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.
Canada is part of a Constitutional Monarchy. As such, at the Federal level there is a Governor General while the Provinces and Territories have Lieutenent Governors (or Territorial equivalents). Is there any way of determining what the monetary cost is to support these representatives of the Monarchy? In other words, how much does Canada pay to have these representatives of QEII?
WOW! Imagine what we could do with that money if it were put back into our economy instead of supporting some antiquated political/philosophical paradigm . . . Thanks.
To put that into perspective, if you took all of that $50 million dollars per year, and instead figured out how much extra the Canadian government could do with it, it amounts to an extra hour and 45 minutes worth of work (considering the proportion of the Canadian government spending this accounts for). That is, over 365 days, there's an extra hour and 45 minutes you could so something with. It's not that much money. --Jayron3200:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that you would need to pay for a replacement. If Canada decided that it wanted to become a Parliamentary republic, then it's hard to think of a country following that system that doesn't feel the need to employ a ceremonial president (I believe that South Africa, Botswana and the Marshall Islands are the exceptions). If that is the case, the new president would probably need all the official residences, posh cars and travel expenses that are currently enjoyed by your Governor-General. The President of Germany, for example, a nice chap who had a distinguished career as a not very successful politician and has no more power than Canada's G-G, has the use of seven palaces. You do need somebody to entertain visiting heads of state and give them dinner in reasonable surroundings, to visit factories and homeless shelters telling everybody how well they're doing and all that stuff. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never bought this argument. I think governments arrange to have ceremonial presidents because they can, not because they're actually good for anything. As others have pointed out, it isn't really all that much money; that's true. But personally I would like to see more countries dispense with ceremonial heads of state, not so much to save money, as to give a poke in the eye to statism itself. --Trovatore (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But according to sources such as this the German President costs the German taxpayers EUR 4.6mio/year. This is a with more than twice the population of Canada. $50 mio does seem pretty expensive. 86.136.42.134 (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we're comparing like for like there. According to the first webpage linked by Cucumber Mike above, most of the $50m was spent on maintaining historic properties and operating the Canadian honours system. Whether the German presidential total includes the equivalent fees, or if they are charged to other budgets, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also bear in mind that Canada's total government spending in 2009 was CAD 238,800 million[1] - so CAD 50 million represents 0.02% of the total annual budget. Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder where the money goes. Does the GoG have money shredder where he turns good Canadian dollars into paper goo? Or does he maybe spend most of that money in Canada, thus "putting it back into the Canadian economy"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Canada is completely independent of the UK, at least since the Canada Act 1982. It just happens to share the head of state with the UK. It also shares the head of state with Tuvalu, but that does not make Canada a Tuvaluan colony. Should Canada decide to eliminate the monarchy, my guess is that the UK will say "too sad, but good riddance", as in several other cases, like India or Botswana. On the other hand, should Canada decide to eliminate the Monarch, there would be all kinds of trouble... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that if Canada was ever invaded by the army of a fascist military dictatorship, as happened to the Falkland Islands, then the UK would be ready to help Canadians to get their country back. Alansplodge (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canada could leave the Commonwealth, and it could declare itself a Republic and end its association with the British Monarchy. This has happened in the past: Ireland, Zimbabwe and South Africa come to mind. The UK didn't go to war with those nations then, and I doubt it would if it happened again. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Membership of the Commonwealth hasn't been limited to Commonwealth realms since the London Declaration of 1949. Ireland did indeed leave the Commonwealth in 1949, but South Africa was prevented from renewing her membership in 1961 (on the grounds of Apartheid in South Africa rather than republicanism) but rejoined in 1994 and is still an active member. Zimbabwe was suspended in 2002 for human rights abuses and then terminated her own membership in 2003. Not much similarity with Canada thankfully. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all Commonwealth realms are members of the Commonwealth, but not all members of the Commonwealth are Commonwealth realms. Australia last seriously considered the subject of becoming a republic in 1999, but we would have remained a member of the Commonwealth whatever the outcome. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noted many point of similarity between the countries of Bhutan and Switzerland.
Both are mountainous Countries
Both are Landlocked Countries
Both are peaceful countries
Inspite of all these similarities Switzerland is a globalized country with cities such as Zurich and Geneva and has a very high infrastructure and economy. But Bhutan on the other hand is a very improverished country. What is the reason behind that. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Location, location, location? Switzerland is in the middle of Europe, and is on the frequently-used overland route across the Alps. It's amidst the economic superpowers of Italy, France, and Germany, and can partake of trade with and between them. Bhutan, on the other hand, is between India and China, but only the distal provinces of such. Aside from an ancient spur of the silk road, there are really no major trade routes through Bhutan. It should also be pointed out that up until recently Switzerland was a relatively impoverished and agrarian (by the standards of Europe), and it was only recently due to industrialization and the growth of the financial sector that it became the rich country we see it as today. (See, for example When Did the Swiss Get so Rich?). -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "superiority" of western culture is debatable. Westerners, like any other cultural group, are liable to ethnocentrism on this question. It is certainly true that, until recently, the West outperformed other parts of the word on volumetric measurements of the economy, such as gross domestic product. That has been changing in recent years, as some countries with very different value systems, such as China, have been far outstripping the West in their rate of economic growth. Current global challenges, such as global warming and resource depletion, raise serious questions about whether a culture and a political economy that seeks infinite exponential growth is really superior, in the long term, to one that aims for a sustainable steady state economy. Bhutan has adopted a policy of renouncing economic growth at all costs with its national benchmark of gross national happiness. Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is the general question of economic development in Europe, but there is also the specific question of the Swiss economy. I wish that Watch Valley had more detail. The Swiss valleys have industrialised over a long period, and they have been able to update to high-tech engineering. However, much of Switzerland was dirt-poor until the tourists started coming for skiing.
If I wanted to set up a new watch factory, and I really don't because it would be unlikely to succeed wherever it was, I would choose Switzerland over Bhutan, even though the wage bill would be sky-high in Switzerland and rock-bottom in Bhutan. Switzerland has the skilled labour, the services to business (banks, accountants, insurance companies, consultants), and much better transport to get the raw materials in at low cost and the finished product out to markets. The markets would be much nearer, and customers would have more confidence in a product made in Switzerland. Suzhou might be an even more attractive location, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The superiority of western culture is "debatable" only to people who have never lived without it. Try telling a North Korean refugee about the environmental dangers of capitalism, and she would probably laugh in your face while asking if you'd rather starve to death. Contrary to what you claim, China has had rapid economic growth only since the capitalist Chinese economic reform, when it essentially renounced communism (another Western idea). Chinese youth are increasingly adopting a Western lifestyle. Most Chinese also recognize the need to liberalize the government by introducing democratic reforms and decreasing corruption.
The superiority of western culture (liberal culture) lies on its value of individualism, that is the main point. Third world or developing countries are largely collectivists (religious collectivist, blind nationalists, ethno-nationalists, economic collectivists or socialists etc.). Western culture generally put much value to the individual, to civil liberties, and human rights, and this value is largely absent in African and South Asian countries.
However I will like to point out that it is completely wrong to claim "western culture" as the only culture that put value to individual rights. Countries that highly regard individual rights include South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Hong Kong, Estonia, Czech Republic, Australia, New Zealand etc. So I think it is very logical to replace the term "western culture" with "liberal culture".
Also, Western Europe is far more superior to the United States. Western Europe has far greater human rights record compared to the United States. For example, death penalty is abolished in the Western Europe, while the US is one of the biggest implementer of death penalty (greater than North Korea), number of atheists are higher in Western European countries while the US is the most religious western country etc. etc. --PlanetEditor (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The West Europe and US comparison? No. It is a fact that countries such as Netherlands, Germany etc. have far greater civil liberties record than the US (in terms of abolition of death penalty, sexual freedom etc). --PlanetEditor (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Atheism is the proof of higher cognitive ability. State-sponsored and carefully arranged murder of a defenseless person is not "right of self-defense". --PlanetEditor (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my observations, I would have to say that atheism is proof of nothing except extreme narrow-mindedness. And the legal permanent removal of a murderer is not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to extend this debate, but I want to point out that your interpretation of "Western" is very different from that of most people. Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand are usually considered integral parts of the Western world. Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997. Japan became a world power after it started Westernizing due to the Black Ships incident. Almost all the countries you listed are politically, economically, socially, and scientifically Western, and that's only because I don't know enough about the rest to make a judgment. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the superiority tangent, which was mainly in response to 140.180... I would point out that North Korea's military command economy and western (oligarchic) capitalism are not the only conceivable ways of organizing economies, and sustainability has to be a criterion in assessing the superiority of the western model relative to other models, such as a steady-state economy. However, 140.180 is absolutely correct that the original question was about why Switzerland is wealthier than Bhutan. As others have pointed out, Switzerland's location in Europe is the key. Western Europe during the early modern period had a historically somewhat unique situation of interstate competition for military superiority coupled with an alliance between autocratic states and a technologically innovative mercantile middle class. It was in the context of this alliance that the Enlightenment occurred. States found that technological innovation promoted both military superiority and the prosperity of their middle classes, and so European states promoted scientific and technological advancement in a way states in no other region had done before. Switzerland benefited from and participated in this process, which included the development of a wealth-creating infrastructure of railways, electrical grids, sewers, and later highways and airports. Europe's transport infrastructure, whose Alpine heart is Switzerland, promotes trade and in turn wealth. During the 20th century, Switzerland benefited relative to other European countries from its policy of neutrality, which allowed it to trade with all warring parties when trade had shut down between them and which made Switzerland a safe haven. This particularly benefited its financial sector. Bhutan's neighborhood largely lacks this wealth-generating infrastructure and culture of technology. India has relatively new, budding technology sector, but its centers are far geographically and culturally from Bhutan. While India has a basic railway network, it is nowhere near as dense as Europe's, nor does it extend across the Himalaya. Finally, the Himalaya is a much more formidable barrier than the Alps. Whereas Switzerland's Alpine valleys and the passes between its relatively low mountains tie north and south Europe together, Bhutan and Tibet are separated by the towering wall of the Himalaya, whose lowest passes are higher than many of Switzerland's highest peaks. Travel through these mountains is not feasible because of altitude sickness, snow and ice, and other obstacles. Because the mountain chain is so wide, tunneling through them would be extremely expensive. Finally, Tibet itself is underdeveloped. Marco polo (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the 13th century Tuscany and the Low Countries both had textile industries. Trade routes took raw materials and finished products out; any land route into Italy has to cross the Alps. Therefore Switzerland was on or near the cross European trade routes. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
[unindent] Solomon — one scholarly answer to your original question can be found in Guns, Germs, and Steel. I'd advise you to read the article (and the book, if you have time), but of course you need to remember that the author's attracted substantial opposition as well as support. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that the Goebbels were machine-gunned to death at their own request?
close trolling by timothyhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This story seems more factual: 'Unwilling to accept a world without National Socialism, Magda Goebbels poisons her six children while her husband waits. Then Goebbels and Magda proceed up to the Chancellery garden, where Goebbels shoots his wife before shooting himself.' See Downfall_(film). --Omidinist (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...I recall a heartwarming story he wrote about a young necrophiliac who eventually achieved his lifelong ambition by becoming coroner. [crowd murmurs] The rest of you can look it up when you get home!" -- An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article on MadocAfter gathering ten ships of men and women the prince sailed west a second time, never to return. Based on the time period (1171 AD), approximately how many people on average would each of these ships carry?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Model of a knarr
From a quick look at Google, it seems that the main type of ship used around the British Isles in the 12th century would have been a knarr. The bigger cog (ship) was still confined to the northern coasts of the continent at that time. Some information on this page. Alansplodge (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The crew of a typical Iceland knarr was 15-30 people. But knarrs could apparently carry up to 40 tons (estimated for the Hedeby I find), and Olaf II of Norway allegedly took 260 armed men in just two knarrs from England to Norway (which sounds crowded, but not incompatible with the capacity). However, that seems implausible for an alleged transatlantic crossing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
March 23
where did they find gold in ancient times
where was the best place that people found gold (gold mines and things like this) in thousands of years ago? I mean which places had the MOST gold mining not just a little gold here and there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by There goes the internet (talk • contribs) 07:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I look at that already. it just says this place had some gold and this place had some gold and we found some remains of gold mine here and there. I want to know which places had A LOT of gold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by There goes the internet (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of countries by gold production is a modern list, but it should give some ideas as to what parts of the world gold is found in. The gold, after all, was still there in ancient times. If the OP can indicate for what purpose they want to know the information, or for what parts of the world, we may be able to provide more tailored and useful responses. --Jayron3201:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little info at this webpage, [4], and a lot more in Google Books if you search around. If I understand right, in very ancient times most gold was acquired by placer mining (ie, gold panning, sluicing, etc—not really "mining" as such), and so was done in streams where gold washed down from deposits upstream. Apparently there is some evidence of near-surface veins being worked in a few places. That page I linked points out that we don't really know much about exactly where ancient civilizations got gold from. It might be easier to determine what places had little gold instead of which had some. It seems that Mesopotamia was rather poor in "indigenous" gold. On the other hand, some places are known for having been sources of gold, such as Nubia. According to this book, [5], ancient India had gold "in abundance", but was poor in silver. This page, [6] gives some general info on ancient gold sources, specifically the "Upper Nile near the Red Sea and in the Nubian Desert area", "possibly in Yemen and southern Africa", Arabia (the Mahd adh Dhahab being an area specifically known as an ancient source). Mesoamerican and Inca gold is "believed to have come from Colombia", but not exclusively. There's a Gold Museum in Colombia with lots of pre-Columbia pieces. It seems northeastern Colombia was, and is a major gold source. The "Cauca Belt" comes up in searches (Valle del Cauca department mentions gold history). I tried to find some maps of this stuff but couldn't in a quick search. You'd think there would be some. In short, for major gold sources "thousands of years ago", it looks like good bets include the Nubia region (perhaps reaching into Ethiopia, a gold producing country), Arabia (specially western Arabia areas like Hejaz and Yemen), possibly areas near the other side of the Red Sea (today's Eritrea and Sudan), and "India" (probably many places in India, a known site is the Kolar Gold Fields). Placer gold was likely found in widespread places in smaller amounts. Pfly (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the gold standard and real wage growth
my teacher said that the reason why there has been no wage growth in the united states is that we went off THE GOLD STANDARD and we print to much money. what are some arguments AGAINST this view. in other words, are there some ppl who thing this would have happened if we stayed on the gold standaed. this is not homework btw i just want to know what the other side of the argument is. also, how can we restore real wage growth in the United States becuase i would like to make some more money in 10 yrs then i make now (assuming i dont get a better job or things like this).--There goes the internet (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are studying at the same time as working Good for you but if you really want to make a go of it you should invest some time in figuring how to search for things yourself. What work have you done to find an answer for your homework besides asking here? Dmcq (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being offended by what some random person on the internet says is irrational. Also what you say is evidence not truth as far as I am concerned, I try and assume the best in accordance with Wikipedia policy but that does not include assuming everything someone says is true. In this case I have advised you whilst assuming are attending a class and wish to learn. If a question arises during a class then you should treat it as an opportunity for learning rather than just reaching to the internet for some instant answer. Particularly if you have chosen to go and study at the same time as working. You could also have asked during class. Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First your premise is incorrect, there has been real wage growth, just not for the bottom 80% of Americans, for the richest Americans, wage growth has been the greatest ever seen. Wage growth is normally tied to productivity, if a worker can create twice as much in the same time, or create twice as much using the same amount of raw material, his wages will double minus the cost of whatever it was that made him more productive (education, new technology, increased capital, etc). Productivity has been increasing over the last few decades, though the wages paid to workers is not increasing mostly due to the rich owners demanding all the profit from the increase in productivity and the workers just accepting this. If you want to see higher real wages in the future then become more productive and demand your fair share or your labour's value. 69.157.30.181 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we should get together and seize the property of the boozwazeeee. it is the fault of greedy 1 percenter, that is what i will tell my teacher, but i think he will laugh at me. he doesnt think much of marx and socialism and things like this.--There goes the internet (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
During most of the 19th century, economies with gold-backed currencies showed a long-term overall deflationary trend, partially counteracted at irregular intervals by major gold finds. This state of affairs could be considered good for workers if it inhibited currency instabilities and runaway inflation, but also bad for workers insofar as deflation was creditor-friendly and debtor-unfriendly. In the United States at the end of the 19th century, many farmers and workers (especially in western states) were strongly in favor of supplementing gold with silver ("bimetallism") -- see William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech... AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah! i remember this from my history class. there was like this period for like 20-30 years where there was a whole slew of candidates who ran on silver-related platform. that was like the most boring and repetitive part of the whole history book. i'm glad it's over.--There goes the internet (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's incredibly boring for you, but in late 19th century America, it was just about the only politically-realistic way to argue for non-long-term-deflationary non-creditor-friendly monetary policies, so it was of vital interest to many. It was one of the few ways of trying to smooth some of the harsh edges of unrestrained "robber baron" capitalism that was not widely perceived to be politically radical. Of course, owners of silver mines favored bimetallism for different reasons... AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason why increased productivity is not reflected in increased wages is globalization, and, in particular, China. Anyone who doesn't accept low wages can just be replaced by a Chinese worker (with a few exceptions). StuRat (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, all this depends on how you calculate buying power. Yes, a dollar today buys less gold than a dollar 100 years ago. But it buys a hell of a lot more cellular service, or computing power, or antiretroviral drugs, or antibiotics, or high-precision watches, or air travel, or free online encyclopedias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd have a go at our stub article for Stanley Spencer, who designed and built the first British airship in 1902. I'm having trouble establishing a date for the first flight. Many sources, such as this one go for 22 September 1902, with a 3 hour flight from Crystal Palace, London. However, the New York Times says 20 September and the The Nevada Daily Mail says 19 Sep. The Reading Eagle (apparently Reading, Pennsylvania) reports a trial on 11 July which broke a propeller blade and was eventually flown without the engine. The Manawatu Times in New Zealand reported that Spencer's wife flew the airship at Crystal Palace on 14 July, with or without the engine isn't clear. So does anyone have a reliable date for the first flight? Alansplodge (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the primary sources quoted can be reconciled - a first unpowered flight from Ranelagh to Ongar on the 11th, a flight (presumably powered) by Mrs Specner within the grounds of "Baystal" [sic] Palace on the 13th (presumably - 14th July 1903 was a Tuesday, and I think "13" for "14" is more likely than "Tuesday" for "Monday"), and a powered flight from Crystal Palace to Eastcote on the 19th. Note that the Nevada Daily Mail and New York Times articles seem to be based on the same copy, and the Daily Mail says "today" with a dateline of the 19th, while the Times says "yesterday" with a dateline of the 20th. Tevildo (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mis-read the dates. The Reading Eagle report is for 1903 (not 1902), so we have two flights for 1902 - Mrs Spencer (Crystal Palace only) on Monday 14th July, Mr Spencer (Crystal Palace to Eastcote) on Saturday 19th July, and one flight for 1903 (Saturday 11th July), unpowered, from Ranelagh to Ongar. Tevildo (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I misread the "Reading Eagle" date too. Spencer built a second, larger airship in 1903 called "Number 2", so it must have been that one. I'm a bit puzzled as to why he would let his wife make the first flight - perhaps she had a good insurance policy! Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, based on the above. The books say that it was Aida de Acosta (27 June 1903), but it seems that Mrs Spencer beat her by nearly a year. Assuming the Crystal Palace flight was under power, which the article doesn't actually say. Tevildo (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The plot thickens. The article does imply powered flight; "navigated around" and "under perfect control" doesn't sound like the sort of thing that is possible in a drifting balloon. Can anyone find a better source than a provincial newspaper from New Zealand? Alansplodge (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More information on Mrs Spencer's history, and a cite (the W G Grace / Conan Doyle copy) to "Motoring Illustrated". It's out there somewhere! Tevildo (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a trip to Beaulieu is indicated. We have a definite publication and date, and they should have a copy of the magazine. Expect a definite answer some time next week! Tevildo (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the "Motoring Illustrated" article is in the can - I'll do some proper writing-up tomorrow. It's dated 2nd August 1902, and says that Mrs Spencer flew the airship "recently" (presumably 14th July). However, although she was at the controls, she was accompanied by her husband. Ms de Acosta doesn't lose her position as the first _solo_ female aviator (aviatrix?), but Mrs Spencer seems to have been the first woman to fly a powered aircraft. Tevildo (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article text is available at User:Tevildo/MotoringIllustrated. Reading it again, it looks like she _did_ acheive the first solo flight, after all. Photos from article to follow shortly. Tevildo (talk)
Many thanks; that's marvellous. I can't believe that a milestone like that has escaped everybody's notice. I'll do my best to put it right. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It comes down to numbers. There are far more Muslims, Muslim nations, and those who want to trade with or otherwise be on good terms with Muslim nations than Jews, Jewish nations, and those who want to trade with Jewish nations. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say here "with the Jewish nation", since besides Israel, there are no other.
No, the United Nations itself as an organisaion, has no position on the matter at all, the the individual member countries have a variety of attitudes towards Israel. Roger (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Palau & others vote according to the US vote. This is not an independent opinion.
Consider too that voting according to the Palestine wishes doesn't mean being anti-Israel. A good part of the world really would like to see peace in that region, in the same way that a good part of Israel indeed is against the decisions of their own government. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few years back, I remember reading a news story about a girl who lead a protest in China, or maybe some other country. She was arrested, and police tortured her by pumping cold water up her vagina every day. She died a month later. Does anyone know what story this is? Unfortunately, when I try to Google it, I find few actual news sites. Thanks. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~
A few years ago, a cartoon appeared in one of the British papers of Victoria and David Beckham on the balcony at Buckingham Palace , could you please tell me who the cartoonist was and in what paper it appeared. I have tried searching on line with no luck. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.131.240 (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've very frequently seen economic arguments used, i.e. that extending marriage increases cost of Social Security and other benefits. While I do not condone bigotry, there is good reason to question why society should disburse its benefits based solely on who is registered as having sex. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We only write about notable topics. I don't think the distinction between secular and non-secular arguments against same-sex marriage is a particularly meaningful one. Pretty much all the arguments are religiously motivated, but most of them are presented in a secular way (particularly when presenting them in US courts, since US courts aren't allowed to make decisions based on openly religious arguments). Therefore, there is no separate topic to have an article on. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a litany of articles on the subject, starting with the article on same sex marriage, and including List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States, List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States, and others. The links you provide above probably could be comfortably merged into some other articles. For instance, we have a dozen versions of gun politics articles. Splitting up topics into scarcely different headings dilutes the effort on any one article and creates divides where either POV issues or accuracy issues can fester, let alone the duplicated effort. There's other stuff but that's not a good reason to add to the problem. If you want a concise set of arguments on that point, try to improve on what's already there, or alternatively, if you must branch something out, do so in a broad rather than narrow way. That is, keep the topics broad, and only split them off into narrower ones if the original grows too large. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. Is it best to leave things as they are? Or would it be better to move all the material to a single article? Currently several articles have much to say on the topic and only differ by some perspective, e.g., families, economics. Much of the current material is redundant. When I started, I was hoping to find a snapshot of the current debate, at least as it pertains to the United States. Instead I found bits and pieces spread out in multiple articles. It seems to me like a prime candidate for a new article. The same-sex marriage article (136K) is already turning into a very long list so I worry about adding any more to it. --beefyt (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Revere;s actual words regarding the British regulars being out (on the night of his famous ride.
I would like confirmation of what I was told by a Massachusets Park ranger, to wit, that Revere actually called out on his unfinished ride that "The Regulars are out!" This distinction would give credence to the notion that we Americans still kept somewhat in mind that we were (technically) British and/or perhaps distinguished between the British "Regulars" and other British forces. Along the same line, I would like to know when we Americans spoke with an accent that distinguished our speech from British accents. This would most likely be sometime after 1812 and the impressment of American seamen by British naval forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.6.54 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article says that the American accent hasn't changed much since that time - it's the British pronunciations that've changed. Around 1776, lower-class Brits and lower-class Americans (ie most people) spoke pretty much the same, but with time more and more Brits adopted the different, upper-class accent. There's more discussion of this here. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very silly article. American accents have changed in some respects, British accents in others. Unless you think Scots, Welsh, Irish and northern English sound 'American', the fact that rhotic accents were then more common in southern England does not mean that they sounded 'American' either. HenryFlower14:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Colonist considered themselves British for a very long time... arguably many did up til around the time of Independence. They considered themselves "American" too, but that doesn't have the same meaning it does now in their context. Shadowjams (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: it's surprising how much it varies in the U.S. Near the coastline in the East, there are lots of people who don't seem to pronounce "r" in anything. But go a few hundred miles inland and you'll find something very different, even pockets of people who still pronounce "warsh" with an r, something 'rhotic' speakers don't even do. Wnt (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has always been a lot of variation in English accents. There was almost certainly even more variation among English accents (by which I mean the accents of England) 200 or 300 years ago than there is now. English accents have tended to become more similar since the early 20th century due mainly to radio and television but also to greater labor mobility and the effects of the world wars in moving people around and exposing them to different accents. In effect, the speech of London has increasingly dominated English speech, though areas outside Southeast England maintain (decreasingly) distinct regional variants. The same process has happened in the United States, with General American, a Midwestern-derived variety, gaining ground against regional variants. The American colonies were settled by people from different parts of England, as well as lots of people from what is now Northern Ireland and smaller numbers from Scotland, Wales, and the rest of Ireland. Some American colonies were mainly settled by people from a particular part of the British Isles and hence had similar accents to those parts of the British Isles. For example, eastern New England was settled mainly by people from East Anglia, where non-rhotic speech probably predated the arrival of the Puritans in the 1630s. As a result, eastern New Englanders probably already had an early precursor of the Boston and Maine accents at the time of the Revolution. Coastal parts of the South may have adopted the speech of upper middle class London, which was probably also non-rhotic by the 18th century. By contrast, the interior of New England and most other American colonies were settled mainly by people from the West Country of England and by people from what is now Northern Ireland speaking Ulster Scots dialects. The result was a hybrid accent combining elements of West Country speech and Ulster Scots that later evolved toward General American. Now, the people of New England had been separated from their East Anglian cousins for some six generations by the time of the Revolution, so it is likely that they would have sounded odd to each other, but more similar to each other than to other English speakers. A speaker of a rhotic variety of English might not have been able to distinguish an eastern New Englander from an East Anglian or a Tidewater Virginian planter from a well-to-do Londoner. On the other hand, the hybrid West Country-Ulster accent of the American interior might well have been distinctive even by the late 18th-century. Here is a source supporting much of the above. Marco polo (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
March 24
Veritas Forum and Campus Crusade for Christ
Does the Veritas Forum just host dialogues between Christians and nonreligious people, or is the Forum more focused on religion in general and irreligion in general? I saw this flyer yesterday about "What is the meaning of life?" hosted by Veritas Forum. At first glance of the flyer, it looks like a forum between two professors. One is a professor in mathematics, and the other is a professor in philosophy. They don't really give their religious status. And about the Campus Crusade for Christ: is the main goal of the organization just trying to convert everybody on the planet to Christianity, or is the main goal of the organization trying to help people "connect with Jesus" while maintaining one's own cultural/religious heritage as long as one's native culture/religion does not interfere with basic Christian beliefs? If the latter case, then can a devout Jewish or Muslim person "connect with Jesus"? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main goal of the Campus Crusade is to convert you to a particular brand of evangelical Protestant Christianity. A Muslim, Jew, and even certain types of Christians (particularly Catholics) can absolutely not "connect with Jesus" in any sense meaningful to the CCC. When I was younger and had more free time to spend on being an asshole, I could spend many hours arguing with the CCC from a Catholic perspective, just for amusement. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you describe yourself as an "asshole"? Why did you do that made you an "asshole"? How long ago was then? Why did you stop being an "asshole"? If you have more free time, then would you continue being an "asshole"? Can a person become a Christian of the lowest common denominator? Which Christian church/denomination accepts everybody as full membership? Can a person become affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church but has mixed theology? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was being facetious, but basically at my university the CCC liked to have "interviews" with the people in charge of the other student clubs, and I was in charge of Quiz Bowl for several years, so I was "interviewed" several times. And it was never an interview so much as an occasion for them to proselytize. I kept agreeing to talk to them just so I could annoy them and waste their time. I'm sorry I have no references except for personal experience and opinion, but Campus Crusade for Christ is the worst. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent Veritas Forum at Penn hosted a debate between a Christian professor and an Atheist. It was cosponsored by the religious groups at Penn and the Penn Secular Society. Unfortunately, Videos aren't up yet, so I can't give you an example. RyanVesey01:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The upcoming Veritas Forum is between a Ohio State University professor in philosophy and some professor in mathematics. Little is known about their spiritual status. It is hosted in the Ohio Union and is sponsored by Christian Intervarsity groups on campus and the Secular Student Alliance. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Large unfinished structure which began before 15thcentury
looking for Large unfinished structure which began before 15th century. Nave in Siena is one such but i was looking for others. would appreciate help49.206.53.229 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)vsmurthy[reply]
By just typing "14th century unfinished" into Google, I found the unfinished "Facciatone" (nave extension) of the Duomo Nuovo in Siena. From our article; "A second massive addition of the main body of the cathedral was planned in 1339. It would have more than doubled the size of the structure by means of an entirely new nave and two aisles ranged perpendicular to the existing nave and centred on the high altar... Construction was halted by the Black Death in 1348. Basic errors in the construction were already evident by then, however, and the work was never resumed."Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I located the answer Narbonne Cathedral (Cathédrale Saint-Just-et-Saint-Pasteur de Narbonne) is a former cathedral, and national monument of France, located in the town of Narbonne. It is dedicated to Saints Justus and Pastor.
It was the seat of the Archbishop of Narbonne until the Archbishopric was merged into the Diocese of Carcassonne under the Concordat of 1801. (The title, however, passed to the Archbishop of Toulouse.) The church was declared a basilica minor in 1886.[1]
The building, begun in 1272,[2] is noted for being unfinished. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narbonne_Cathedral49.206.53.229 (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)vsmurthy[reply]
Which companies are the main manufacturers of computers for Western military aircraft?
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and BAE Systems if memory serves. Probably Airbus for some. Check out the pages for the F-22 Raptor and the Eurofighter for a few more names. 81.159.249.142 (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean manufacturers of the hardware that flies aboard the aircraft, the avionics (in flight) software, the hardware or software used in the aircraft design and manufacturing process, or something else? Astronaut (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In-flight hardware and software needs to be to various MIL-STDs or whatever standards apply for the manufacturer in their country. As a result it is often built in-house (ie. made by the aircraft manufacturer themselves). However, some components are sourced from commercial suppliers (for example, according to this press release, Eurotech supply Intel Atom-based hardware for military applications). Design and manufacturing software (the field I used to work in) is a mixture of in-house development and commercially available packages, and will use commercially available Unix and PC hardware. Astronaut (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I asked that because two West Bank settlements gave the party the most votes than any other according these two websites: [[7]] which says in Hebrew, Matityahu and [[8]] about Beitar Illit.--Donmust90 (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
Population along highway routes
I need to calculate the number of people who live within 100 miles of a U.S. Interstate (100 miles on either side of the Interstate). Is there some way to overlay census data on a state map of the interstate in order to get at least a rough estimate of how many people reside within a 200-mile wide corridor, 100-miles on either side of the highway?
The software that does these kinds of calculations easily is a Geographical Information System, for example ArcGIS. There are some free packages available. You would need to be able to download the Census data and "boundary data" in a format that the GIS can read, as well as a compatible map of the highways. Someone might have already done it, or be able to do it for you. A university department of geography could do it but would normally charge. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be easier to estimate the population who live further than 100 miles from an interstate. Looking at Google Maps and using straight-line distances, there don't seem to be many gaps - maybe a small corner of Maine, a thin strip along the Canadian border in the great plains, the upper penninsula of Michigan, a couple of spots in the Rockies, the bottom end of the Florida keys, maybe a few other places, all of which have quite low populations. Astronaut (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP might want the numbers for particular interstates, rather than all interstates. I agree it is going to be pretty much the entire population if you look at all interstates combined. --Tango (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question: are you just looking for people inside the U.S., or do you also want to know how many people in Mexico and Canada live within 100 miles of a U.S. Interstate? Also, don't forget that Alaska and Hawaii also have interstate highways (the map provided by the previous poster only shows continental U.S.). See Interstate_Highways_in_Alaska and Interstate_H-1. RudolfRed (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the map above, the great majority of exceptions live in the Rio Grande Valley, which has a population of about 1.1 million people. Every other part has very low population density, as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciation in value of early money
Say you live in a primitive society where nobody's ever heard of money, but there is a division of labor and a barter economy. Your job is to hunt with bows and arrows. When your bows and arrows are worn out and you need new ones, you barter some of the meat you produce to your neighbor whose jobs is to make bows and arrows.
Then people arrive from across the sea and start offering for barter commodities unavailable in your country in exchange for commoditites unavailable in theirs. But in their country, they buy and sell things for money, which consists of silver coins. Over time some people in your country become willing to accept silver coins as payment from the people across the sea because they know they can use them later to buy other things from those people. After this practice is established, people in your country start selling other commodities to their neighbors for silver coins, since that money is in effect backed by commodities that can be bought from the people from across the sea. As the number of people willing to accept silver coins as payment expands, the number of goods offered for sale for silver coins rapidly increases without any correspondingly rapid increase in the supply of silver coins. Hence prices go down. Realizing that prices will continue to go down over the next couple of years as the trend spreads further, some people start hoarding coins in order to be able to buy much larger quantities of goods with them a year or two from now than they can today. This further limits the supply of coins used in trade and thus further drives down prices, and thus more people are impressed by the increasing value of money, and become willing to accept it in payment. At some point the custom of using money to buy and sell things rather than barter spreads as far as it can spread throughout your country and then prices stop their general downward trend.
Is this historically accurate as a description of what has happened when money was introduced for the first time in societies formerly using barter?
How much is known and how much unknown about the histories of such episodes?
Has anyone studied this sort of thing quantitatively in any detail?
Somewhere I saw a Wikipedia article saying money wasn't generally used in Rome until about 200 BC, whereas in Greece it had been used centuries earlier. Did any Roman writers describe this sort of thing?
I don't think you'd get any such effect. The value of the silver coins would be limited by what it could buy from the foreigners who introduced it. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's _initially_ limited in that way, nonetheless its utility as a means of making trade far more efficient than by barter alone would give it some value beyond that.
But you, see a big problem with your answer and this comment of mine is the word "would". I'm asking what has happened, not what _would_ happen. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I suspect the opposite is true. As the silver coins become more desirable among your compatriots, the value of your labour, your meat, or whatever you produce becomes relatively less. What's more, seeing the increased desirability of the coins, the foreigners start demanding more for the same number of coins. This is known as inflation. Astronaut (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the value of your meat, your labor, etc., becomes _less_ relative to the coins, that means the value of the coins becomes relatively _more_, which is exactly what I was saying. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silver coins aren't backed by commodities that can be bought from the people from across the sea but by their silver value. Silver coins can be melted down and made into jewelery. Sleigh (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When the Romans traded for spices from ancient India, the Indians would only accept gold in exchange. The Romans bought the spices with Roman gold coins which the Indians melted down for jewelery. Sleigh (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one example of sustained trading contact between people who used money and people who didn't is the maritime fur trade era of the Pacific Northwest coast, circa 1780-1840. I don't think coins were ever used in that trade for at least two major reasons. First, the indigenous people didn't see them as valuable within their existence culture. They were interested in things that traditionally indicated high status, such as pieces and sheets of copper, and things of obvious use, like kettles, steel knives, and of course firearms. Over time as fur bearing animals were depleted clothing became an important item of trade. The value of all traded items fluctuated wildly over the course of even a single trading season, and the indigenous people were shrewd traders. It's hard to imagine they would believe a coin trade at one value would be worth the same value at a later time. The second major reason coins weren't much used, if at all, was because the fur trade was almost always part of a larger trade system that involved China. For most of the period China was unwilling to accept anything other than silver and furs. These trading ships visited the Northwest Coast full of silver coins, but not for use on the coast. It was far more important to save them for China. In short, you could get a lot more for silver in China than you could on the Northwest Coast. Pfly (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS, however, in my example, furs did become a trade item valued more than their worth as simply furs and trade among indigenous peoples boomed. Interior peoples who did not have direct contact with the trading ships traded beaver fur with coastal people, in exchange for the trade goods brought by the ships. And yes, there was a dramatic decline in the value of beaver fur on the coast, to the point where trading ships took loses for years on end, "dumping" their trade goods for any price. This was in part because the trade goods were not worth anything to them after they left the coast and cargo space could be more valuably filled with Chinese goods later. It was also done in part to undersell other ship merchants, as they were all in competition with one another. There was also lots of hording by indigenous people of the more valuable sea otter pelts. Over time, even over the course of a single trading season, sea otter pelts increased in value, which led to hording. Not a few merchant captains knew a particular village was hording furs and took them by force. Pfly (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the press coverage when the incident occurred. It was reported that the six American diplomats were given fake Canadian diplomatic passports, so that the could leave Iran when Canada severed diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980.
The movie Argo, which appeared last year, shows them masquerading as Canadian film-makers in Iran to make a movie called Argo. In the film, they are given fake Canadian passports, but those are not diplomatic passports.
At the time, the press reported that Canada had cut off its diplomatic relations with Iran. I remember an Iranian official quoted on TV in 1980 commenting on this. The movie doesn't even hint at an end to diplomatic relations between Canada and Iran. Why is that not mentioned? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it says there the film was more important to Affleck than the reputation of some Brits or Kiwis or any other incidental facts. At least that's my interpretation of "I struggled with this long and hard, because it casts Britain and New Zealand in a way that is not totally fair. But I was setting up a situation where you needed to get a sense that these six people had nowhere else to go. It does not mean to diminish anyone". Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the Canadians had not broken off diplomatic ties with Iran at that time, the Iranians might have stormed the Canadian embassy there the way they did the American embassy. I think the news story about the rescue of those six American diplomats didn't break until all Canadian diplomatic personnel had left Iran. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The historical inaccuracy that really bugged me was that the fast food soft drink cups in one scene were too large for 1979. ;-) —KevinMyers01:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Making friends with the voices
I once read an article, linked from Arts & Letters Daily, that discussed a therapeutic response to hearing voices by making friends with them (I think this was how it was described). I would like to read the article again, but Google has proved surprisingly unhelpful. Does anyone know of this article and can give me the link? 67.164.156.42 (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like this. (Note that A & L Daily features archive pages. I merely went to the 2012 archive and searched the page for "voices". It helps that I also read that article when the link was on the A & L Daily main page.) Deor (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions Romme and Escher who popularized this approach and their book [9]. During some volunteer work, I heard that this has become a classic and found it well worth reading for more information and to understand the issues and effectiveness of this therapy. --Aspro (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lying in court is regarded as perjury and is a serious offence in most or all jurisdictions. If someone's mental state is so poor that they are unable to argue coherently on their own behalf, or if they argue positively against their own interests, then they should be regarded as "unfit to plead", or similar, depending on jurisdiction. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lying _under oath_ is perjury, but a guilty plea is not normally under oath. I wouldn't be surprised if it would be considered fraud. But I don't know for sure. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A false guilty plea being considered perjury would be the most ridiculous catch-22 in the universe. It's well known that many people take plea deals to avoid being convicted of more serious crimes, even if they did not commit them. Imagine being later exonerated, only to be sent back to jail for perjury. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that may well depend on jurisdiction. In Germany, lying in court is punishable, and lying under oath is a felony and carries even stiffer penalties. However, there is an exception for the defendant in a criminal trial, who cannot be put under oath, and is allowed to lie. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK we have an offence "Wasting police time", which is another option for dealing with people who claim to have committed a crime but haven't. Sometimes you get people coming forwards to confess to a popular murder but they haven't. Maybe the most obvious example of that is Wearside Jack, whose identity has never really been proven and so was never charged. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the article you linked says it was and he was!
What perhaps has not been fully spelled out to the OP above is that someone falsely confessing to a crime does not only harm themself: they may also impede the capture of the real perpetrator, who may go on to commit other crimes that might otherwise have been prevented. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Catholic and Protestant churches differences
How can you tell that the church you are inside of is a Roman Catholic or Protestant? By the structure or exterior? is there a website that shows photos of Roman Catholic churches and Protestant churches of different nations like Protestant churches in Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, and Norway and Roman Catholic churches in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal and other churches of different architecture style?--Donmust90 (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
Age is part of the equation. Churches built before about 1517 in Germany, and 1534 in England, for example, at least started out their existence as Catholic. The Eastern Rite Catholic churches are identifiable from the exterior by their onion-shaped domes. Bielle (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If there are statues inside, it's almost certainly a Roman Catholic church. Catholic churches are often more elaborately decorated, Protestant churches are frequently plainer, but keep in mind that due to changing demographics, some Catholic churches are used by protestants, or vice versa. The name of a church is often a hint too: if the name includes the word 'saint' (or the local equivalent), chances are it's a Catholic church. - Lindert (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken about the Anglican and other Protestant churches named for saints, however the OP specifically asked about continental Europe (Excepting Iceland), and none of these examples are located there, nor is Anglicanism big in those countries. - Lindert (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the OP's first comment which was what these replies most related to seemed to be fairly general. The later question about photos and architecture did only include examples from Europe, but the OP didn't given any clear indication they were only interested in churches from that region and in fact said 'different nations' and 'other churches of different architecture style'. Considering the OP's history, it's particularly difficult to conclude they only intended to cover that region. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is a wide selection of exterior and interior images of churhces from around the world in our architecture of cathedrals and great churches article. I don't think there are distinct Protestant and Roman Catholic styles - national styles and period influences are much more dominant. And, as has been pointed out already, older churches were built before there was a distinction anyway. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once you get inside, kneelers are often a giveaway. Historically, at least, Catholics kneeled during portions of service, and as such had kneelers for (minimal) comfort. Protestants, depending on denomination, don't kneel, so wouldn't have kneelers. Also, if the pews have individual communion cup holders, then it's probably a Protestant church. Catholics almost uniformly use a communal communion wine chalice, so don't typically have provisions for individual communion cups. (Though Protestant churches also often use communal chalices.) If there is a prominently featured statue or image of the Virgin Mary, it's likely Catholic, as they venerate her, where as many Protestant denominations don't. A crucifix, rather than a plain cross, is also a good indication of a Catholic church, though, again, some protestant denominations also use it. Another indications is looking at the terminology used in signage (at least in English speaking areas). A Catholic church will list it's services as Masses, whereas a Protestant church might use the term "service" instead (as they might not consider them to be masses). The officiant in a Catholic church will likely be titled "Father X", and be referred to as a priest (unless you happen to get someone higher in the hierarchy, where they may be a monsignor, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, etc.), whereas if the terms/titles pastor, vicar, presbyter, minister, reverend, etc. are used, it's probably a Protestant church. None of these is entirely diagnostic - some Protestant denominations have many of the same outward appearances as Catholics, differing mostly in spiritual/theological issues. -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You only have to look at Liverpool Cathedral (Anglican) and the Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral (Catholic) to see that architecture hardly plays a role. One looks like a cathedral and the other looks like the Apollo Moon Landers. Both have statues inside, and both have crosses and crucifixes. Both have a gift shop and cafe. Both are opposite universities, and both are on the same street. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anglicanism is a rather special case as it bridges the Catholic / Protestant divide. Some Anglicans on the High Church wing consider themselves to be Catholics, and you would struggle to tell their services apart from their Roman equivalent. Those in the Low Church side are definite about their Protestant heritage, and have much in common with the Methodists. Those in the middle, sometimes called the "Broad Church", are not really comfortable with either label. To add to the confusion, many English churches and cathedrals were built as Roman Catholic churches and were taken over at the Reformation. Anglicans being traditionally minded folk, have tended to build their new churches in imitation of the medieval ex-Catholic churches that they are familiar with; Liverpool Cathedral (completed 1978) and the Washington National Cathedral (not yet completed), are prime examples. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really being 100% serious, but the answers were along the lines of you can tell by looking at... Followed by no you can't. As to it certainly being a Protestant church if you see a woman in a clerical collar. Not so. I don't think that the Catholic Church has banned women ministers of other religions from paying a visit. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are in a Protestant church, only a very few denominations will have people wandering around wearing clerical collars. RNealK (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK the same buildings have served as Catholic and Protestant churches at different times in history, so its especially difficult to use architecture as a diagnostic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's mentioned that Catholic churches always have a photo of the current Pope in the vestibule, while no other churches ever do. That's a dead giveaway. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to a number of Catholic churches and I can only recall seeing the Pope in the vestibule once, but I've never been on the lookout. RyanVesey22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw Jack's comment I asked a couple American Catholics I know to be reliable and was met with an odd look from each at the suggest one would find the pope's picture hanging anywhere open to the public, one of whom then said you could tell Protestant churches because someone had usually stolen Christ's body off the crucifix. I suspect the difference may have to do with the head of state being the head of the state church in the Commonwealth, whereas in America he's a Muslim. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add a perspective to the discussion, the idea that Christianity can be neatly divided into merely three categories (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant) is quite wrong, even if it is common to think of it that way. Perhaps a better breakdown would be as follows (this follows a North American perspective, but I suspect similar divisions could apply worldwide):
Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, and others)
(Roman) Catholic
Original or mainline Protestant (Luthern and Calvinist strains like Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc.)
Anglicanism (classifying Anglicanism as either Catholic or Protestant is problematic, and will vary depending on which specific definitions you use. Some Anglicans see themselves as Catholics (just not Roman Catholics), some see themselves as Protestants, and some see themselves as representing a "middle way" between Catholicism and Protestantism, using elements of both. There IS no universal answer for all of the "Anglican Communion" so it is best to consider it a category on its own)
Evangelicals (Sometimes classified as protestant, but most Evangelical groups developed 2-3 centuries after the Reformation, which makes it hard to classify them as being Protestant. The two main U.S. groups of this type are the Methodists and the Baptists, but the Methodists have a foot in this camp and one in the Anglican camp as well. Pentecostal groups could also be placed here.)
Other older divisions which predate most of the above schisms, including various Oriental Orthodox groups, Chalcedonians, Nestorians, and others like that.
Other newer divisions which postdate most of the above groups, or which do not derive from any of the above traditions, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc.
That's probably the most comprehensive breakdown I can come up with, but there's likely many other perspectives. Just know that the "Orthodox-Catholic-Protestant" division is quite inaccurate and does not accurately represent a large number of Christian denominations correctly. --Jayron3201:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that definition of Evangelical works. Look at the membership of the National Association of Evangelicals which has Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, Baptist, Fundamentalist, Brethren members as well as whatever Vineyard and Salvation Army would be classed as. Rmhermen (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Evangelicalism which provides a better definition, which overtly states the timing of the Evangelical movement and how it separated itself from earlier movements. Certainly, there are influences in both directions, and Evangelicalism affected earlier movements, and visa-versa, but the Evangelical tradition represents a distinct break with early non-Evangelical protestant groups. As with many of these distinctions, there are NOT hard-and-fast bright line, "you have to be one or the other but not both" categorizations. However, there is a broad categorigal distinction between churches that follow a "mainline Protestant" theology and history, dating from Luther and Calvin in the 1500s, versus the later Evangelical groups which date from Wesley and the 1700s. There are, of course, Lutherans and Presbyterians and Reformed, etc. which have adopted aspects of Evangelicalism within their church, representing as sort of hybrid of the two, but the existance of such groups does not make the distinction between Evangelicalism and mainline Protestantism irrelevant. The fact that we can identify groups that adopt aspects of both merely accentuates the fact that there are two concepts that can be so hybridized. --Jayron3204:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ Jack, above: Oh, yes, I certainly don't doubt that there are Catholic churches with picture of their bishop and the pope in the vestibule. It's just taht I have never seen or noticed such a thing. (Haven't seen it in a movie or on the Simpsons either, which makes me think it's not so diagnostic a phenomenon.)
Recently my sister who lives near Boston was visiting my parents in New Jersey at the same time I was there, and since my eldest nephew is studying for First Communion (we adults are all either lapsed or atheist, including his parents, me and mine) I offered to take him to mass in the church I grew up attending. On either side of the crucifix at the head of the altar and above the tabernacle had been hung a widescreen TV, one at Jesus' right hand and the other at his left. The priest seemed to think this was a great improvement. The effect was morally and aesthetically repulsive. When he mentioned them during the sermon (they must be new) I felt like screaming "Are they named Dismas and Gestus?" (Is there a piñata filled with 30 silver coins hanging in the rectory?)
Well, I've never visited your fair country, and I take you at your word. But I can honestly say that I have never been inside a Catholic church in Australia that did NOT have a photo of the pope. I went to Catholic schools until I was about 13, and I clearly remember a discussion one day where this very subject arose. Our teacher told us the papal photo was a sure fire way of telling the Catholic churches from the others, and I have to report that all of my own experience has confirmed this. I have an eye for strange detail, and if I ever went inside a church I knew was a Catholic church, and it didn't have a picture of the pope, it would be the first thing I'd notice. But I have yet to have such an experience. That's me. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]11:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I neither doubt you at all nor deny that having a picture of the Pope in the lobby is pretty telling--it's just not a matter of doctrine or anything I have ever noticed, (I would expect there's a picture of the Bishop and Pope in the rectory of the church I just mentioned above, which is a separate building I was only ever in for my sister's funeral arrangements.) Totally off-the-wall OR here, but I do suspect that part of the difference lies in the fact that Catholics are not oppressed in the US, form a plurality of religious affiliations, and simply don't feel like they need to declare themselves. To repeat what I said half tongue-in-cheek above, if you ask a Catholic he's likely to tell you you can tell a protestant church by the lack of Jesus on the cross, not the lack of the pope in the vestibule. μηδείς (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moshav inhabited by different groups
How many moshavims are inhabited by Kurdish Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Moroccan Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Algerian Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Tunisian Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Persian Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Iraqi Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Bukharan (Uzbek and Tajik separately) Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Afghani Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Syrian Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Bahraini Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Saudi Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Yemenite Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Emirati Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Egyptian Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Libyan Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Kuwaiti Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Omani Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Qatari Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Jordanian Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Turkish Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Mountain (Azeri) Jews?--Donmust90 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
Well, here is a list of moshavim. The article for Avital moshav says it was "founded ... by immigrants from Iran, Turkey and Kurdistan" and has a population 472. The population figure is referenced by a file from the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Perhaps they have other files for other moshavim, and maybe they have a breakdown by origin, or at least a record of Israeli and non-Israeli residents. Astronaut (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, DonMust, moshavim is the plural of moshav in Hebrew. In English, you could either use moshavim or probably moshavs, but moshavims is odd. (There is a precedent in cherubims in the KJV, but information about other languages was not so available in 1611). --ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Short story
What was the title of, and who wrote the short story where a systemic computer failure dealt the death penalty for a parking ticket? RichFarmbrough, 18:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
That happened during part of the "ARM" phase of Larry Niven's future history, but not as a result of a computer error (instead due to an insatiable demand for organs to transplant to prolong life); it said something like "traffic violation" instead of "parking ticket" (as far as I remember)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are princesses, and there are fairies. I'm looking for princesses who are also fairies. The only examples like it I can think of are Titania and Mab, but those are both queens, not princesses. Any help? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
has anybody purposefully simultaneously been the leader of two different religious movements under two different names?
Has anybody purposefully been the simultaneous leader of two different religious movements under two different names/identities?
I was reflecting on the different interpretations different denominations have for the meaning of the same historical person, and might call that same historical person under different names. So I was wondering whether any such person has ever been aware of this possibility in their own lifetime and actively and simultaneously under two different names led two different movements? I realize this might be somewhat modern due to more modern forms of communication but I'm curious if there's any record at any time. Fgtpwd34 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another not-quite-the-answer, but maybe getting closer: James VI and I was head of the Church of England as James I, and head of the Church of Scotland as James VI. This situation has never been repeated in the UK; the first of James's successors to have had a different number of name-sharing predecessors in the two countries is Elizabeth II, but she is officially 'the Second' in both countries. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh pants. Yes, you're right. I knew as I was writing that that it was wrong, but I couldn't for the life of me think who the other one was. What a numpty. Thanks for putting me right. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The King of Scotland definitely wasn't the head of the Church of Scotland; he wasn't even particularly fond of them (or them of him), as you'll see if you read accounts of the relationship between the General Assembly and the Crown. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After James, Mary II matched neatly in both England and Scotland, but her husband William of Orange was William III of England & II of Scotland. A century of matching numbers followed, then William IV of the United Kingdom was the first to use the "of the United Kingdom" style with a number that only matched England. In the twentieth century, Edward VII, Edward VIII and Elizabeth II all did the same. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know where I might find a breakdown of crime rate vs. incarceration rate for various US states over time? - Jmabel | Talk01:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure the raw statistics are there, but I'm frankly not interested in taking tons of time to crunch them. What I'm hoping for (and it may not exist) is state-by-state charts graphing for each state over roughly the last 40 years incarceration rates vs. crime rates. My guess is that there is far more correlation of crime rates across states than of incarceration rates vs. crime rates in any given state, and that incarceration rates approach being an uncorrelated variable. Someone must have crunched these numbers; I'm just wondering as a non-expert layman. It's not something I want to put a lot of time into, just something I'd like to see if someone has done it. - Jmabel | Talk00:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if you were making a joke, but the reason the "young adult" section was suggested is that books written for young adults are likely to be more concise and less detailed than those written for older adults, and, of course, the library section called "young adults" consists of books written for young adults, rather than books written about them.- Nunh-huh12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was actually a joke, but thinking about it now, I have never seen a 'young adults' section in a library. An 'adult' in the UK is defined as someone aged 18 or over. When does one stop being a young adult? In my local library, there are two main areas: one for adults (12 years and over) and one for children (under 12). All books for teenagers are mixed in with the books meant for adults. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)17:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is me being obtuse, but I still don't get whether you want more or less detail than our articles provide. Or do you need the works on paper? HenryFlower15:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles on these men are quite good. Does Solomon want more information than they provide? If so he'll not want a juvenile book. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
England and Wales Employment law written as from mate to mate
I have a bit of time on my hands and was thinking of doing a bit of reading on English Employement law.
I could read the actual laws, from the government websites, but that is a horrible read. I could read a University law school manual/textbook or some government text expalining "your rights", but it doesn't make for as nice a reading time as what I am hoping for.
Are you guys aware of any books or websites that explain law in a manner that is a lot more like if a friend was explaning it to me and how the industrial- (or are they called employment- ?) courts operate? An explanation that would be using straight English words, no non-sense, no latin concepts or rubbish like this. I don't mind if it is properly referenced, as long as it is in the margin and doesn't interfere with the reading. Jurisdiction is England and Wales employment law. --Lgriot (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping that there is more advanced information somewhere, I didn't find what I read on ACAS web-site very helpful, it is full of very obvious stuff, like "you can't discriminate" and "you should have a written contract". I was more interested in how borderline cases are handled by the courts, what the courts think about cases where "it is not clear that it was discrimination, and lack of promotion was due to lack of competence, not due to discrimination". How do court define competence to agree with an employer on tricky cases like this? Or an other example, what defines your compensation, if you had a "bonus" for 3 years, is your employer allowed not to give you one on the fourth year? What do the courts think of that? If anyone came accross this sort of advanced discussions, I'd be very interested. --Lgriot (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a website where it shows how many Arabs, Bangladeshis, Africans and other ethnic groups live in Buffalo and Jacksonville, individually and separately? Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
I think we went over this before, you can use www.census.gov to do this. Instructions were left on how to do that to find the exact information you want. Gimme a second and I'll search for that prior discussion and see if I can find it for you. And when I do, please make a note of it/write it down/bookmark it... --Jayron3215:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion here gives instructions on how to use the "factfinder" section of the census.gov website. If you play around with the various functions, you should be able to answer your exact questions. If you have specific questions on how to use that service, let us know, and I'll play around with it and see if I can figure out how to do what you need it to do. But try it out yourself first, it is quite a powerful tool, and it generally can answer any of these questions you often have about ethnicity and various U.S. locales. --Jayron3215:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slavery in ancient Greece
I read through the article Slavery in ancient Greece, but one thing left me puzzled. Were the slaves mostly male, or female, or equally of both genders? There is a section that says in famous epics, slaves were mostly female - men were either ransomed or killed on the spot. But from the sections about how slavery in ancient Greece really worked, I couldn't fathom out favouring either gender. All I could find out was that men were favoured for combat and dangerous work and women were favoured for domestic work. JIP | Talk19:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a specific source to point you to for this, but keep in mind that accounts from antiquity are frequently distorted by exaggeration. I took a class in college where we read accounts of Mesopotamian kings boasting about how they utterly destroyed the property and people of their enemies, when in reality much of both were probably assimilated instead. To some extent, this is true about modern warfare as well. You don't just destroy a building when you could use it for your own purposes. And in the ancient world, the distinction between physical property and people, taken as slaves, doesn't much matter. If anything, I would guess that the slaves tended to be more male. If one city-state defeated another at a point in between, there would be many (male) soldiers to be taken as slaves, whereas obtaining significant numbers of female slaves probably meant going to another city-state and conquering. Statistics are naturally hard to come by when it comes to such eras, but I hope some of these general observations are helpful. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So one city-state defeating another in combat would yield lots of male slaves, but one would have to go to conquer yet another city-state to get female slaves? What's the logic behind that? Why would one city-state yield male slaves and another female slaves? JIP | Talk18:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hajj outside Mecca?
I'm copy editing an article Madina Mosque (in India), which indicates it was constructed with soil from Mecca so poor Muslims could complete the hajj there. This doesn't really count as a full hajj, does it? Is this permitted only if a Muslim can't make the real pilgrimage to Mecca? --BDD (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not to Mecca, then it would be a ziyara, not a hajj. Some stricter Muslims are highly opposed to practices which would seem to elevate any other sites to a level of Islamic significance comparable to Mecca or Medina, but I have no idea what traditional views were in British India... AnonMoos (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
India: A Sacred Geography (written by a Westerner) says that it is common in India for holy sites to be linked to more famous holy sites and to receive sanctity by association - so, for example, there are many river sources called "Mouth of the Ganga" even though they are the source of another river. Sometimes this is done by bringing Ganga water there, sometimes the Ganga is just said to flow symbolically in that place. So bringing soil from Mecca to another place and thereby making that place holy by association fits very well into the Indian pilgrimage tradition. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taking communion at different churches?
I understand that an individual can't participate in communion of a different church, but what happens if that individual decides to actually become a member of that church in order to participate in communion? Can an individual choose a random neighborhood church, become a member of that church, become baptized at that church and partake in communion, and then jump to another neighborhood church, become baptized in that church, become a member of that church and partake in communion of that church? Would the church membership of the person only be whatever that person is last affiliated with? In other words, the previous church memberships don't count, because the most recent church membership disqualifies the individual from church membership of the previous churches? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, there. Your initial assumption (the first sentence) isn't right, at least not in all cases. See Eucharist#Open and closed communion for details. Some churches will allow only their members, some allow all Christians, and some allow anyone, at least in practice. The individual you refer to probably wouldn't have to go through such trouble. Just about every church I've ever been to has allowed everyone to participate in communion, in practice. Caveat: I've never been to a Catholic church, and don't recall the process at the Orthodox church I briefly attended. --BDD (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Most churches in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States, also practice their own form of open communion, provided those who receive are baptized and believe in the Real Presence." How strong does the belief have to be? How does an individual prove that he/she believe in it? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've never seen a church challenge the beliefs or credentials of someone taking communion. I suppose it's a bit of an honor system. I'm trying to imagine communion in a church that restricts the practice to Christians, or to its own members, where, say, someone in a Sikh turban tries to participate. The most appropriate response would probably be a member of the clergy discreetly pulling that individual aside and clarifying the church's practice. Since doing anything, really, risks offending the person, I can't imagine such practices would be very common. --BDD (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be correct to say that the Christian denominations are mutually exclusive? In other words, an individual may be a member of one or the other, but not both? A Christian may participate in communion in a different church, of which he is not a member, but is still not considered affiliated with that particular church unless he gives up his beliefs and interpretative traditions from his own church in exchange for beliefs and interpretative traditions at the new church? In other words, an individual cannot be Lutheran, Anglican, and Roman Catholic at the same time? If that is the case, then would it make sense that when Christians perform evangelism and missionary work, they are really trying to convert the non-Christian to their own denomination of Christianity, expecting that the unbaptized would become baptized in their church? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Your first assumption is incorrect for many churches. The Methodist Church does not require membership or baptism in order for someone to take communion. It would be perfectly acceptable, from a Methodist's perspective, for a Catholic to take communion at a Methodist church; however, most Catholics choose not to for their own reasons. When I, as a Methodist, go to a Catholic church, I am not allowed to take communion. In regards to a portion of the second part of your question, I am unaware of whether Baptists require you to be a member in order to take communion, but I can tell you that they require you to be baptised as a Baptist in order to become a member. Someone raised Methodist, who still follows its beliefs, would refuse to be baptised a second time as a Baptist (assuming they had been baptised as a child) because Methodists believe you can only be baptised once. RyanVesey23:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you are specifically asking about baptist churches, it appears that grape juice is used in the majority [10] some of the comments related to that article imply that they use individual cups. RyanVesey02:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? Christians are divided on what to use during the Eucharist? I suppose this may be why some people identify themselves as members of a particular denomination rather than "Christian". The term "Christian" to them is too vague or broad to be meaningful, especially if a given society is predominantly Christian. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, Catholic churches give a wafer and wine from a single cup, many Catholics participate in communion without taking the wine. Methodist churches tend to use leavened bread and they use grape juice (The Free Methodist Church goes as far as banning its adherents from ever drinking alcohol). In the majority of instances, I've seen the church use individual cups, but on some occassions the bread will be dipped into the grape juice so they are both taken together. Many churches, particularly nondenominational ones, will serve both grape juice and wine in their communion. RyanVesey03:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, while most Christians identify with a denomination, they usually identify themselves as Christian over their denomination. This is even true with many Catholics. Also, in regards to your question above about missionary work, it isn't really that simple. The majority of evangelism is performed with the ultimate goal of bringing new adherents to the "Christian Church". Evangelists tend to have their own beliefs and will witness with that slant, but will be happy with a conversion to any denomination of Christianity. Still, there are numerous conversion attempts, even within Christianity. Interdenominational marriages usually result in some type of arguments over which denomination the children should be raised in. Catholic Churches require a couple to agree to raise their children in the Catholic faith (not the general Christian faith) in order to be married in that church. RyanVesey03:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happens if an individual just falls in love with the worship service and Bible studies, becoming inspired by the spiritual wisdom and deciding to follow Jesus Christ? Does that still count as successful evangelism, even if there is no professional evangelist present? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only communion I ever took in a Baptist church was grape juice dispensed in individual cups, along with a wafer. Several years ago I attended a Requiem Mass at a Catholic Church, where the Eucharist was dispensed as the Host only (which I think is somewhat common). I've never been baptized, confirmed, or anything else in a Catholic Church, so I'm fairly certain my taking the communion was technically not allowed, though I didn't know for certain at the time. No one checked my credentials or asked for my papers. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)03:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, to clarify on that "not allowed", the Catholic Church (like the Orthodox Churches) takes Communion very seriously, and considers it to be the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ himself. They believe that receiving it "unworthily" is not only disrespectful to God, but also dangerous to your own soul. Catholics who receive Communion are not only supposed to have been prepared and educated about it before their first time (hence the deal with "first Holy Communion"), but are also supposed to make sure that they are not in a state of sin before receiving (through the use of acts of contrition and the Sacrament of Reconciliation), and to fast for at least an hour. It's not so much that you were "not allowed" (as you noticed, nobody stopped you), but that doing so is disrespectful to God and dangerous to yourself (both, of course, from a Catholic point of view). As neither a Catholic nor Orthodox Christian, there is simply no way (from a Catholic point of view) you could properly prepare yourself to receive, and you didn't even know you needed to. Of course, if you "accidentally" received (as it were) out of ignorance, that's no sin on your part from a Catholic perspective. But it's still a sad thing to happen. 86.164.59.34 (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is all my personal experience but I believe it exemplifies the situation well. I was baptised as an infant into the Church of England, but was never confirmed. Technically I shouldn't receive Holy Communion in a C of E church because of this, but I do. Nobody has ever checked. However, I was baptised as an adult in an Evangelical church. In the Pentecostal churches I've taken communion in, it has taken the form of a small glass of Ribena and a cube of white bread. I wouldn't dream of taking Mass in a Roman Catholic church. When I worked in a hospice, the Chaplaincy held communion services which I used to attend and Holy Communion was given to anyone who wanted it. The only people who used to decline were Roman Catholics or other members of sects, it seemed that most people who went to the weekly service went in for the full deal. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of repeating in part what others have said above:
Most churches regard one another's baptisms as valid, and regard it as unnecessary and ineffective to rebaptise people. The exceptions to this are that (i) Baptist churches tend to require 'believers' baptism', and will rebaptise someone who has only previously received infant baptism; other churches recognise the Baptists' baptisms as valid, even if they dispute the Baptists' characterisation of infant baptism as invalid; (ii) there are a small number of so-called 'Jesus only' churches who do not baptise in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Their baptisms are not regarded as valid by most other churches, who use the Trinitarian formula, along with the use of water, as the sine qua non of baptism.
Some churches have additional qualifications for admission to communion. In the Roman Catholic church, this is simply 'first Commuunion', which has no sacramental difference from other communion. In many Anglican churches, the sacrament of Confirmation used to be required, but some have now moved to match Roman Catholic practice.
Some churches are in defined states of open communion with one another. For example, the wider Catholic church composed of the Roman Catholic church, the Greek Catholic churches, the Maronite Catholic church and so on; the Anglican Communion; and the Porvoo Communion, which links the Church of England with about a dozen Protestant churches in the Baltic region, such as the Church of Sweden. These are not necessarily transitive - the Church of England's participation in the Anglican Communion and the Porvoo Communion does not automatically put the Anglican Church in Australia in communion with the Church of Sweden. These relationships go beyond the sacrament of Communion; they often entail mutual recognition of clergy and bishops, so that Swedish bishops co-consecrate Anglican ones, and a Welsh bishop was able to become head of the Church of England.
The existence of formal intercommunion does not inhibit individual churches or congregations from operating open altar policies, although church policy may - as, for example, in the case of the Catholic Mass. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a side remark, the Catholic church does technically respect the baptisms of other churches. But converts like my elderly Grandfather who had been baptized as a Lutheran as a baby are given provisional baptisms since there may not be access to the records or a way to guarantee the first baptism was actually properly done. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
March 27
Australian aboriginal poetry hoax
Hey everyone - I remember reading about this on Wikipedia, but now I can find no trace of it here or anywhere else online. The gist of it was that someone in Australia presented some poetry as being the newly-discovered work of a homeless aboriginal woman or something like that, while it was actually just quasi-gibberish he had thrown together. It was massively acclaimed, but then he either confessed or was found out and everyone was angry and embarrassed. The article went into some depth about how its acceptance was due to the Australian art establishment's longing to find a critically-beloved "native voice," and I even vaguely remember one of the lines from one of the poems being something along the lines of "The tax collector came today to make an assessment, but he missed my many friends and acquaintances." But everything I search is coming up blank and I'm starting to think I might just be crazy. And no, it isn't Ern Malley, Wanda Koolmatrie or Eddie Burrup. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This rings no bells with me at all, I'm afraid, Elmer. The closest thing I've found, and it's not a great fit, is Oodgeroo Noonuccal. I quote from our article:
This first book of poetry was extraordinarily successful, selling out in several editions, and setting Oodgeroo well on the way to be Australia’s highest-selling poet alongside C. J. Dennis.[7] Critics’ responses, however, were mixed, with some questioning whether Oodgeroo, as an Aboriginal person, could really have written it herself. Others were disturbed by the activism of the poems, and found that they were "propaganda" rather than what they considered to be real poetry.
Initially, critics responded harshly to her poetry, claiming it was amateurish or not verse at all. It did not conform to accepted forms of verse. Critics also did not like the Aboriginal voice that came through in the poetry, and claimed her verse to be inauthentic as Aboriginal poetry, because true Aboriginal poetry came from their oral traditions, that is, any European influence invalidates Aboriginality.
There are 163 of Oodgeroo's poems here, searchable by keyword. I found 2 hits for "tax", but nothing like what you said. You may have better luck searching yourself.
Can I dual-license modified versions of software under GPLv3 under GPL and a copyfree license?
Anyone modifying that modified version must still license it under the GPL, because that derivative work contains original code, which is licensed under GPL. It may be a break of the wording of the license, but not of the spirit of the license. Therefore if the copyright holder sues me for licensing it (my modifications) under both BSD and GPL rather than only under GPL, he/she is a copyright abuser. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't provide legal advice but without getting in to the legal aspect, the spirit of a GPL or copyleft license is usually that people taking advantage of the licence are expected to follow the licencing terms including the copyleft requirement. The GPL of course comes from FSF who's intentions with their licence (i.e. spirit) is well known and often made clear by them. If you try to re-licence the content without following the copyleft requirement or getting permission of all copyright holders, you are the one who is seemingly not following the spirit of the licence. Furthermore, the vast majority of people who support or use BSD licences are not going to want such improperly licenced content so there's also no point making such a licencing claim. Other then to waste the time of people who took you at your word who will have to throw out any of their work (whether proprietary or made freely available) derived from your content once they find out. And possibly annoy people who's copyrighted work (copyrighted to be copylefted) you are trying to mis-use. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it physically possible to swim the whole length of the Kaʻieʻie Waho Channel, separating Kauai and Oahu, alone without getting out of the water? There was a six people relay team that did this but no one has yet swam it on their own.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently an Australian named Penny Palfrey has tried it a couple of times, but failed because she ran into Portuguese man-o-war -- so presumably it is possible in theory. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. The thing is, "is it possible?" doesn't lend itself to a firm "no" answer in many cases (firm "yes" answers are pretty obvious). The swim in question has not been completed with reliable verification (probably someone somewhere has claimed to have completed it). It's beyond the scope of many people's abilities. But its length (72 miles) is comparable to the record for the longest solo unassisted ocean swim of 70 miles. Given that, I would conclude that it's certainly physically possible, and it's probably practically possible, but that no objective answer can exist unless and until someone does it. — Lomn16:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shas involvement in Rabin's death
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Due to the fact that Yigal Amir was a Mizrahi and religious Zionist, could it be possible that Shas party was involve in it because they were against Oslo Accords? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.146 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Who wrote this article and would they be willing to make contact?
Reason: My grandfather was a personal friend of Dewey’s and, I being the youngest in my family [born 1946] only met him twice. I would like more people to know about him and have information and a means to bring it about, but would appreciate a more educated opinion. I am making lame attempts to do so now, and this author has accomplished more than I in my lifetime, I can help him or he could help me if the interruption and inconvenience would not be too great. Most gracious thanks. I have a copy of The Indian interviews of Eli S. Ricker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmans2001 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article talk page is the best place for this sort of question. If you have material from a reliable source that you'd like to add to the article (and it sounds as though you do), feel free to add it yourself, with appropriate references. See WP:CITE on the procedure for adding references to the article. Tevildo (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles don't really have authors. Anybody can contribute to an article, and most have multiple authors, sometimes even hundreds of authors. In the case of this article, though, based on the article's history, most of it seems to have been written by 7mike5000, whom you can contact through his linked user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Studies of Manchu-language use at court, for example, almost all conclude that the loss of Manchu as the first language of the rulers and the conquest elite implies their absorption into Chinese culture.... Nineteenth-century Qing rulers seem to have been more comfortable using Chinese" Rawski, Evelyn Sakakida. The last emperors: A social history of Qing imperial institutions. Univ of California Press, 2001. p.4 "the veritable record of the Guang-xu Emperor, which was the last veritable record in the Qing Dynasty and only used Chinese)" Yoshida, Jun, and 吉田純. "On Intellect and Intelligence in Qing China: Languages, Education and Philology." (1990). p.52 198.151.130.153 (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Banks in occupied Europe
During the German occupation in World War 2, did the occupied countries (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.) keep their own banks? Or were they taken over by the German Reichsbank? I've tried to find this info in Alan Bullock's treatise on Hitler vs. Stalin, but there's no specific answer in it to this question. Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
National commercial banks were kept, but the Germans introduced a new policy to strengthen the "Germanic element." That actually meant that Polish without German heritage, for example, wouldn't get their savings from their Polish saving bank, in contrary to ethnic Germans living in Poland. In Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg, on the other hand, the policy was less extreme, since nationals of these countries only had to recognize their "Germanic" element and commit to the German cause to still be allowed to perform financial transactions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also check [| this book], p. 53, available in Google books, for the fate of the central banks, which had to cooperate with the German monetary policy. Any similarity with the present situation in Europe is mere coincidence. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
