly not wanting North Korea to do it. (And actually as I indicated in relation to the nuclear bit, and Matt's talk also indicated, if North Korea wanted to actually attack someone, it's not clear that Guam is really much of a major target. Maybe if they were really going all out and had one spare nuke which they didn't think couldn't reach Hawaii or some other part of the US they'd send one there but otherwise....)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

They aren't admitting they can't hit Guam, they are saying they aren't aiming for it, so that when they do fire off a missile, and it lands near Guam (because they couldn't hit it due to the lack of accuracy of the system), other nations won't be able to claim they were aiming for it and missed. That is, they are lowering expectations. They actually seem to get something that Trump does not, that it's a bad idea to promise things you can't deliver, as then you look bad and lose support. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Except that by your definition they are saying they can't hit Guam. And Guam is 543.9 km². Further, there's a very good chance the missiles will be taken out by the US if they're close to hitting Guam, so you can probably extend that distance, perhaps to a minimum of within Guam's territorial waters. And North Korea have said they will hit the waters 30 - 40 km away (which is not that far from the edge of the territorial waters), with both a distance and travel time for their missiles [6] [7] [8] [9]. I'm unsure if more detailed locations are visible in the various maps North Korea has released, (I found [10] which discusses a different issue, I don't think this gets much attention mostly because precisely where in the 30-40 km isn't likely to be a big deal and few people actually considered the idea this is some weird admittance of inaccuracy by the North Korea) although enveloping fire does imply North Korea is saying they will sort of be surround Guam (admittedly the travel time and distance couldn't apply to them all then unless they are coming from such distant locations) or at least the US bases on Guam.

But even without this, it still makes no sense to suggest North Korea would give such detailed plans which probably already require greater accuracy than hitting some part of Guam and so which if they actually carry them out and fail, will be seen just as much failures as saying they will hit Guam but then failing to do so (when by admitting they can't hit Guam as you claim they are doing they are already seen as failures by anyone smart if we follow your logic).

And as I already said, saying you will hit Guam and saying you will hit near Guam are very different rhetoric. (And we don't really know whether these plans are actually in any way serious.) Likewise trying to hit Guam and trying to hit near Guam are very different things. It makes no sense for North Korea to try to attack Guam when they've said they want to attack near Guam unless they want to claim that it was an accident, but that would imply admitting failure. In other words, if North Korea really wanted to attack Guam, they will either say they want to attack Guam or not say anything and just attack.

And even if they're only on course to hit the targets North Korea has promised, there's till a fair chance the US or Japan will take them out, meaning there's even less reason for North Korea to worry about this.

The only thing perhaps in the favour of your weird unsupported by any source I've seen idea (I don't know if we can even call it a theory) is that if North Korea had said they were going to hit Guam but their missiles were actually heard to the waters of Guam, there's a very slightly less chance the US would let them be just to embarrass North Korea. Oh and also there's perhaps a very slighty higher chance North Korea may feel they could get away with a "well I know we said we were going to do X, but we changed our minds" if they said they were going to hit Guam but hit the waters compared to if they said they were going to hit 30-40 km off Guam but hit somewhere else (especially if they hit or were on target to hit closer).

In reality of course, North Korea has never seemed particularly worried about just talking complete crap even if no one credible believes them like how none of the Kwangmyŏngsŏng program launches failed and they have satellites no one else can find so it's even less clear why they're suddenly trying to save face by giving detailed launch plans likely requiring greater accuracy than just saying they will hit Guam because they fear they lack the accuracy to hit Guam.

Sadly for once I have to wonder whether the one of the key leaders involved is actually listening to better advice on the issue, despite surely having ready access to it although whoever this person is listening to, it's probably not anyone on the reference desk. (We never know what, if any, advice the other key leader is receiving.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's 3430 km from NK to Guam. Hitting a target 50 km long and 6 to 19 km wide at that range would require either an extremely accurate dead reckoning system, or some way to adjust trajectory in flight, based on location feedback, such as GPS. Certainly not impossible, but if they had that capability I expect they would be bragging about it and/or demonstrating it. StuRat (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that 50-60% of China's exports are by foreign-owned enterprises, and the vast majority of products of a high enough quality / safety standard to be sold in Western markets are made by private companies, any notion of a boycott to compel the government to change its policy is laughable. Further, the last time any Chinese government changed policy in the face of threats was 1936. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Items don't need to be made directly by the Chinese government to harm the Chinese economy when no longer made there. Those Western companies can move to other places with low labor costs. There's no shortage of those in the world. What China wants most of all is "social stability", and an economic depression would end that. And the remaining 40-50% of privately owned Chinese companies which export would bring to bear enormous pressure on the government. And since those are the rich people, many with ties to government, they do have major influence. StuRat (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of the background of Child 44 (film)

Happy good day every where.
Yesterday I watched the film Child 44. My question doesn't concern the criminal and detective aspect of the film. I'm interesting in your opinions about the background of the film; could the situation be so rude?
For example, if somebody was suspected of spying, may the deadly consequences concern the family too?
The fact that this film was banned in several ex-USSR countries (Ban of the film in Russia) seems to "say" that indeed it was horrible up to this point.
I'm French but I ask this question on your desk, hoping that some people who had lived, or whose parents had lived in USSR could answer from their own or own family remembering.
Thank you all for helping.--Jojodesbatignoles (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The plot of the film is rather hard to understand, but our article on Family members of traitors to the Motherland says that family members could be punished legally (and that suggests it would have happened at other periods by administrative means). Matt's talk 10:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"In 1935 the introduction of Article 12 of the Criminal Code also permitted children from the age of twelve to be sentenced as adults and interned in the Gulags. This law was used to round up the children of those who had earlier been arrested for political crimes based on the belief that ‘an apple never falls far from the tree’". ‘The Littlest Enemies’: Children of the Stalinist Era by Dr Kelly Hignett, a historian and a lecturer at Leeds Beckett University. Alansplodge (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the legal means described above, note that most communist nations ignored the rule of law when they found it inconvenient, so would feel free to do as they pleased with family members of their perceived enemies. StuRat (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Guanyin interpreted as "patron saint" or "deity" by Westerners?

I know that Guanyin is a special bodhisattva, but her status is compared to a "deity" or "patron saint" in the article. In Christianity, what kind of status do patron saints hold? Is the Madonna a saint or lower goddess? 2600:387:0:809:0:0:0:56 (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Apples and oranges.

Guanyin is a Bodhisattva, which means they were a mytho-historical individual who just about attained Buddhahood but decided "I'm going to stay behind to help other get to this point as well." They are similar to Christian saints in the regard that they were supposedly historical individuals who achieved a lesser divine status (though not outright godhood). However, they are distinct in that any miracles attributed to the Bodhisattva are the Bodhisattva's doing and not those of a higher power (unless the Bodhisattva is regarded as an emanation of a Wisdom Buddha, in which case it's all the Adi-Buddha's doing). Some lay Buddhists (or non-Buddhists) might worship them as one would a god for this reason. Still, either stricter interpretations of Buddhism would say that the worship is nothing more than showing respect and giving thanks to the Bodhisatva for showing humanity the true path. More esoteric interpretations might say the worship is meant to be an exercise to realize the non-duality between the worshiper and the Bodhisattva. However, Guanyin is also worshiped by some Taoists and Shintoists, who just treat her as a goddess (if perhaps with a different title).

In Christianity, saints are any humans who have made it to heaven. Canonized saints are individuals that a church recognizes as definitely having made it to heaven. In theory, they are not prayed to or worshiped in the same sense as one prays to or worships God but shown respect through Dulia (or veneration). Saints do not have any powers of their own but may ask the saint to pray to God on their behalf (no different than asking any other living member of the Church to pray on one's behalf). Despite this, most Protestants generally don't approve of appealing to saints, or at least don't bother with it. Mary is an especially popular saint because she gave birth to Jesus, and so is the mother of God. She is not, however, a goddess in any orthodox Christian theology. Syncretist movements (e.g. Vodou) that incorporate elements of Christianity may combine her with goddess figures or even ascribe her with her own power.

In short: In Buddhism, Guanyin is regarded as having her own power (whether because she is an emanation of Amitābha or because of her own enlightenment), appeals for any intervention are really meant for her help, and direct worship may (or may not) be regarded as efficacious; while in Christianity, Mary does not have her own power (just a very good relationship with God), appeals to her for intervention are ultimately meant for God, and any veneration beyond showing respect is generally regarded as idolatrous. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Islam also venerates Mary as one of the most virtuous women to ever exist, though they do not think that Jesus was God (just a great prophet).

Thinking further on it, if you mapped the cosmology of Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, with God at the top of the Christianity and Islam maps, the Adi-Buddha at the top of the Buddhism map, and the sinful or unenlightened masses of humanity at the bottom for all maps... Most Christians would probably put Mary just below God (and Jesus in the God slot) and most Muslims would put Mary somewhere in the top five. Guanyin's placement would depend on which school of Buddhism you ask. A Chinese Pure Land Buddhist might well put Guanyin next to the Adi-Buddha, while another Chinese Buddhist would put Guanyin below Amitabha (who, in turn, is one step below the Adi-Buddha), an American Vajrayana Buddhist might put Guanyin just below or beside Avalokiteśvara (who is below Amitabha, below the Adi-Buddha), and a Thai Theravada Buddhist would probably leave Guanyin off entirely. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The key word here is Intercession. Lutherans apparently regard all believers as saints. Most denominations would not regard saints as "any humans who have made it to heaven". Our article does not say that. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

According to most Christian theology, being a believer -> getting into heaven. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

See sanctification. Incidentally, shortly after posting I met a woman who asked me to direct her to Lea Bridge station. Having done that, she described me as "a saint". 82.14.24.95 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And the Christian name of the architect of the original Lea Bridge station was ... Sancton. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the article "Saint" does say According to the Catholic Church, a "saint" is anyone in Heaven, whether recognized on Earth or not. So yeah, "any humans who have made it to heaven." The only disagreement is that our article is broader. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Also:

In the Eastern Orthodox Church a saint is defined as anyone who is in Heaven, whether recognized here on earth, or not.

And the same article also says that:

In many Protestant churches, the word "saint" is used more generally to refer to anyone who is a Christian

and

Methodists believe that all Christians are saints, but mainly use the term to refer to biblical people, Christian leaders, and martyrs of the faith.

The LDS is more complicated but the name is a big hint:

In the New Testament, saints are all those who have entered into the Christian covenant of baptism. The qualification "latter-day" refers to the doctrine that members are living in the "latter days", before the Second Coming of Christ, and is used to distinguish the members of the LDS Church, which considers itself the restoration of the ancient Christian church.[43] Members are therefore often referred to as "Latter-day Saints" or "LDS", and among themselves as "saints".

So I don't think the IP's claims about who are generally regarded as saints is particularly accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh and it does mention the issue said below by Wnt Many Protestant sects also consider the practice to be similar to necromancy as the dead are believed to be awaiting resurrection, unable to do anything for the living saint. Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The Catholic-Protestant distinction above isn't very relevant, but to be clear, the main issue in Protestant belief is that a literal reading of several scriptures indicates that the dead will be resurrected, but aren't presently alive to do anything. So a lot of things like Purgatory and the Harrowing of Hell don't make any sense in Protestantism, which in contradiction offered the "doppelganger" as a proof that ghosts weren't really the person but a sort of demonic deception. The theological tension is at the root of Hamlet, who might be speaking with the ghost of his father or might be speaking to a demon bent on causing murder and tragedy. For purposes of writing, though, it seems potentially acceptable to use a "patron saint" as a comparison because either one believes in them or else not. Wnt (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Charlottesville + racism

DoesCharlottesville have something that makes it magnetic to racists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.143.78.146 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Robert Edward Lee Sculpture, although maybe not for much longer. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Charleston, South Carolina had a notorious reputation as a hotbed of state nullificationism and secessionism for decades before the Civil War, and its selection as the (completely inappropriate) location of the 1860 Democratic party national convention played a role in the 1860 split of the Democratic party (and so probably hastened the onset of the Civil War) -- as well as a long history of fanatical pro-Confederate sentiment after the Civil War, so I wasn't all that surprised by the 2015 shooting there. I'm not sure that I ever heard of Charlottesville, Virginia until this last year. AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's also the location of the University of Virginia. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The 2015 shooting in Charleston had nothing at all to do with Charleston. The idiot was from Columbia. He drove first to Greenville and then decided to drive to Charleston before trying to kill as many black people as possible. Why blame the victim for the crime? You, of course, omit that Charleston is predominantly Democratic and liberal to make it fit your narrative of a hotbed of racism. Try visiting the city. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

See Rosewood massacre for evidence that a town need not be full of rednecks itself to be a "magnet for racists attacks". StuRat (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The question (as I understood it) was not whether a city is a "hotbed" of racism, but why it would be a magnet for racists from the outside. I'm sure that a large number of the inhabitants of Charleston are fine upstanding citizens, but the city has a long checkered history from the 1832 Nullification Crisis down to the shooting of Walter Scott, so I can understand why it would be a "magnet". I don't know of anything similar for Charlottesville (other than the presence of the statue, obviously -- and there are similar statues in many Southern cities). AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Urban areas attract minorities, whereas university towns attract political leftists. For example, Charleston, South Carolina is about 25% African American, whereas the rest of the United States is about 13% African American. Charlottesville votes overwhelmingly Democratic, and has been trending moreso in recent years. If you're trying to attack African Americans, you go to cities. If you're trying to provoke a confrontation with leftists, you go to a college town. --Jayron32 17:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with AnonMoos and Jayron32. I'd note that we have the shooters own words which seem to support the view that Charleston was chosen for reasons that included the history and black population although it's true what was meant by history isn't really explained. From our Dylann Roof#Website and handwritten documents article and subsection: (also here [11])

I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Several newspapers have asked this in the last few days: [12] [13] [14]. There seem to be two theories. Firstly, Richard B. Spencer attended the University of Virginia, so he has particular reason to oppose the removal of the Lee sculpture and has the local knowledge to organize 'successful' events there. Secondly, as a college town it is relatively left-wing, and so the Nazis know that they will be intimidating their enemies rather than their friends, increasingly their chances of provoking a clash. Matt's talk 10:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd note that all of the answers above seems to only mention the statue, but as our Emancipation Park (Charlottesville, Virginia) and 2017 Unite the Right rally articles say, supporters of the rally have cited both the planned removal of the statue, and the already carried out renaming of the park that the statue is in from Lee Park to Emancipation Park, as factors. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

August 14

Civil rights investigation

I keep reading that, in relation to the recent events in Charlottesville, the FBI are opening a "civil rights investigation".[15][16] Is that a thing? What would it involve and what are the possible outcomes? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This [17] and this [18] should be relevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The FBI has a "Civil Rights" division [19] that focuses on a number of civil rights issues. Most relevant with respect to Charlottesville is that this division often takes the lead in investigating hate crimes. It is also the division that often investigates police abuses. So, I would expect they are going to be looking at whether there were any violations of federal hate crimes legislation and whether or not the local police responded appropriately to the situation. Dragons flight (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

IANAL and Wikipedia does not provide legal advice. However, our articles say that the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division handles investigations under the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended in 1994 & 2009. The text of the law as passed authorized prison sentences of up to ten years (plus fines) for racist attacks using a weapon, and unlimited detention if a death results from a racist attack. There are probably many amendments and adjustments to that, but there are clearly serious consequences for racist violence. In addition, the Klan Act allows people to sue state authorities for failing to protect their civil rights; I suppose the Justice Dep't might recommend that people take that step (or even underwrite their costs), though they have no formal role in the proceedings. Matt's talk 10:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The background here is that perpetrators of racist crimes were often acquitted by local (usually Southern) juries. Introducing additional federal crimes made it possible to charge them under federal law and be judged by a federal jury. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. In this case state murder charges will certainly be brought and a fair trial conducted, so it's rather redundant, but there was a time when the state looked the other way to racist violence, perhaps by having a token trial where the defendant would be found innocent, regardless of the evidence. StuRat (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

See also: all-white jury. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Deposits on inssured accounts

Hello, does the fdic or ncua can insure acconts held by non redident aliens? 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:DDC:C0:CBA5:61CF (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation#Insured products. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's a relevant quote from the FDIC website: "Any person or entity can have FDIC insurance coverage in an insured bank. A person does not have to be a U.S. citizen or resident to have his or her deposits insured by the FDIC." [20] --Xuxl (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. and for the ncua? 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:DDC:C0:CBA5:61CF (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be any different in the NCUA than at the FDIC. I couldn't find a document stating this as clearly as the above, but various internal documents mention how to deal with non-citizen borrowers, so it's clear that they lend to them. In fact they are specifically targeted by NCUA as a group not properly served by other existing financial intitutions (see [21] on p. 32 and [22] on page 9. --Xuxl (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, not insuring accounts owned by certain people/entities would be bad for the FDIC/NCUA. Part of why deposit insurance works so well is that if people know their deposits are insured, they know they don't have to worry about losing them in a bank run, which itself makes a bank run—which might result in a bank failure that the insurance fund would have to cover—less likely. If a bank had lots of deposits by uninsured entities, they would be motivated to withdraw those deposits if they feared a bank run, which would then reduce the bank's deposit base and make it more likely to fail. The only other solution would be to prohibit banks from taking deposits from said entities, but the banks probably wouldn't like that because it would reduce their potential customers. Potential customers probably wouldn't like it either! --47.138.161.183 (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Edited to make a couple points more explicitly. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Taxes on deposit interst savings held by foreigners in the United States

Hello,
Does non resident aliens have to pay or just declare saving interests earned on their account deposits? (this includes both federal and/or state level) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:DDC:C0:CBA5:61CF (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

See this document entitled: "Aliens - Which Income to Report" from the IRS. [23]. If you have any questions beyond that, you should contact a tax professional as we cannot give any advice of this type. --Xuxl (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a legal advice question which we don't give but I'd note your question is unclear (and actually this is one reason we don't deal with legal advice). You mention "federal and/or state level" but non residents aliens may have additional requirement to declare or pay tax for interest earned on savings held in the United States in any country they are a tax resident in, and possibly (although probably not) also their home country if different. And you didn't specify that you're only interested in requirements for the US. Yet many countries don't have federal and state governments which you did specify, nor did you specify that country/ies the alien was tax resident in nor where they were from. Also the US has 50 states, and also a few non state territories. Maybe there is a website that gives the info for each state and territory but generally asking for the info for all states seems a bit extreme. Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Croatia joining the Eurozone - whose interest is it in?

Croatia is joining the E.U., and as such, will need to adopt the Euro as its currency (or may have done so already). My question is, (and I'm no economist), whose interest is it in to see Croatia join the Eurozone, just because some E.U.-wide treaty says new members must do so?

Is it in the interests of the Croations themselves, to have an artificially strong currency, at odds with their economy, which will decimate sectors like tourism?

Is it in the interests of the rest of the E.U. (particularly Germany and France), who will have yet another sick economy to bail out? Don't they have enough on their hands, with Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc, suffering from the "false money against a real economy" problem that the common currency has caused?

So, my question is, who is pushing the "Croatia should adopt the Euro" bandwagon? And in what interest?

@DOR (HK): @John Z: @Dragons flight: you three have answered Euro-questions for me before, so I'm pinging you to hear what you have to say. Other contributors welcome, of course :-) Eliyohub (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• There's been lots of writing on the costs and benefits of joining the single Euro currency. Here is a speech given by a member of the board at the ECB. This gives a lot of potential reading as well; of a general nature (not just for Croatia). --Jayron32 16:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Huh? What does the ECB have to do with the eurozone? They're leaving the EU. Obviously there will be future problems for Ireland - especially if as expected they are given full test status - since there will be a customs barrier between the two constituent ... oh, wait. Not that ECB. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Please also note that joining the EU does not imply adopting the Euro. The Eurozone is a subset of the EU. Examples of states in the EU not using the Euro include Sweden, Poland, and the Czech Republic. On the other hand, Croatia has been an EU member for 4 years. Given that Croatia is a major tourist destination in Europe, going with the Euro might make it more attractive for travellers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  By treaty, all EU member states except the United Kingdom and Denmark are expected to eventually adopt the Euro. See enlargement of the eurozone. However, it is not an automatic process and depends on the nation adopting certain economic legislation and policies. Despite the nominal requirement of joining, some of the EU states have long and/or indefinitely delayed the process of joining the Euro. For example, the Swedish people voted against adopting the Euro and the EU has largely accepted that outcome despite the stated treaty obligation to join. Back in 2011, Poland announced a 2016 target date for adopting the Euro, but delayed following the European economic crisis, and now say they won't join any earlier than 2020. Similarly, Czechia originally set a 2014 adoption target but has since delayed it until after 2020. Dragons flight (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• One advantage for Croatia is that the Euro should be a stable currency, being backed by Germany, etc., making foreign investors more likely to risk investing in Croatia. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Croatia's GDP is 20-25% based on tourism (depending on the source), which makes it the most tourism dependent economy in the EU (slightly ahead of Cyprus and Greece). Joining the Euro should encourage tourism from other Europeans even further. In the long-term, a stable currency encourages investment and foreign development as it reduces the risk for investors. I suspect that the government's hope of promoting tourism and foreign investment are the most likely driving factors domestically. Internationally, remember that the EU project removes customs and freedom of movement barriers. It is generally to the benefit of the other EU states that their trading partners operate on a level playing field with easy financial transactions and reduced risk of financial manipulation. On the other hand, an artificially stable currency limits the ability of the government to use monetary policy as a tool for countering economic recessions and instabilities, and increases the risk that a country will need a bailout / debt relief. That's less important day-to-day but could become an issue when there is another major recession. As noted above, joining the Euro is now a stated requirement for all new EU states, though some have dragged their feet about joining for decades, while others (e.g. Slovenia / Estonia) rushed to dump their old currency. Dragons flight (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• In the short term, nobody is pushing Croatia to join the Eurozone, as Dragons flight has made clear. However, the Treaty commitment is there for the long term and for long-term reasons. The question assumes that Euro enlargement is only decided on economic grounds, but they only decide when the country will join the Euro, not why. The long-term aim of the EU is an "ever closer union" in order to make sure that Europe is never destroyed by internecine war again. EMU is intended to bind Europe's economies together so tightly as to make war impossible; it ultimately rests on geostrategic and ideological grounds. People had talked about it for decades, but it happened in the 1990s not because of some breakthrough in economics or banknote manufacture, but because France demanded EMU as the price of German reunification. It was required of new members to make clear that eastern Europe would no longer be a quasi-colonial periphery; the aim is full integration with western Europe. The last few years have not been kind to political forecasters, but the intention is that Croatians know their destiny is as full members of a democratic and united Europe with a single currency; the fates that befell Poland in 1795 & 1939 and Ukraine in 2014 should become impossible. Matt's talk 00:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is the European Union always reduced to economics? It won the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize "for over six decades [having] contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe".

Do you know anyone or do you have own memories about the war in your country 20 years ago? How jaded and or disconnected are you to ignore that and reduce this to a "burden or benefit for your local tourism sector"? --Kharon (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• • There could be benefits to joining the EU. There are none to joining the EZ: the benefits are trivial, mostly finite & short term compared to the costs- enormous, unbounded and long-term- and visible today across Europe. If Croatia dawdles in joining the EZ, as it is doing now, like forever, see Croatia and the euro then it is OK. For the depressive effect of the Euro on the European economy(ies) depresses everyone it trades with- including Croatia - and this necessitates deficit spending by a responsible government, which Croatia is doing, good for them. Luckily this violates the convergence criteria and prevents them from entering the Euro! Investment and relative prosperity caused by common sense policy (which Euro membership prevents) might well keep their currency's foreign exchange value strong enough.
  • As always in international relations, the first thing to remember - Memorize that Latin! is: An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?! The Euro and the economic destruction it has wreaked has made international and in many countries internal tensions in Europe far higher than in decades. It will keep doing the exact opposite of the purported aim of "ever closer union" and keep making "quasi-colonial periphery" status more permanent until it breaks up the EZ or EU or policies are changed Euro-wide, or at least very hugely in Germany.
  • So who is for the Euro? I don't think a facile, vulgar Marxist answer would be far from the truth. Finance, bankers, multinationals etc. A small wealthy minority who might welcome the minor advantages to them and the enforced support of their social dominance, over the major harms to be suffered by the less wealthy majority. That is something like the lines of the split in the polls in the Greek tragedy, with which I am more familiar. But even more, people who have been duped, who don't understand how bad, who rooted in fantasy the European monetary setup is, who are attracted by the fine-sounding words, not the reality which contradicts them.John Z (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for these claims? And by that I don't mean opinion pieces in the Daily Telegraph or rants by Joe Random Blogger.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Our article says adopting the euro is a requirement under the terms by which Croatia joined the European Union. But, the country must meet certain criteria before that can happen, and it isn’t doing all that well right now. Fiscal tightening when the economy is weak is counter-productive.

>From what I read (I’m no expert on Croatia), larger businesses have not done very well in the three years since Croatia joined the EU. If the kuna is replaced by the euro, the country won’t be able to devalue in order to seek competitiveness. But, the cost of doing business across boarders – one of the major advantages of the euro – would drop significantly, both for local companies and for those who might invest in Croatia.

>Those may be a minor issues compared to the perception that Croatia is a more modern, more advanced and even more “civilized” place – because it is in the EU – than Serbia. Adopting the euro just enhances the feeling that we’re better than you.

>Finally, personal policy preferences such as that the euro as been an unmitigated disaster do nothing to answer the OP question: who’s on which side of the debate. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

August 15

Why don't people in England speak a Romance language?

If England was controlled by the Romans before,why aren't Romance languages spoken there today? Please note that I'm fully aware that most words in modern Englsih are derived from French and Latin. Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Because the Romans where no missionaries. The Roman Empire was Exploitation colonialism. --Kharon (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This question is answered in full at English language#Proto-Germanic to Old English. Matt's talk 03:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The basic traditional answer is that the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain were the migration of a whole people, as opposed to the Visigoths in Spain and such, where the Germanic conquerors formed only a thin ruling class, underneath which there was substantial continuity of the provincial Roman society. There's some more extended discussion in "Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World" by Nicholas Ostler, near the end of Chapter 7. Others have wondered if the Anglo-Saxon languages hadn't caught on, whether the inhabitants of England would be speaking a Romance language or a Celtic one (and then there's Brithenig, which splits the difference).

By the way, "most words in modern English are derived from French and Latin" (and Greek) only if you count dictionary entries. There's a much more even split if you count the words in a text... AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a related but inverted question: why don't the French speak a Germanic language? The Franks had sufficient influence to change the name of the country and people where they settled, but not to change the language. It seems that most other former Roman countries either took the name and language of the invaders (England, Scotland, Turkey, Hungary), or retained their own name and language (Italy, Spain). Why did France take the name of the invaders but retain a Romance language? Iapetus (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Because largely the invaders had a pretense towards re-establishing the Roman Empire. Medieval Latin remained the languages of the upper classes and a lingua franca throughout Western Europe, and a prestige language. After Charlemagne re-established the Western Roman Empire with himself as Emperor, Latin (the language of the upper classes) and Old French (a form of vulgar Latin that was slowly evolving into French) were the main languages of his realm. Starting with the Oaths of Strasbourg, Old French increasingly became a language of government, slowly displacing Latin. --Jayron32 12:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The Romans failed to invade Scandinavia. Count Iblis (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Did they ever seriously try to do so? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

There was no reason to. The Romans weren't big aficionados of skiing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The Romans certainly were aware of Scandanavia, see Swedes (Germanic tribe). While Rome did not invade Scandinavia (which would have been difficult given that they never incorporated any land bordering it!) they did trade with them, hinted at in History_of_Scandinavia#Roman_Iron_Age and Germanic-Roman contacts. Both iron ore and grain were important Scandinavian exports. --Jayron32 12:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that the Welsh language has a fair number of Latin loan words picked-up from the Romans, mostly relating to technology introduced by them; ffenest (window) pont (bridge) and melin (mill) spring to mind. As modern Welsh is descended from the Common Brittonic language spoken by the Ancient Britons, it's a fair assumption that the average Romano-British person had a fair smattering of Latin. Alansplodge (talk)

You'd be hard pressed to find a single modern European language which did not have significant numbers of Latin/Romance loanwords, given the pervasiveness of Latin and Romance languages throughout history. Even Russian (see [24], i.e. Comrade). Analysis of language evolution suffers from a Ship of Theseus problem, languages change in incremental ways over time, and they change through contacts with other cultures. Even linguists have a hard time coming up with a taxonomy they can all agree to (see Lumpers and splitters#Language classification, and somewhat flippant adage A language is a dialect with an army and navy). --Jayron32 12:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Although in the case of Welsh, this can be directly attributed to the Roman occupation rather than Medieval or Renaissance scholarship. See The Legacy of Rome: A New Appraisal (p. 392) edited by Richard Jenkyns, and The Welsh Language: A History (p. 7) by Janet Davies. Alansplodge (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Welsh also has significant contributions from Norman French, which makes since since the Normans, as a ruling class, were in Wales as long as the Romans were: [25]. --Jayron32 10:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Normani ite domum? Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Mary, Mother of Jesus

Question sparked by a comment about Mary in the Guanyin discussion above: Muslims do not believe Jesus was the Son of God, but merely a prophet. Muslims venerate Mary, but do not believe in the immaculate conception. So, why do Muslims venerate Mary? What did she do / how did she lead her life that was so special? DOR (HK) (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article titled Mary in Islam which is quite detailed and explains her role in the Qu'ran. --Jayron32 14:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That article carefully skirts around the major issue that calling Mary the "sister of Aaron" and "daughter of Imran" (i.e. Amram), means that the Qur'an confuses Mary mother of Jesus with Miriam sister of Moses (two figures who are at least a thousand years apart). AnonMoos (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate personal interchange; you guys should know better
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, that means that YOU characterize such as a confusion. The text says what the text says. Your interpretation begins with the word "means" which is what you believe it to mean. --Jayron32 16:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC) That's nice -- if you personally choose to interpret the Qur'an as a free floating fairy-tale with no connection to any events on planet earth (the same way that you chose to interpret Great Expectations last week), then everything is in a relativist haze where nothing can said to be right or wrong (or you can choose to regard it as being that way). However, as soon as the Qur'an is located as document belonging to a certain culture at a certain period of history, then we're no longer floating in an indeterminate haze, and some things immediately become much more probable than other things... AnonMoos (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC) I never said any of that, so your argument is entirely null. I have provided no interpretation, and never said that it was a free floating fairy-tale. YOU said that. I have not made any statement one way or the other, so your characterization of me is a strawman which serves no purpose. Instead of making rude defensive statements characterizing me based on nothing except your own insecurity at being called out for not directing the OP to any useful reading, cite reliable sources instead of telling us what you think. Just direct the reader to reliable commentary on the subject, and don't tell them what they should think about it. --Jayron32 17:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Whatever -- you seem to operate under an extreme relativist theory of literary criticism, where the minute somebody says something that goes beyond the literal words of the text, then it's all merely pure personal opinion, where no one personal opinion is any more right or wrong than any other. That was certainly the strong impression I received from your exegesis of Great Expectations (and you didn't bother to contradict it at the time). I find the extension of this philosophy from literature to religion to be unhelpful, and I don't see any reason why I shouldn't say so. AnonMoos (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC) I don't operate under any of that so stop with the bullshit where you tell me what I think where I haven't stated it. Stop pretending like you can read my mind, it's rude and I'll ask you to stop it. What I have said is that you have not provided the OP with any reliable sources to read. Provide some sources, because until you do you are doing nothing of value here. I've never said that "no one personal opinion any more right or wrong than any other" Instead, in the context of the role of the reference desk, we're not here to provide our own personal opinions. We're here to direct people to published scholarship, either here on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Stop telling me I believe what I have never stated believe, because it doesn't have anything to do with my belief. Provide some references or shut the fuck up. --Jayron32 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Whatever dude -- it's been pretty extensively discussed in various Muslim-Christian dialogues over the years, but all your postmodernist deconstructionist ultra-relativistic garbage (clearly visible in your message of "16:55, 15 August 2017" directly above) doesn't create any corresponding urgency in me to seek out sources. In fact I see no real reason to cater to your free-floating indeterminate fairy-tale haze as if you were a random honest questioner. Showing that you have some basic respect for facts, truth, and evidence would be far more effective on me than a barrage of four-letter words. AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC) I am pretty much the exact opposite of a "postmodernist deconstructionist ultra-relativistic" so you characterization of me as such is beyond hilarious. I have ONLY respect for absolute facts, truth, and evidence, but no respect for randos who show up and tell people what they know without providing evidence. You'll note that ONE person in this debate has presented evidence. It's not you. One person has showed up telling people their own opinions, and has provided no facts at all, that's you. The irony of the situation should be plain. For someone who attacks others as relativistic (and funnily enough, picks the exact wrong person to do it to, because I'm pretty much exactly the opposite of that) you certainly do a lot of claiming that facts and evidence aren't important enough to provide, and instead just expect us to trust you. Don't provide facts and evidence to me. I've already researched them and helped the OP find them. Provide them to the OP. --Jayron32 18:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC) If you don't want to be mistaken for one, then don't act like one, as in your "01:39, 3 August 2017" comment on Great Expectations[26], and don't be so quick to don't tell other people that what they say is merely their personal opinion (with the implication that all such opinions are equally valid, which I find incredibly annoying). AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC) All opinions are NOT equally valid. Your opinion, for example, that I am a relativist is absolutely wrong, and thus is a shit opinion. Which I keep telling you. You also ignore what I say when it is inconvenient for you to have to confront it, so you keep skipping over it to create a fictional character to disagree with, and then give that fictional character my name. Stop that. The only thing you have done wrong, and the only thing I will keep reminding you have done wrong, until you either fix the problem or go away, is to provide the OP with facts for them to answer their question. I have never said that any opinion is valid. I have said YOUR opinion is worthless, because you are not a reliable, published expert on the matter. Instead of giving your opinion, give them something to read. You know, a reference. Stop deflecting this into some invented character you've made me out to be, and provide some sources to be useful to the OP. --Jayron32 19:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, if you had bothered to look at the Amram article, you would have seen that it's widely agreed that Qur'anic "Imran" does mean Amram in another passage... AnonMoos (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A couple of seconds of Googling brings up lots of Islamic scholarship on the issue. A lot of jumping through hoops, you might say...reminds me of New Testament exegesis :) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As explained at Jayron's link, and also at Jesus in Islam, Muslims do believe that Jesus had a virgin birth. Mary was chosen by God, purified by God to be without sin, and gave birth to Jesus who was also without sin. In Islamic teaching Jesus is not God incarnate, but his birth and life are still considered miraculous. He would generally be considered the second most important prophet, behind only Muhammad. Dragons flight (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Reading those articles, it appears that in Muslim theology God endowed Mary with the Holy Spirit and she conceived and had a son, Jesus. So who do Muslims consider His father to be? 92.19.169.76 (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This book presents one particular Muslim scholar's statement on the matter on page 127. --Jayron32 17:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The traditional Islamic view, as I understand it, is that Jesus has no father. Jesus, like Adam, was a divine creation. However, Islam does not consider it correct to say that God "fathered" Jesus. Dragons flight (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This discussion was carried over to Talk:Mary in Islam#Article avoids a major issue. It appears that I have taken a postmodernist deconstructionist ultra-relativistic stance similar to Jayron32's. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Roflmao. --Jayron32 20:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Since you didn't imply that every personal opinion is just as valid as any other, I would say you didn't... AnonMoos (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

District of Columbia Authority

Constitutionally, do the President and/or the Supreme Court have anything to do with the District of Columbia when its engaged in acts that normally would fall on the state's governor and/or the legislature?

I know that DC derives its authority from the US Constitution, Article I "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States", Section 8 "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District..." But does that mean that the President and the Supreme Court are totally cut out?

For example, if someone is about to be prosecuted for simple burglary in DC and the prosecutors office must make a decision on whether or not the case is worth prosecuting, would the prosecutor's authority to make that decision come directly from the Congress, passed down through Washington's mayor, similar to any of the 50 states? Like: Legislature => Governor => Prosecutor is similar to Congress => Mayor => Prosecutor. Wouldn't this allow Congress, if they wanted, to overrule DC's prosecutors in the case of a simple burglary?

Or does the authority flow through the executive branch, so that the President can overrule the prosecutors office? Like this: Congress => President => Mayor => Prosecutors Office. Does this mean that the President has the power to interfere in a non-federal crime? Does he also have the power, for instance, to interfere in DC's budget? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As per our Washington, D.C. article, the Attorney General is elected to a four-year term (while not stated in so many words, this implies “by the voting residents of the District”). And, “Congress typically provides additional grants for federal programs such as Medicaid and the operation of the local justice system…” The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 put in place legal system reforms. Adult felon prisoners are under the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The District also runs misdemeanor Detention and Correctional centers. Parole is handled by the United States Parole Commission. As DC is under the authority of Congress, the President would not be involved in any legal decisions. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

August 16

Historical events and film/sound

What's the oldest historical event that was recorded on sound? I'm guessing it'd be something from the 1880s or 1890s that would have had people a.knowing it would be taking place and b.being able to have some sort of recording device around to lug to where it would be happening?

(apparently the Smithsonian has a bunch of about 400 records from the 1880s and 90s,but up till now no-one has a clue what's on them as they've been unplayable!?)

Also,what's the oldest historical event that has been recorded on moving film? Lemon martini (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Robert Browning was honored at a dinner in London in his last year, on April 7th, 1889 and recited a poem, which was recorded on an Edison cylinder. It was played back a year later at a memorial dinner. He was the first person to speak at his own memorial dinner. Perhaps the first dinner in 1889 might be considered a minor historical event. There are doubtless many fake recordings of historic events, such as battles or speeches, just as there are fake films of historic events. An actor might recite a speech which was then sold as a recording by the politician, in an era when every recording was an original and copies could not yet be made. Edison (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

We need a good definition of "historical event," since the oldest movie of anything becomes automatically historical, such as the "Roundhay Garden Scene" claimed to be from 1888 or Edison'swell documented Fred Ott sneezing on Jan 7 1894. The earliest Lumere films are from 1895. This is supposed to be Tsar Nicholas II visiting Queen Victoria at Balmoral in 1896. It so murky it could be anyone. As I said above, it was common in the early days to stage reenactments of events which were in the newspapers. Queen Victoria visited a garden party in 1898. There was a movie of the aftermath of the sinking ofthe USS Maine in 1898 , of theBoer War (or at least troops parading) from 1899 and there were some films of European heads of state in the very early 20th century. There was nothing to prevent a cinematographer from filming a prize fight, a parade, a fire, or a political speech, but only a tiny fraction of early films survive. They were made to be shown for a few months and then generally tossed aside. The filmstock was flammable and decayed over time. There was an actual movie of the aftermath of the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906. Edison (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Almost a hundred years to the day after Fred Ott sneezed, Fred Ottman (famous as Tugboat, infamous as The Shockmaster) became Uncle Fred, a gimmick which pop historians could've sneezed and missed, had the awesome power of magnetic tape not preserved it forever one fateful Saturday night. Or if not forever, at least considerably longer than nitrocellulose. More on topic, 1894 saw both a kinetoscope movie about a wrestling match and an apparent normal film about a wrestling dog. The latter starred Henry Welton, leading man of such documentary classics as Cock Fight, Cock Fight No. 2 and Professor Welton's Boxing Cats. Some are almost undoubtedly lost forever, but worth mentioning. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

As for the history of magnetic sound, Valdemar Poulsen captured Franz Joseph I of Austria saying something in 1900, and it's allegedly the oldest of its kind, but Wikipedia sources that fact from somewhere which doesn't claim it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

For the oldest audio, going with the def of a "historic event" for being among the oldest audio, we have Edison's recital of Mary had a Little Lamb from 1877. StuRat (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The recording referred to above by Inedible says: “die(?) Erfindung hat mich sehr interessiert und ich danke für die Vorführung derselben”, in translation “the(?) invention has been of great interest to me and I am thankful for the demonstration”. The invention seems to have been Poulsen´s telegraphone. The German article says that one of the telegraphones was purchased by some institute of the then Austro-Hungarian Empire and that the recording was made in Vienna in 1901, on the 12th of October. There is a recording here, published by the Technical Museum in Vienna, so I assume this to be genuine. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

To answer the superbly appropriately named Edison,I would define historical event here (using excellent Wikipedia terms!) as being 'an event that was notable not just because it had been recorded'-so a disaster,a sporting event,a presidential speech-something other than everyday human activities such as people sneezing or walking about.

Having done a bit more hunting,our article History_of_film gives us this: "Regular newsreels were exhibited from 1910 and soon became a popular way for finding out the news – the British Antarctic Expedition to the South Pole was filmed for the newsreels as were the suffragette demonstrations that were happening at the same time" which takes up back to 1911. Lemon martini (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Edison took a tinfoil phonograph to the White House and recorded President Hayes April 18, 1878.The fragile tinfoil recording is not preserved to the best of my knowledge. Edison associates in Europe recorded on a wax cylinder the voice and piano playing of Brahms on 2 December 1889, but the recordings are of poor quality. There is a good recording of the voices of Tchaikovsky and friends in 1890, .but nothing particularly historical seems to have been going on at either occasion, like the premier of a new work. There has long been speculation of whether the phonautograph, a predecessor of the phonograph could have been used to record earlier 19th century events or people, since it was around in the 1860's. There is in fact at present a Dick Tracy comicstrip featuring someone promoting a fake recording of Lincoln on phonautograph, and there was a novel featuring a phonautograph recording of the Gettysburg Address. As for films, Muybridge could conceivably made a 1 or 2 second movie record of some event by 1882, rather than the scientific/artistic subjects he photographed. Edison (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

See archaeoacoustics for the oldest recordings, assuming that you believe it works. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Recorded sound technology is decades older than Edison, see Phonautograph. --Jayron32 16:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Pathe news seems to be good for this. this gives a clear if silent portrayal of Queen Victoria's funeral in 1901 whilst is William McKinley's inauguration in 1897.According to the Book of Firsts(Harrison,2003) Grover Cleveland is the first President to have been filmed-at this ceremony. Lemon martini (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Men with "1 WEEK" signs

I just watched a few minutes of a TV documentary show about the building of the Grand Coulee Dam. The narrator mentioned that during the Great Depression 12,000,000 American men became unemployed. And at this point there were a few seconds of old film showing a group of men walking together along a city street, at least 6 abreast. I couldn't tell if they were on the street itself or the sidewalk. But on a string around his neck, each man was wearing a printed sign presumably naming the job he was unemployed from—LABORER, PAINTER, FIREMAN, PORTER, etc.—most of the signs were in similar lettering. Still more striking, each man's hat had an identical sign on the front reading 1 WEEK, with a large digit 1 on a separate line above the word WEEK.

It clearly had the appearance of an organized demonstration, but not one I've ever seen photos of. The narrator, speaking in generalities about the Depression, did not say anything about it. Anyone recognize it from this description?

And I don't understand what the "1 WEEK" referred to: in that era clearly many men had been unemployed for much longer than a week, and I presume they would be willing to take jobs that would last less than a week. So what would those signs have meant? --69.159.60.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That the men were looking for jobs which would pay them at intervals of one week? 79.79.138.16 (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion it wasn't "1 week" but was instead the logo for the Industrial Workers of the World, whose logo features an I on a line above W*W, which at a distance might look like 1 WEEK. The 1 on a separate line is what made me think of that logo. --Jayron32 11:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If it's anything like this illustration by Achille Beltrame, then the signs clearly say "1 WEEK" (but I wasn't able to find any film or photo footage quickly). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Meh, I think the whole Wobblies thing is chop suey- it was "hot Baths: 25c", ""25$, 26 weeks & Union Wages" etc. — fortunavelut luna 12:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Sluzzelin, it appears it wasn't the Wobblies. I was working from the description of the sign, and that was the closest thing I could think of. Now that you've found the original picture, it looks like you're more right. Good find! --Jayron32 13:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Found the film footage: You can see them here (seven seconds into the first Modern Marvels episode (1993), on the Grand Coulee Dam). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Found another one too: [27]. Still no meaning for the 1 week bit, tho. --Jayron32 14:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I've worked it out, following the film footage Sluzzelin posted. If you look closely, there's a character between the '1' and the 'week'. I think that's an 'A'. And if you look even more closely, there's a character above and to the left of the '1'. I think that's a dollar sign. In other words, the men are saying that they are willing to work for $1 a week. And if that doesn't earn me a barnstar, nothing will. --Viennese Waltz 14:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

They where wearing signs which state their professions and which offered to work for a dollar a week. This obviously was a popular thing to do in New York in 1930.[28] Maybe someone organized this to sell lots of these signs. --Kharon (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the picture which confirms that I had the right answer, but you might have acknowledged that I got it before you. --Viennese Waltz 14:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Excellent, Viennese Waltz! Before anyone complains about OR, see also this Universal Newsreel titled "Jobless seek work for board, bed and salary of $1 a week" (my emphasis, and I never would have found this without your scrutiny). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Sluzzelin for finding an image and Viennese for figuring out the signs. Kharon's link didn't work for me but by doing a similar seach I got to this book page, from Modern History in Pictures: A Visual Guide to the Events that Shaped Our World (DK/Smithsonian, ISBN 978-0-7566-9818-8), which specifically gives the date of the match march as November 8, 1930, and confirms that the signs asked for $1 a week. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC), typo fixed later.

Resolved

You can see Jayron's photo at [29], captioned "A demonstration by unemployed workers (their various trades are on display) prepared to labor for a dollar a week during the Great Depression, 1930s." 92.8.219.206 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Resource for Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

I'd like to get a copy of this full article: https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article167408959/Ich-war-ein-einfaches-Opfer.html. It would be useful for the Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunobu (talk • contribs) 10:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Try WP:REX. That part of Wikipedia specializes in getting full copies of articles. --Jayron32 10:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Went there.Dunobu (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

White men's fascination with the sex life of African Americans

Hi, I was reading Black Like Me for a college project, and I have watched the film too. As it is based on real life events, why were White southerners in the United States so fascinated with the sex lives of African Americans? In the book/film they were particularly curious if they "ever had it from a white woman". Why is this? Was this a southern phenomenon? --Questinouios (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

When it came out, pretty much anyone old enough to know what sex is remembered segregation and Jim Crow. As difficult as legal desegregation was, forcing social desegregation was even harder and so at the time most white people, by and large, did not associate with black people. That "Black Like Me" sold well outside the South leads me to believe that it wasn't just white southerners at the time who didn't quite grasp that black men and white women could have sex just as two white people, or two black people, or a black woman and a white man could. Plus, stereotypes about black men being better in bed (or at least better hung) and irrational fears over "miscegenation" would have created a mystique around interracial couples. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Miscegenation and all the stuff it links to will give plenty of reading material. Note that at the time the book was written, it was still illegal for blacks and whites to marry in numerous U.S. states. Gotta make sure the races don't mix, as God intended! And then because of that there's a whole forbidden fruit aspect, and all kinds of associated psychosocial human weirdness. Racial fetishism has been a thing for a long time, and even today in the U.S., when there are no legal restrictions on interracial relationships, there's still a persistent air of social taboo around the subject. Obviously this varies by time and place. An interracial couple in New York City or Los Angeles are unlikely to get a second glance, but in a lot of rural areas they may draw attention, and there are still people who won't tolerate their children having an interracial relationship. (There are plenty of anecdotes, as a Web search will attest.) --47.138.161.183 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

May want to read about Sexual revolution to see the difficulty of sexual relationships befor the "revolution". White men shure didnt have much fun with women of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, who put allot of effort to make prostitution, gambling and alcohol illegal. Also i would disagree with the IP-answer regarding the marriage. It was less a case to prevent racial mixing but to exclude black people from the legal benefits and status of a marriage or more precise the juristic and social complications a mixed couple would imply due to the racial segregation and discrimination. --Kharon (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Kharon, I suspect that the Woman's Christian Temperance Union would disagree with your point of view. They'd surely claim that they can have a lot of fun with white men without having to pay money for it. ;-) (Remember they're still active and so WP:BLP applies). Matt's talk 00:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You might want to take another look at Wikipedia:BLP, in particular section Wikipedia:BLPGROUP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC).

August 17

Are Christianity and Islam types of Judaism?

70.57.89.148 (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The term you're looking for is Abrahamic religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Christianity did start out as a branch of Judaism, but quickly diverged. Islam, on the other hand, isn't so much a branch of Judaism as "inspired" by it. StuRat (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see Split of early Christianity and Judaism. Alansplodge (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There was some debate in the Catholic church regarding whether Muslims were pagans (followers of a different religion) or heretics (i.e., apostate Christians). I do not think it was fully resolved. - Nunh-huh 09:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That is one POV. The Christian POV is that Christianity continues the main line of development of the religion of ancient Israel, from which Judaism diverged. Matt's talk 14:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That may be another POV, but it's not historically useful. There is no symmetry here. Christianity emerged from Judaism, but it had a major theological break and (partially as a result of that break) grew primarily by converting gentiles. Most of the original adherents of Judaism did not become Christians, and while Judaism also changed very much, theologically it was a much more gradual gradual process. It's also not a POV that I have heard from scholarly sources (though it may well be stressed among Christian apologists). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Are tomatoes a fruit? Are humans animals? As with any man-made category, the answer depends on the criteria you're using. With that said, the essentially universal classification used by people who study religion considers Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to be separate religions, though the former two are in a sense "descended" from the latter. Similarly, Buddhism is often considered "descended" from Hinduism. Note that Judaism also received a good amount of influence from Zoroastrianism, and religious scholars will tell you Judaism emerged from the earlier Ancient Semitic religions. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

...and Christianity was heavily influenced by Platonism and Mithraism, while Islam merged local beliefs with influences from both Christianity and Judaism. Or they were all handed down, perfect and unchanging, from a benevolent omnipotent creator god ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I very strongly doubt that Christianity was significantly influenced by Mithraism. AnonMoos (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, my memory for obscure religious facts isn't always perfect, so I may have overstated the case ;-). They did, however, emerge to prominence at the same time, in the same place, and with quite similar forms of worship. At least parts of early Christianity and Mithraism share properties of various mystery cults. Also see Mithraism#Mithraism_and_Christianity.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It's rather dubious whether Christianity was a "mystery religion" in any ordinary sense, and in any case, there are considerable differences between Mithraism and Christianity -- Mithraism was an all-male religion with elaborate ranks and initiations, and had its strongest support among soldiers; while Christianity included women, had only the distinction between catechumens and the baptized (and no real secrets were learned during the ceremony of baptism), and had its strongest support among the lower classes of the cities. It's hard to say that Christianity and Mithraism originated "in the same place", when little is known about the origins of Mithraism (it's extremely unlikely that it originated in Judea). Early Christianity was influenced by a general cultural climate of ascetism (which was associated with a number of different philosophies and religions of the Mediterranean area), and adopted tools of analysis from the Greek philosophical tradition, but it's difficult to point to specific theological doctrines adopted from non-Jewish non-Christian religions... AnonMoos (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• They may be descended from them, but in the modern sense they are not Judaism. What we now call Judaism in everyday conversation is Rabbinic Judaism, which takes the Talmud as the basis of much of its religious law. The main Jewish denominations, such as Orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism, descend from this (even if, like Reform Judaism, they no longer think of it as central). There are a few groups in the Jewish religious tradition that don't accept the Talmud, such as Karaites and Samaritans, but these are minority groups and their status is complicated (Israel says Samaritans need to officially convert in order to be recognized as Jews, for instance). Smurrayinchester 10:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Three features of ancient Judaism:

• They observed the sabbath
• They observed the Law
• They anticipated the coming of the Messiah

They still do all those things - Christians don't. 92.8.219.206 (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

They used to be stricter. Maybe you've heard of blue laws? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We have Islamic–Jewish relations and Christianity and Judaism.

You'll find Jean-Marie Lustiger, aka The Jewish Cardinal (who was even considered as a possible pope), of interest on the matter. Both about his understanding, and the reaction he got from other Jews (some were happy, others very angry). Things are somewhat more peaceful nowadays than marranoes (or is it marrani?) or Jesus himself experienced.

Bottom line: methink (but you can make your own opinion) that only a part of Christianity view itself as a type of Judaism, but not current Judaism, rather Judaism as the Christ taught it (which is different).

Gem fr (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. The question asks "Are Christianity and Islam types of Judaism?" Is there any reason to think that Christianity and Islam are types of Judaism? Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason is taxonomic (or at least, overapplication of an oversimplified taxonomy). Christianity began as a sect of judaism; the three most important figures in founding Christianity and establishing the basics of the religion were Jewish men (Jesus, St. Peter, St. Paul), the diety of the Christians is the same deity as that of the Jewish faith, the Christian religion counts the Jewish scriptures as part of its own scriptures, etc. So, Christianity clearly descends from a common ancestor as Judaism, and Judaism is older than Christianity. However, it's not correct to use the word "type" here, because that would imply that Christianity is Judaism, which it isn't. Christians don't consider themselves Jewish, and Jewish people don't consider Christians to be Jewish. But the two faiths do share a common history, diverging from each other during the 1st century CE. (it should be noted that even saying that Christianity evolved from Judaism is also wrong, as Judaism as we know it today is as much different from the faith of the people of Judea as Christianity is from the same; they two have evolved along divergent paths, just that Judaism has kept the name and history of its predecessors... but I digress) Similarly, Islam, while not sharing as close a historical connection to Judaism, does share its scriptures (at least partially, while not elevated to the same status as the Qur'an, the Jewish scriptures are still recognized as divine. See People of the Book as it relates to Islam). Many Jewish and Christian religious figures also appear prominently in Islamic tradition and the Qur'an (Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jesus, Mary, etc.) So there's a certain continuity of belief between the three, and since Judaism has the oldest tradition of the three, some may think of the other two as derivative from Judaism. But that's way too simplified. The two newer faiths are more correctly termed as sharing some common belief systems (mutual recognition of the same diety, some common texts and traditions, etc.) --Jayron32 19:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is an excellent overview of the situation, but I would just caveat that "Christians don't consider themselves Jewish" is an oversimplification. Messianic Judaism and Supersessionism are both examples of ways in which some Christians would consider themselves Jewish (or in the latter case, Israelite). Matt's talk 19:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes — I would also note that the Messianic Judaism article is problematic in that it describes it as a syncretism, whereas they presumably consider themselves resorationist. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That's because life has a rule 34 to it; which is to say broadly that if you can conceive of ANY belief system, there's probably at least one adherent. So yes, you can find at least one Jewish person who considers Christians to be Jewish, and visa versa. One person (or some insignificantly small number) does not reflect the preponderance of people of those faiths. Of the world's billion or so Christians, the sects you list represent an insignificant portion of the whole. --Jayron32 19:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

They may be insignificant by number, but they are not insignificant as theology and politics go. Jean-Marie Lustiger was a cardinal, and a preeminent one. The "jewish lobby" of USA diplomacy is actually more of christian zionists, philosemitic people, than Jews. Christian groups that think of Jews as "elder brethren" (a term you'll find in Christian Zionism article).

Gem fr (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The "jewish lobby" is a concept created by White Supremacists, neo-nazis, and those who would belong to said groups but find it politically inexpedient to formally declare themselves so. It's a concept created to justify racism and antisemitism. --Jayron32 10:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, this isn't mentioned in the article, so, either you are wrong and should had refrain to state your POV here, or you are right and you should had mended the article (with proper reference), making your POV useless since the link to the article would had been enough. In either case, this do not belong here Gem fr (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Sentence #2 of the article states "While at times self-described, usage of the term is viewed as inaccurate, and, particularly when used to allege disproportionate Jewish influence, it can be perceived as pejorative or may constitute antisemitism" (bold mine). The largest section of text in the article is about the problems with the term. I'm not sure how you missed any of that if you read it. --Jayron32 13:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed... but that utterly different of what you said! Nowhere you'll find that the term was coined by and for antisemitism, and obviously, according to the article, members of the jewish lobby endorse it without any complex. Then again, your POV just do not belong here: ref desk is for bringing reference especially when the linked article is self-sufficient. Gem fr (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If Muslims believe that Islam has been the right and proper relationship between God and man since the time of the creation, then they might argue that Judaism is derived from Islam. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty astute response, and it reminds us that these questions about belief systems often carry at least two answers; how is does it work for someone within the belief system (that is, what does the belief system hold as its central truths) and how does it work for a disinterested outside observer (that is, how does prevailing scholarship from outside the belief system understand the historical context to work). --Jayron32 14:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

refnec. First time i hear this one. Gem fr (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

From the Islam article, "Muslims believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

US bases in PRC and ROC

At 0:33 of this video[30], they show a map of US bases, with dots in Guangdong PRC and Taiwan ROC. Do US really have military bases in these places? Mũeller (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I would think that the image is best described as "based on past events". The US officially did have troops in Taiwan until 1979 - see United States Taiwan Defense Command. I don't know if they ever had a base at the coast of Guangdong, but I can image a base there in WW2 - the Flying Tigers certainly had bases not to far away inland. On the other hand, 800 bases overseas is not implausible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The dot near Guangdong is close enough that it might have been intended to mark Hong Kong. The US has a permanent Ship Supply Office in Hong Kong that facilitates 60-80 port calls per year for US military vessels. The facility predates the return of Hong Kong to China and has continued to operate since. It is not a huge facility, but if one is counting any permanent post as a "military base", I suppose it should count. Dragons flight (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. Matt's talk 13:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec):A couple of thoughts: it seems most likely to me to refer to the US Navy's South China Patrol, which was based in that part of China until WW2. But then it is odd that there isn't also a dot for the Yangtze Patrol further north, or the China Marines. US air forces in China during the war is another possibility, but the dot doesn't seem to line up with any of the main air bases used by the US forces. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz is right about the overall (misleading) picture, but I suspect that the Guangdong dot is intended to represent Hong Kong. It was never an American base in the sense that the US leased land there, though US ships were visiting almost constantly for refueling and R&R during the Cold War. I don't think it's the Flying Tigers: even if Mr Vine counts them as a US unit (which is debatable), they were focused on defending the Burma Road, which is hundreds of miles from Guangdong. Guangdong was completely unsafe for US bases by the time Fourteenth Air Force took control as well. Matt's talk 13:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The end of the video thanks David Vine and his forthcoming book "Base Nation". The book is at [31] and says approximately 800 bases like the video. The book map doesn't have the two discussed bases but it does show one in Hong Kong 400 km East of the marked spot in Guangdong. It probably refers to the Hong Kong Ship Support Office mentioned at List of United States Navy installations#Hong Kong and [32]. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Parsees and Pharisees

What beliefs did/do they have in common, if any?70.57.89.148 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

None, other than a coincidentally similar name. The words are false cousins, meaning that though they look to be similar words, they have no common etymology. As explained at Pharisee, the word derives from a Hebrew word meaning "to set apart", wheras the word Parsee (c.f. Persia, Farsi, Persepolis, etc.) derives from an Old Persian word that applied to a specific tribe which originated from what is now Fars Province. Old Persian is an Indo-European language, wheras Hebrew is a Afroasiatic language, meaning they aren't closely related at all as languages (quite literally Old Persian has more in common with English than it does with Hebrew). --Jayron32 19:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Then they might have meant they were set apart because they had been exiled in Persia, and also enjoyed the punning similarity to Parsee.70.57.89.148 (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The exile to Persia wouldn't have made any difference. The term "Persia" as applied to the country is both anachronistic and the wrong language. The country we today call "Iran" was only known as "Persia" because that's what the Greeks called it. They mistakenly borrowed a term which formerly applied to a single territory to the whole empire. (it would be akin to calling all Americans "New Yorkers"). The only time the Hebrew-speaking people subjugated to anything called Persia was under the reign of Cyrus the Great (previously, Hebrew-speaking peoples who wrote the bible had been subject to the Assyrian Empire, the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the Median Empire). Cyrus and his people would have never heard the term "Persian" or used any word like it to describe their own state. There's no reason for the people who used the word "Pharisee" to make such a connection. I agree that the Bible writers would have used such a pun if they had it available (the Bible is filled with puns and other wordplay), so it certainly would be possible, but no, it isn't possible because they would have had no reason to draw such connection. Also, the Pharisees, as a group, date from a time centuries after the time when Persia ruled the Jewish people. The Pharisees only arrived on the scene after the Maccabean Revolt, which is centuries after the Captivity. --Jayron32 13:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

then why is the language spoken in modern Iran called Farsi by Iranians?144.35.114.190 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The word "farsi" is not a native Persian-language word, but has actually gone through the Arabic language, as seen from the "f" (the Arabic language lacks a "p" sound)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Minor quibble to what Jayron32 wrote -- the ancient words referred to Persis, which isn't exactly the same as the modern Fars Province... AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, I never based my question on similarity between the two words, although of course I had noticed it and wondered. But since you guys gave information on them being false cousin words etc, I wanted to dig some more information out out of you and play devils advocate in case you were mistaken. The basis of my question was what AnonMoos said a long time ago, when I asked if Judaism was a type of Zoarastrianism, he explained the Pharisees were tolerant of or at least had, some Zoarastrianism influences, which intrigued me. BTW AnonMoos gave the most professional reply to that question...Medeis is outrageous saying I'm making bizarre claims, I wasnt making any claims, Im just asking questions and trying to make hypotheses and trying to learn about things I'm interested in. As far as my geographic location, Medeis is stereotyping me in a bizarre and insupportable way. And I wouldve voted for Biskupski if I had been able to vote then.144.35.114.190 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

70.57.89.148 -- there's absolutely no connection between the names. The term Pharisee was what their opponents called them (not what they usually called themselves), and has the form perushim in Hebrew. However, as compared to the Sadducees, the Pharisees were more open to some ideas ultimately due to direct or indirect Persian influences, such as afterlife rewards and punishments (as opposed to the earlier shadowy Sheol), angels and demons actively working good and evil in the world (as opposed to the earlier idea of angels as divine messengers), and an end-times apocalypse and bodily resurrection. AnonMoos (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Unite the Right rally Model Year of Car?

In regards to the Unite the Right rally, does anyone know the model year of the car that drove into the crowd of pedestrians? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This article says "...a Dodge Challenger... a 2010 model with a base V6". Alansplodge (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And the Washington Post says so too. Alansplodge (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

August 18

"detachment" and "non-judicial punishment" in US Navy

[33] Military Times article says:

The commander of the destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the executive officer have been permanently detached from the ship and face non-judicial punishment over the deadly collision in June with a container ship, the Navy announced Thursday.

[The officers] are "being detached for cause," meaning that the Navy "has lost trust and confidence in their ability to lead," Adm. Bill Moran, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, said during a press conference.

What does detached actually mean, what is "non-judicial" punishment, and what happens to those guys? Non-judicial presumably means they won't go to jail, so will they be swabbing decks for the duration, or what? Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)