Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

July 4

Samuel Byck

Hi. My queries are about Samuel Joseph Byck (1930-1974). 1- In the film "The Assassination of Richard Nixon" it appears that he had a brother named Julius. Is a historical fact or fiction? 2- What were his parent´s names? Thanks. Daniel, 4 July 2016 88.10.201.162 (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various sources (search Google Books) indicate that Byck was one of three siblings. From this entry in the 1940 census, which closely corresponds to his biographical details, it would seem that his brothers were named Carl and Melvin. So, apparently, no Julius. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, hasirpad. So his parents´s names were Louis and Esther? Daniel, 9 July 2016 88.10.201.162 (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

Returning hero motif

There are several tales and legends about various future returns of certain characters, such as king in the mountain, Rory who will save Ireland or two priests who disappeared into the walls during the fall of Constantinople and who will return once the city becomes Christian again. Is there a common name for such a motif / trope? Brandmeister^talk 07:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tvtropes.org calls it King in the Mountain [1] with many examples.
Sleigh (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, our king in the mountain article describes "a prominent motif" rather than one specific story and includes a list of examples. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"When Johnny Comes Marching Home" somewhat falls into this category. StuRat (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

an accurate and scientific translation of Quran

I don't know Arabic and I want to read Quran for the first time. I heard that most of the translations are biased. Could you please offer an accurate, scientific and neutral translation of Quran? 46.225.1.83 (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that any translation of so contentious a work can ever be considered "neutral", which is ultimately a political term. Here is a 2005 article that might help you in "Assessing English Translations of the Qur'an". This is the Wikipedia article on English translations of the Quran; it lists dozens of versions in the 21st century alone, so I understand why you feel the need for guidance. The external links to that article may help you. One of the most recent translations, and one released by a mainstream American publisher, is The Study Quran; from a CNN article about it:

"I never advise a non-Muslim who wants to find out more about Islam to blindly grab the nearest copy of an English-language Quran they can find," Mehdi Hasan, a journalist for Al Jazeera, said during the panel discussion at Georgetown. Ten years in the making, "The Study Quran" is more than a rebuttal to terrorists, said Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Iranian-born intellectual and the book's editor-in-chief. His aim was to produce an accurate, unbiased translation understandable to English-speaking Muslims, scholars and general readers.

But then, who is going to say that their aim is to produce an inaccurate, biased version? So ultimately, you will have to make up your own mind. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent summary, @Carbon Caryatid:, nothing to add to a very contentious subject indeed, but that I've updated English translations of the Quran to include basic details from the cited CNN ref on The Study Quran.

My favorite of four translations I've dipped into over the years, I must admit, as it explicitly deals with the very many complementary and conflicting commentaries over the last 1,400 years (perhaps uniquely, with both Shiite and Sunni traditions well represented) and has many additional helpful aids.

Very much in the line of the the trusty Harper Study Bible. Highly recommended and worthy of an article, if scholarly reviews are to be treated as reliable sources to the notability of this publication. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can get you a completely unbiased translation, but it may make translation mistakes, and its English isn't that good. For al-Baqara, go to [2]. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can never guarantee that a Google Translation will be unbiased. It works primarily by corpus translation – comparing versions of the same document in different languages to work out how one language maps onto the other. If its corpus includes a biased translation of a text, it will blindly use it in future translations. Smurrayinchester 15:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to read more than one translation at a time. There are websites that give several translations of the Qur'an alongside the Arabic, such as Alim.org, Qur'an Browser, Qur'an Online, and the most comprehensive one that I know of, Islam Awakened, which has 40 different translations, separated into generally accepted and controversial ones. There are surely many other websites that do this too. Nothing quite as extensive as some of the Bible websites that give different translations, but Islam Awakened might be the best place to look. Typically the websites have the translation by Marmaduke Pickthall, as well as Abdullah Yusuf Ali's The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary, and maybe some others. If you see a translation called "Noble Qur'an", that's probably the Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur'an, which is very popular, but it's the "official" translation of the Saudi government and it's been criticized for being heavily biased towards Wahhabism.

Personally, I have Yusuf Ali's translation. It's probably the most widely read one, and probably the easiest to find if you want an actual physical book (or at least it used to be, before The Noble Qur'an was published). But it's also the one that was promoted by the Saudis before The Noble Qur'an, so it has problems too. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest to get an edition with an apparatus and scholarly comments - reading a text from a different culture that is many hundred years old is not trivial (heck, even reading a text from the contemporary US on hot-button issues like gun control or abortion leaves many Europeans scratching their heads). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding translation generally, it isn't really possible to have a 100% accurate 1-to-1 translation from any language to any other. Esch language has a slightly different nuance, grammatical construction, and cultural milieu. So all translations have a bias due to the translator, intentional or not. Mingmingla (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Tikhanov

Where can I find the complete list of works by Mikhail Tikhanov (1789-1862), the artist of Vasily Golovnin's circumnavigation aboard the Kamchatka? Here are the ones that I know of on commons:Category:Mikhail Tikhanov. His name is also spelled differently in different sources as well. There is one I am especially interested in finding depicting a Hawaiian girl with her pet dog in her hands.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've browsed Russian sources, this one says he made 43 watercolor paintings and 17 of his works were selected as illustrations for Golovnin's book. Per the same source, 2 of his works depict the Brazilian part of the expedition, 4 - the Peruvian part, 18 - the Aleutian and Alaskan part, 5 are from the Californian part, 5 from Mariana Islands, 3 from Manila, 4 from Hawaii, of which one is a portrait of Kamehameha I. Tikhanov appears to be quite underresearched even in Russia. Brandmeister^talk 08:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More information can be found in this paper by Yu.S. Rutenko (also in Russian). In particular, it refers to a 1974 article by L.A. Shur (Л.А. Шур) published in Латинская Америка, No.5, pp.163–180, which might be also useful. A couple of his paintings are in Tretyakov Gallery, I will try to check their catalog a bit later. — Adavyd (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

Trade Deals and How to Negotiate Them

What is it specifically about a trade deal that takes so long to negotiate? Is it that you have to basically list every conceivable type of good and then write rules for each one individually? China said recently we'd need a team of 500 to negotiate one with them. in simple terms, what needs negotiating and how does it work?

So much talk about this in the Brexit campaign but little explanation of what actually happens. Obviously I'm not naive enough to think that two people just sit in a room and agree to trade with each other then sign off on it, but still have very little understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukerees83 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sticking points are IP and pharmaceuticals. Then there is the trade in subsidised agricultural commodities which are sold below cost of production i.e. dumping.
Sleigh (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is consideration for how free trade of each commodity or service will affect your own nation's workers. If you're going to put large numbers of workers in a given industry out of work, then you might need to take some actions to limit the damage, such as slowly phasing in the free trade, putting some limits on it, or perhaps imposing rules similar to your own industry on the foreign nation, if they wish to compete with your own. There's also the cost of retraining everyone who will lose their job, employment benefits, etc. Of course, you could just take a lassez-faire approach and ignore the plight of your workers, but that may have political repercussions at the next election. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to read some articles with references, take a look at Template:World trade. While all articles there would be of interest to you, the articles listed under the "Issues" tab would probably be most applicable.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 20:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the points mentioned by Sleigh, Investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in trade treaties have recently gotten a lot of attention/concern. Particularly their potential effect on measures relating to tobacco control but also other government actions like those relating to environmental protection.

Note that the precise sticking points also depend on countries involved. For example, Sleigh mentioned agricultural subsidies, but it isn't just subsidies that are concern but also tariffs and sometimes also non tarriff barriers like standards allegedly for consumer health and agricultural disease protection. You mentioned Brexit and China, but it sounds like you interested in the general case, in which case for countries like NZ and to a less extent Australia and also many developing countries, these agricultural issues are much more of a concern than they are for a number of developed countries like the US, Japan and parts of the EU. Or rather, the US, Japan and parts of the EU are the ones who want to keep all these, whereas NZ, Australia and many developing countries want them removed or limited.

Likewise if involved, it's normally the US pushing for IP and pharmaceutical protections with other countries generally wanting less stringent protections. The US also tends to push against govermental drug price negoation schemes (including those of developed countries). But OTOH, if it's developed count/ries negotiating with developing countr/ies, it'll normally be the developed countr/ies pushing for greater protections and the developing countries pushing back. In the particular case of pharmaceuticals, Biopharmaceutical have often been a big deal in recent years, e.g. in the TPP [3].

If you are particularly interested in the Brexit case, a big sticking point in any UK-EU negotiations seems to relate to the free movement of people, as some in the UK want access to the EU internal market but want to significant limit freedom of movement whereas a number of EU countri leaders and the EU policy as a whole considers freedom of movement an integral part of the internal market.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan name and independence

When was the Turkmen SSR renamed to the Republic of Turkmenistan? And, does anyone know if a copy of either that law, and/or (dunno if it happened at the same time) the Turkmen Declaration of Independence are available online, in any language? --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Land The Republic of Turkmenistan, independent successor state to the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic, declared its independence following the collapse of the attempted coup against the USSR's Gorbachëv in August 1991. October 27 has been established as the official Independence Day". See Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States 2012 by M. Wesley Shoemaker (p. 276).

Some more information at Prospects for Constitutionalism in Post-Communist Countries edited by Levent Gönenç (pp. 205-206), but no luck on finding the declaration text online. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of surprising such an important document isn't online, but yeah, it does seem that it was a binary switch from "Turkmen SSR in the USSR" to "independent Turkmenistan", unlike most of the other SSRs which changed names sometime before independence. Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi female spy

I cant seem to remember, but who was the most female spy during the WW? sHES practically a household name, danced around.Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're thinking of Mata Hari? --Golbez (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you.Lihaas (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was pre-Nazi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP did say "the WW", which is ambiguous. But she was the most female of them all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the OP confirmed that it was Mata Hari. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could've been Edith Cavell. She was pretty 'WW' and pretty female. And the OP at no point mentioned nationality did he... _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not per se, but "Nazi" in the section title is sort of a hint, even if it did turn out to be anachronistic. --69.159.60.163 (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Mata Hari execution was partly revenge for that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But still not a "Nazi female spy".... [4] was evidentally a caberet dancer, but I wouldn't exactly call he a household name. I think the logical conclusion is that the OP was remembering at least one of the details of "Nazi female spy", "most female", "during the WW", "danced around", "household name" wrong. And the "Yes, thank you" response suggests the Nazi one was probably the misremembered bit. Nil Einne (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Cavell. She wasn't a dancing household name. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cavell's pretty well known over here, although not for dancing; "Patriotism is not enough" and all that. She has a rather splendid monument close to Trafalgar Square and next to the National Portrait Gallery (but I agree that she wasn't the one that the OP was looking for). Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the antipodes, Edith Cavell bridge, though not actually officially dedicated to her, is also a very picturesque memorial. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a local school named after Edith Cavell, also a ward in the local hospital [5]. From that I assumed she was a nurse. There is also, according to our article, a memorial to her at St Leonard's Hospital. 80.44.163.165 (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You assumed correctly. Like most spies, she had a proper occupation that took up most of her time. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do not belong to the Queenstown, New Zealand City council, do you ? ( I've been unable to understand whether she was been spying on New Zealand by the way) -- Askedonty (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Cavell wasn't a actually a spy, she was using her nursing duties to facilitate the escape of wounded British and Allied soldiers from German-occupied Belgium, which the Germans deemed to be "treason", hence the firing squad. There is some evidence that she may have had contact British Intelligence, but if so, this was not used in evidence against her, even if the Germans were aware of it. Full details are in our article. Alansplodge (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

Has there ever been a UK Prime Minister who hasn't held a Cabinet (or Shadow Cabinet) level job?

What with Andrea Leadsom being a contender and everything... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.212.8 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not the first person to wonder about this - someone posed the question on Twitter yesterday. Candidates mentioned include the Marquess of Rockingham and Henry Addington. And the Duke of Wellington, although he did have quite a bit of relevant experience what with being the leader of the British Army, hero of Waterloo and whatnot.
An additional topic is people made Leader of the Opposition with minimal experience. David Cameron had only been shadow education secretary for a few months when he ran for leader. Jeremy Corbyn, of course, had never been a minister or shadow minister before becoming Leader of the Opposition. But leaders of the opposition of course normally get several years to grow into the role before the next election. In general, though, it looks like it would be fair to call Leadsom becoming Prime Minister more or less unprecedented in modern British politics. Blythwood (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Opposition Leader a Shadow Minister? He'd be primus inter pares vis a vis shadow ministers, wouldn't he? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was offered as a parallel question, not an answer. —Tamfang (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see now. He's obviously a shadow minister now, but he had had no such experience at the time he became Leader of the Opposition. Carry on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, yes (made some changes to clarify this). Straight into the top job of his political party. It also looks like Rhodri Morgan went straight in at First Minister of Wales without being in the Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet. This was apparently because while he was very popular in the Labour Party, Tony Blair wouldn't give him a cabinet position. But the FMoW isn't selected by the Prime Minister. Blythwood (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

Ending the Joint Control Commission

What would happen between Russia and Moldova if the latter rejected the agreement that established the Joint Control Commission? No speculation, please; most treaties and agreements of this sort include provisions for permitting a party to withdraw from the agreement, and that's what I'm after. It was apparently a ceasefire, but with the Russians not officially fighting on either side, I'm not clear what de jure changes would occur in Russo-Moldovan relationships. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic stop procedure

In the US, during a traffic stop the police officer usually instructs you to do the following:

1. Stay in your vehicle

2. Roll down your window

3. Keep both hands on the steering where/keep both hands visible to the officer

4. Slowly reach for your license and registration

I'm told that in Europe, a different approach is taken, where the vehicle occupants are told to exit their vehicle. In the US, exiting your car during a traffic stop would be profoundly unwise.

Why the difference in procedure? Approximately when did they start to diverge? (pre-WWII or post?) Are there records on which police departments were the first to pioneer and standardize these procedures? Crudiv1 (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facetiously: The faster runners are American, the faster drivers are European and everyone in America has a gun. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the few occasions I've been stopped by the police in my car in the UK the policeman has simply spoken through my car window. I have never been asked to get out (or not to). I have lowered the window as a courtesy. I have never been asked to put my hands anywhere but I suppose they would be visible. I have never been asked for my licence or registration (you are not required or expected to carry them anyway). All the "security" aspects simply do not arise (in my experience). I suppose (but I have no references to any of this) the UK procedures have not changed since WWII. I'll look and see if I can find a UK standard procedure and report back (if User:Alansplodge doesn't beat me to it!). Thincat (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt (1) following a stop I have not been accused of any offence (2) I have not been shot at. Thincat (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a challenge (you should have waited until my lunchbreak was over). Here is the official advice:

"The police can stop a vehicle for any reason. If they ask you to stop, you should always pull over when it’s safe to do so. You’re breaking the law if you don’t. If you’re stopped, the police can ask to see your: driving licence, insurance certificate [and] MOT certificate. If you don’t have these documents with you, you have 7 days to take them to a police station. You’re breaking the law if you don’t show the requested documents within 7 days".

This law firm's site says "Wait in your vehicle for the officer to approach you. They may stand just behind where you are sitting, causing you to turn. This is so that the officer can see your hands to make sure you’re not carrying any potential weapons". However. I concur with User:Thincat that the whole procedure seems rather casual. I expect it's different if they think you might be a drug dealer or a bank robber. The police on the other side of the Channel are said to be more aggressive, but I've never been stopped there. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you – I wasn't intending to disturb your lunch! And here is some highly unofficial information for drivers who want to assert their rights. It says in passing there is no "national standard" and there is a huge difference between police forces. Thincat (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expect we in Britain sound very smug. Things can (and do) go badly wrong here. Shooting of Stephen Waldorf and others. Thincat (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although the risk for police officers of being killed is many times lower here; our List of British police officers killed in the line of duty records about 250 names in the last 116 years, whereas our List of American police officers killed in the line of duty says that the "average from 1990-2010 was 164 per year". Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC I've never been stopped (don't drive much) in NZ nor been in a car that's been stopped except for a breathtest. But from shows like Motorway Patrol and other police reality shows, I think the situation in NZ (or for that matter Australia) is also generally fairly casual. However you're not expected to, and rather you don't exit the vehicle and may even tell you that. Beyond the increased risk of some sort of confrontation, there's also the risk you'll either do a runner or more likely carelessly put yourself at risk before they can stop you, especially on a motorway. If you get out anyway, they'll most likely direct you to a save place and do the interview from there.

If they're afraid you'll drive-off, they'll ask you to turn off the ignition. Maybe hand over the keys too, but I think that's only if they're impounding the car or otherwise you shouldn't be driving anymore that day. However they may ask you to throw the keys out the window if they've afraid of drive-off and fear you may be armed. But even then, I believe they'll still prefer you to wait in the car for the safety of everyone until someone can make an approach to detain you.

In non confrontational situations, they may ask you to exit the vehicle if they want to search it, and also I guess if they want to show you something about the vehicle. (I don't know if they ask or it's just expected if the vehicle is being impounded etc.)

I found this chapter from a police operations manual [6] which seem to confirm a number of these details.

P.S. In Malaysia step 4 probably includes and money and step 5 is putting money under your licence and handing it all over.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at other European countries. For Italy, I found [7] and [8], unfortunately they don't really say whether you're expected to stay in the vehicle or get out although the second one makes met think you probably normally stay in (but it's too unclear). I found even less on France [9] [10]. Northern Europe, didn't find anything even worth linking. But Germany I did find [11] which mentions "You are also required to exit the vehicle if requested to do so" which makes me think you're probably not always expected to exit. I also found [12] which seems to be from a US perspective which says:

Whether to get the driver out of the car is probably one of the most contested tactics during a traffic stop. It’s a black-or-white issue for some and each side will rattle off a list of reasons for his or her preferred method. I am of the opinion that it's safer to get the driver out of the vehicle and conduct your business off to the side

which makes me wonder if it's really universal that you'll always be expected to stay in the vehicle in the US even when they aren't planning to detain you or search your vehicle. Nil Einne (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Health enquiry

i need to urgently connect commisioner for healthon a deadly hospital in my area41.203.71.178 (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lagos State Commissioner for Health is in Durosimi Street, telephone +234 8033578492. 80.44.163.165 (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish history t-shirt

I have two questions about historical veracity.

1) I bought this T-shirt on vacation in Israel recently and wanted to run it through the history guys here - are they all objectively true?, thanks.

t-shirt

T-shirt text:

Civilizations, nations and empires that have tried to destroy the Jewish People:

Nation:

Ancient Egypt (Status: x-Gone)
Philistines (Status: x-Gone)
Assyrian Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Babylonian Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Persian Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Greek Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Roman Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Byzantine Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Crusaders (Status: x-Gone)
Spanish Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Nazi Germany (Status: x-Gone)
Soviet Union (Status: x-Gone)
Iran (Status: ???)
(The Jewish People - The smallest of nations but with a Friend in the highest of places! So...BE NICE!)

ZygonLieutenant (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like ignorant propaganda to me. There is an Arab - Israeli conflict, but the Persians are not Arabs, nor were they belligerent in what you might call the War of Independence, the Six - Day War and the Yom Kippur War. 80.44.163.165 (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above is a sock of a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The shirt is talking about the Persian Empire, not Iran (except where it says Iran). Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's historical nonsense and modern misinformation. I get the idea of the joke, but the historical errors spoil it for me. "Ancient Egypt" tried to destroy the Jewish people? There was a Greek Empire? The Babylonian Empire arguably was instrumental in creating a Jewish ethnicity (although not intentionally). The expulsion of Jews from Spain was at a time when Spain had only just come together, and before there was a Spanish Empire. And so on... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it's at the very least tendentious to claim that most of these tried to "destroy" the Jewish people. Some of them tried to incorporate conquered peoples into their empire, but that's not the same as destroying theM. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thinking a bit deeper, there is a sleight-of-hand (or "sleight-of-argument"?) in tracking continuity differently in different cases. Yes, Ancient Egypt is gone (more or less by definition), but Egypt is still around. The Roman Empire has crumbled as a political entity, but the Italians are still around. So are Spain, Germany and Russia. On the other hand, the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) is gone, as are its successor states. So is the Hasmonean dynasty/Herodian Kingdom of Judea, and the short-lived organization of Bar Kokhba. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that is not what the shirt argued.It didn't argue about the Jewish empire or kingdom, it said Jewish people. And yes, many of those on the list tried to destroy the Jewish people for their religion and not just incorporating them into their empire. When an empire, such as the Greek, make a law that it is illegal to practice your religion under pain of death, or when the Spanish expel you or when the Nazis kill you, etc... It's a t-shirt but it is based on truth. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which historical incident you associate with "the Greek Empire making a law that it is illegal to practice [the Jewish] religion under pain of death"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, not "the Greek Empire", but one of the post-Alexander hellenistic empires. And, as far as we know, not an attempt to "destroy the Jewish people" but rather an attempt to suppress the Jewish religion, possibly even on behalf of a group of hellenised Jews. Anyways, back to the larger point. The shirt frames the story asymmetrical, contains simple historical mistakes and mythical stories, and still needs to stretch definitions to a degree that makes it pointless. Compare "List of X trying to destroy the Persian people", including the Babylonian Empire, the Greeks, the Macedonian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire (over and over again), the Rashidun Caliphate, the Mongols, the Regime of Saddam Hussein, and the US(?). Or a "list of X trying to destroy the English people", with Roman Empire, the Great Heathen Army, Harald Hardrade, the Duchy of Normandy, the French Kingdom (over and over again), the Spanish Emire (in this case really), the French First Republic, the French Empire, the German Reich, and Nigel Farrage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Jewish people are the same, more or less, today than they were 2,000 years ago. The same can't be said for the other people and that is the point of the shirt. But whatever, I see that it disturbs you so I won't continue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "more or less" - arguably more than the English, less than the Persians. While the Jewish people have a strong (indeed, unusually strong for people with such a long diaspora) shared tradition, there have also been significant changes in culture and composition, with converts (both ways), changes in language (from Biblical Hebrew to Aramaic and Koine Greek to Yiddish and Ladino), change from a Temple-centric ritualistic religion to Rabbinic Judaism, and so on. Just because we use the adjective "Jewish" to denote elements from a long stretch of history does not mean that the people and culture have not evolved with changing times and locations. But I'd be happy to agree to disagree before I disturb your world view ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point regarding the remarks of @ColinFine at 17:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC): There are particularly devout, messianic and/or nationalistic Jews today and in the past who consider apostasy, intermarriage, and even non-halachic streams of Judaism as "destructive of the Jewish people." -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union, yeah, right. Asmrulz (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, we do have an article called Antisemitism in the Soviet Union, although that's really not the same as "tried to destroy the Jewish People". On the Ancient Egypt claim, presumably that rests on the events described in the Book of Exodus. Alansplodge (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the shirt is that while many have persecuted the Jews throughout history, the Jews still survive, while many of their persecutors are in the dustbin of history - except Iran (and others, but Iran is the most obvious). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British history tweet

2) This is a tweet with map that I read, is it also objectively true?

Text:

All the countries invaded by Britain throughout history (in blue). The countries never invaded by the British (in grey): Andorra, Belarus, Bolivia, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo Republic of, Guatemala, Ivory Coast, Krygyzstan, Liechenstein, Luxembourg, Mali, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Mongolia, Paraguay, Sao Tome + Principe, Sweden, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Vatican City.

[[13]]

Thanks again, ZygonLieutenant (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Stuart Laycock. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been commented in 2014 on quora. Belarus was invaded. --Askedonty (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list does not acknowledge that while the UK was at war with Sweden in the generally peaceful Anglo-Swedish War (1810–12) British military occupied the Swedish island of Hanö. Having your military forces on enemy territory while at war with them would seem to amount to "invasion" even if no shots were fired. Edison (talk)

Anyhow, here's the reference; British have invaded nine out of ten countries - so look out Luxembourg, a review of All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To by an otherwise serious historian called Stuart Laycock, "an expert in late Roman belt-fittings" according to our article, who apparently spent two years researching the list. Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the implication that for several hundred years the inhabitants of a small island nation have felt that most countries in the world needed a little invading by them? Edison (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We 'ave bought 'er the same with the sword an' the flame, An' we've salted it down with our bones. Tevildo (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

now it's someone elses turn... :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanliness

When I come out of the shower, I feel fresh and clean, not thereafter I urinate. Of course I can’t have a shower every time thereafter urination, so, what’s the best way to stay clean 24/7? -- Apostle (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some cultures use a bidet. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Sink can be used to accumulate warm water. Then a washcloth and soap can be used to wash body areas needing washing. After the soap is rinsed off with the washcloth and fresh warm water. a towel can be used to dry the area. A Wet wipe can also be used for personal hygiene. Edison (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to stay clean is to use a notion of cleanliness that is consistent with the way your body actually works:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-28934415

"The results were incredible. Like most of us in the Western world, the families had far fewer types of bacteria living in and on them when compared with people in traditional tribes in parts of the developing world. One hunter-gatherer community was found to not only have a higher diversity of bacteria, but only one in 1,500 suffered from an allergy - compared with one in three in the UK."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/magazine/say-hello-to-the-100-trillion-bacteria-that-make-up-your-microbiome.html

"The study of babies and their specialized diet has yielded key insights into how the colonization of the gut unfolds and why it matters so much to our health. One of the earliest clues to the complexity of the microbiome came from an unexpected corner: the effort to solve a mystery about milk. For years, nutrition scientists were confounded by the presence in human breast milk of certain complex carbohydrates, called oligosaccharides, which the human infant lacks the enzymes necessary to digest. Evolutionary theory argues that every component of mother’s milk should have some value to the developing baby or natural selection would have long ago discarded it as a waste of the mother’s precious resources.

It turns out the oligosaccharides are there to nourish not the baby but one particular gut bacterium called Bifidobacterium infantis, which is uniquely well-suited to break down and make use of the specific oligosaccharides present in mother’s milk. When all goes well, the bifidobacteria proliferate and dominate, helping to keep the infant healthy by crowding out less savory microbial characters before they can become established and, perhaps most important, by nurturing the integrity of the epithelium — the lining of the intestines, which plays a critical role in protecting us from infection and inflammation."

"Most of the microbes that make up a baby’s gut community are acquired during birth — a microbially rich and messy process that exposes the baby to a whole suite of maternal microbes. Babies born by Caesarean, however, a comparatively sterile procedure, do not acquire their mother’s vaginal and intestinal microbes at birth. Their initial gut communities more closely resemble that of their mother’s (and father’s) skin, which is less than ideal and may account for higher rates of allergy, asthma and autoimmune problems in C-section babies: not having been seeded with the optimal assortment of microbes at birth, their immune systems may fail to develop properly.

At dinner, Knight told me that he was sufficiently concerned about such an eventuality that, when his daughter was born by emergency C-section, he and his wife took matters into their own hands: using a sterile cotton swab, they inoculated the newborn infant’s skin with the mother’s vaginal secretions to insure a proper colonization. A formal trial of such a procedure is under way in Puerto Rico."

Count Iblis (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People criticizing affirmative action

Why do some people criticize affirmative action as being a form of reverse discrimination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.241.181 (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative action#Criticism. clpo13_(talk) 22:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

Westward ho!

I've downloaded "Westward Ho!" a novel by Charles Kingsley in my Kindle and now am trying to read it. It is a hard going. Paragraphs 3 pages long, etc. I wonder about the "ho" part however. I checked with on-line dictionaries, and also Webster Third International and nothing really fits from what they offered. I personally suspect it was a variant of "go" in Elizabethan time. Am I correct? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ho!" is an interjection that's been around for over 400 years.[14] See also Westward Ho. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure what online dictionaries you're looking at. Beyond BB's source, see wiktionary:ho#Etymology 1, Merriam-Webster [15] (first definition, I'm surprised that the print one doesn't have it), Oxford [16] (second definition), Collins [17] (first definition), Dictionary.com [18] (first definition and various other places), Freedictionary.com [19] (first non capitalised definition), Google at least for me [20] (second definition, does require expansion to see it), and Bing also for me [21] (second definition, again requires expansion, it's coming from Oxford and actually I think Google is using Oxford too). A number of these even specifically mention westward ho. Cambridge is the only one that seemed to lack a definition, probably because it was only found in the business dictionary [22]. Well maybe urbandictionary too, I didn't look through all 5 pages but wouldn't be surprised if it's absent from there [23]. 01:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk)

Now added to article. Trivia point: it also inspired the town of Westward Ho! in Devon. Only place in Britain with an explanation mark in its official name. Blythwood (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exclamation mark, please! Wymspen (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic license! The subject itself an obvious possible cause of cognitive distortion I'm personally gratefull for those risks the writer's been taking. --Askedonty (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of God's existence is the death of revealed religion

I had argument like this: suppose that science could prove that God exists and that Jesus is God, this would mean the death of revealed religion, replacing it with theology based upon scientific experiments. Are there any WP:SOURCES which made this argument? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through the ref desk archives, you will probably find a number of variations on this same question. Basically, you can't prove it absolutely, because you can't prove what or who God is. I could say God = Nature. Then it's easy to prove, because Nature exists. But is the original premise absolute and complete? No. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not ask if science could prove that God exists, I have asked a different question: what if science could prove it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure that our present-day science does not study the supernatural. So, I was not asking about that. However, for science in the future all bets are off. So, suppose for the sake of argument that future science will have proven that God exists. Would that mean the death of revealed religion? I am not even asking if this follows. What I am asking is if there are reliable sources which made this argument before. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there are countless references you can find on Google. The search topic would be something like, "what if we can prove god exists". But keep in mind that anything anyone says is going to be speculation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a very smart Catholic person I know: "Of course you can't prove it. That's why it's called faith." Blythwood (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu your abrupt dismissal of the first response by Baseball Bugs suggests that you do not understand its relevance to your question. Your question uses terms "God" and "Jesus" that are absolutes only within the Christian belief system. There are millions of people with different belief systems with different axioms to whom your speculative question is not a Well-posed problem. However within what appears to be your Christian system, the consequence of "science proving God" would be the loss for humanity of the blessing (see Grace in Christianity) expressed by that religion's founder thus: John 20:29 "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." AllBestFaith (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a philosophical level, science can never prove anything. Science is empirical and based on inductive reasoning, which is not a sound inference principle. If I see 150 pink penguins in an hour (and no others), I might come to the justified conclusion that all penguins are pink, but I would still be wrong. Science gives us a sequence of (stochastically) better and better descriptions of reality, not absolute truth. That remains in the realm of mathematics and maybe philosophy. See e.g. Simulated reality and Evil demon. If we say "science has proved ...", there is always an implicit understanding that this really means "to a high degree of probability, not absolute certainty", or, as Stephen J. Gould put it": "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]