Revision as of 12:26, 18 June 2014

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

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

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 13

US Navy or Marines General Orders for Sentries question

At General Orders for Sentries it says: "When you are a sentry, you are "in charge." This means that no one—no matter what their rank or position—may overrule your authority in carrying out your orders. The only way that you may be exempted from carrying out your orders is if your orders are changed by your superior. For example, if your orders are to allow no one to enter a fenced-in compound, you must prevent everyone from entering, even if an admiral tells you it is all right for him or her to enter. The petty officer of the watch (or whoever is your immediate superior) may modify your orders to allow the admiral to enter, but without that authorization you must keep the admiral out."

Say that example order was given. Say the county police enter the compound, grab you, tell you that you are under arrest and begin reading you your rights. By the order, are you supposed to resist arrest and try to repel them from the compound? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, the sentry would only have to explain to the county police that the area is under the control of the Navy (or Marines) and they would recognize their error and beat a hasty retreat. In legal matters, there are many examples where the jurisdiction of one authority is limited geographically. All authorities must train their staff and serving officers to understand the limits of the authority. (The county police must train its police officers to understand the relevance of property under the control of the federal government and the defense forces.) If the county police officers dismiss the sentry's explanation that the area is not an area over which the county police has jurisdiction, and continue their efforts to arrest the sentry, it is most likely they are merely masquerading as county police officers. If the sentry gave this explanation and then fired at the county police in an attempt to prevent them entering, and he was subsequently asked to explain his actions, he could use this rationale as his defence. Dolphin (t) 06:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Say that the sentry knows that they are county police. Consider both cases, when the county police do not have jurisdiction (e.g., the police were given incorrect information) and when they do (e.g., the sentry's CO was given incorrect information). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, what needs clarification there is what happens if the sentry is out of immediate communication. Obviously, a sentry tends to be more useful when there is someone to notify when there is a threat! And obviously they should have effective radio communications. But if a truck bomb takes out the command post he's supposed to report to, and somehow the radio network is disrupted, is he supposed to try to watch/defend his particular building against people masquerading as police, or to reestablish contact with some authority first? (I don't know, but I would suspect that's not spelled out in the General Orders because military, even sentries, really aren't the mindless automatons we like to give them credit as, and have to make tough calls...) Wnt (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Another part of the quoted general order #1 seems on point:

...It is also your responsibility to know the limits of your post. This information will be conveyed to you among your special orders. ...

As well as, particularly, general order #6:

To call the Corporal of the Guard or Officer of the Deck in any case not covered by instructions. The rule here is "When in doubt, ask." If you are not sure what you are supposed to do in a particular situation, it is better to ask for clarification than to make an assumption or to guess.

Note that on U.S. military facilities, police duties are generally handled by military police agencies which are part of the armed forces—not, generally, by civilian police services. Depending on the size or type of facility, different agreements (standing or ad hoc) may be made between military and civilian police forces to allow civilian forces to operate on base; generally if civilian police want to question or arrest a sentry, they make a request to the military and the military police produce the individual. See this forum discussion. In other words, if a civilian police officer just walked on to a base and tried to make an arrest without coordinating with the base commander or miliary police, it would suggest that someone had dropped a ball somewhere, as far as jurisdictional issues went, and the matter would have to be kicked up the chain of command. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the information, everyone. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

1883 Kalakaua Proclamation

I know from secondary sources and obituaries of the three princes that King Kalakaua created his nephews David Kawānanakoa, Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole, and Edward Abnel Keliʻiahonui princes in 1883. I am guessing this is also the time when he created his wife's sister princesses Victoria Kinoiki Kekaulike and Poomaikelani too. But I can't find contemporary records mentioning the 1883 proclamation, can someone help me find a reference to such a proclamation dating from that time?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Frances Reed, of the Hawaii County Library Here, such records do not exist. She explains why. --Askedonty (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it might have been a verbal proclamation but then it would still have to be ratified by the legislature where the records might exist or even an eyewitness account of the coronation. Liliuokalani's observation in 1883 was written a decade afterward, she refers to only Prince Kawananakoa and sister of Kapiolani by their title during the ceremony. Even this 1883 account call Kawananakoa a prince; I don't know if this is written in acknowledgement of a change of title during the ceremony or not though. It mentions no proclamation.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That's right and even, Frances Reed may be too approximate. Article 22 of the 1887 constitution mentions "heirs in direct line", and otherwise, only if there are none. Regarding Kapiolani's nephews, there is clear mention of "royal decrees" in the diplomatic litterature, reports dated from the 1890's. --Askedonty (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can another version of the source by Frances Reed with pages? I want to use it for an article. But I want to cite it with Harvard referencing.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway to find page numbers for Reed, Frances (1962). Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole, 1871-1922. Hilo: Hawaii County Library?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

inventor

Who was the first woman to be credited as an inventor ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carllica4 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Tabitha Babbitt is the earliest on this partial list, for her circular saw. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:56, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Sybilla Masters was almost ahead by a century. Technically not the inventor. As the article above noted, early women couldn't patent stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:59, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Hypatia is older than the previous suggestions by ~1500 years. Of course, we don't have much of her writings left, but she is still credited with inventing a Hydrometer. Also, there is somewhat of a philosophical debate as to whether new mathematics is "invented" or "discovered". If you think it makes sense to invent mathematical techniques, then she did that too. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Who got married

Who is the lovely lady in white currently pictured at the top of this ref desk page? (and why do we include a picture of her)? Blueboar (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That lovely lady is actually Beautiful Woman. No clue why. Beats Ugly Woman, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:50, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Well, she's gone now... so the question is moot. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I still see her. Not just here. Every desk. I hope she's not the White Lady. You can see her too, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:33, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

I'm no ghost hunter, but my Scooby sense is telling me she probably died in April. Or her real identity is April Flowers. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Now she's gone for me, too. I don't see any Edit History change. Maybe she just needed us to solve the mystery before she could rest. Weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

• For people who are asking "WTF", like me, this vandalism is what they are referring to. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks. Now to find out who User:Carllica4 really is. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:59, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Carlicca4 is the ref desk troll. It's under discussion on the talk page. Don't hold your breath waiting for checkusers to do anything about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

But this is Carllica4, not Carlicca4. Seems suspiciously socky, but so do people named Mohammed Muhammet after Muhamed Muhammad gives all Mohammads a bad name.InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes, it's Carllica4 (talk · contribs) who's the troll and has had that particular sock indef'd. There is no Carlicca4 (talk · contribs). So sue me over a typo. :( ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not suit intended. Thought it might have been an alias, not a typo. "The ref desk troll" sounded like someone you were familiar with, not a new account. Anyway, it seems April may have been a banshee after all. So long, Shaggy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Checkusers cannot. He's using open proxies, which means that there's no way for him to be stopped. It's not, as your subtext implies, that they're lack of action is to deliberately spite you. There's nothing to be done except whac-a-mole. --Jayron32 00:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Reading the Open proxy article, does this mean that every one of those IP's is an open proxy server? Does it mean they have to be blocked when they appear? Or is there just one server, that the troll is somehow using to jump to other IP addresses? (If the answer would be too much info for discussion openly here, just say "TMI".) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, considering how many beans you've spilled already (i.e. telling the troll on WT:RD how we identify him easily), I see no harm in discussing this. I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but basically an open proxy is a kind of Anonymizer that makes it impossible to trace a person's actual IP address. The idea behind an open proxy is that any person can funnel their internet traffic through one, making it "appear" as though the IP address of the proxy is the person's own IP address. Because of their ability to be abused, open proxies are blocked on sight. However, they have to be identified as such first, and that requires someone to actually look into an IP address that is suspected of being an open proxy. The only way that one comes to the attention of checkusers/admins/the good people at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on open proxies is if they actually start editing, so we can't stop determined people from using open proxies until they actually use them, and when we block that one, they just find a new one. --Jayron32 03:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I am fully confident that the troll knows we're aware of his techniques. Unfortunately, some users insist on treating that trolling as good-faith, and I think they need to be made aware of it so they can recognize the signs, and I don't feel like handing out my e-mail address to everybody and his mother. It crosses my mind that a troll like this could be a lot more dangerous than just abusing the internet for this "relatively harmless" trolling. It's all very unsettling. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

June 14

Kalakaua and Grant

Frank Leslie's Weekly Newspaper first published this illustration of the meeting of President Ulysses Grant with the King Kalakaua and the Hawaiian delegation. What was the original title/captions under the illustration and who was the artist, Frank Leslie?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the caption is an easy one. You would have seen it if you had followed the "Source" link from the file page (p. 40): "KING KALAKUA AND SUITE PAYING A FORMAL VISIT TO THE PRESIDENT IN THE BLUE ROOM OF THE WHITE HOUSE". And that source says that the image is from Frank Leslie's Illustrated Almanac, not the Weekly Newspaper. It doesn't, however, explicitly say that Leslie personally executed either the original drawing or the engraving. Deor (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Height of Hawaiian Monarchs

Can anybody help me find reliable sources describing the heights of Kamehameha V, Kamehameha III, Lunalilo and Liliuokalani (probably the shortest)? I've found descriptions of the other monarchs who were more than six feet tall. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Source conflict: Number of Japanese in Dublin, Ohio

In: Japanese community of Columbus, Ohio I notice one source stated that the census counted 1,071 Japanese in Dublin in 2010 while another stated there were 2,002 Japanese in Dublin in 2014

Zachariah, Holly. "Marysville seeks to deepen links to Japan" (Archive). The Columbus Dispatch. Monday December 9, 2013. "According to the most-recent U.S. Census figures, the Japanese population in Dublin is 1,071 (2.6 percent) while Union County is home to 122, or 0.2 percent. It has been that way historically."

Eaton, Dan. "Japanese companies added 2,700 Ohio jobs in 2013, survey finds." Columbus Business First. March 10, 2014. "Central Ohio does lead in the number of Japanese nationals living in the state. Dublin, with 2,002, and Columbus’ 705 are home to the state’s two largest populations of Japanese nationals."

Is it likely the Japanese population doubled so quickly or is it a mistake by Eaton? What would the US Census say about this? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I too find it unlikely that the Japanese population of Dublin, Ohio doubled in just four years... but unfortunately, the Census will not help us to prove or disprove Eaton's statement. The Census only takes place every 10 years (the last one was taken in 2010, and the next one is not scheduled to be taken until 2020)... What this means is that Census will not be able to tell us anything about what might (or might not) have occurred since the last Census was taken (the 2010 Census). To confirm how many Japanese currently live in Dublin, we would have to look for other sources (or wait until the 2020 Census). Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect from the fact that 2002 and 705 add up to about 2700 that Eaton confused new jobs with Japanese residents. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the info! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure myself. If you read the article, the number of jobs is 2719, not 2700. I guess 2700 is a rounded figure. The 2002 etc figure appear to be presented as a counterpoint to the total (not new) numbers Japanese business related jobs. And the 2002 figure appears in the Japanese consulate-general page . The fact that the source is also quoting the Japanese consulate-general makes me think the figure came from there.

As to the discrepancy, I'm guessing the CG is either relying on surveys (they apparently surveyed Japanese businesses, perhaps they also did some sort of resident survey and/or are partially relying on the what the businesses said) or Japanese people register with the Japanese embassy or the consulate-general as living in Dublin. (The CG will probably tell you where they got the figure if you asked.)

Beyond population changes, there are many other possibilities for the differences between the two figures including differing definitions of Japanese or Dublin. For starters, I'm guessing any survey or registration would rely much more on the public definition of Dublin and personal views, rather than the precise census definition.

Also does the census go by citizenship, place of birth or what? If it's citizenship, does the figure include both if there is dual citizenship? Note that while Japan apparently heavily restricts multiple citizenship; as with a number of countries that do so, they do allow it for those young enough. Combined with the provisions for gaining citizenship for both countries, it's likely many children born in the US to parents where at least one is Japanese will technically be dual citizens of Japan and the US. (And if their parents wanted to give them the option, they likely would have registered their birth with the Japanese embassy or consulate-general.)

In addition, I'm not sure whether there is any legal requirement to answer the questions relating to nationality etc for the census in the US. Particularly if there isn't, it may be Japanese people are likely to refuse to answer those questions. (WW2 wasn't that long ago....) Even if there is some requirement, what about in cases like dual citizenship (presuming it's citizenship not place of birth).

Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking into the situation some more... I note that in 2013 Honda closed a plant in California and relocated it to Ohio (near Dublin). This would logically mean an increase in the number of Japanese in the area (ie Japanese employees who used to work in the old plant in California being transferred to the new plant in Ohio). Whether it adds up to the numbers that Eaton reports on is another question. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, as a native of the area, I know lots of people who work for Honda of America, and just almost all of them either were living in west-central Ohio before Honda came, or they were born after Honda came to parents who were living in the area. It's lucrative employment and easy (not particularly hard to get a job there, directly from high school, and they've never laid off a full-time employee), so they don't bring in many Japanese people (and other than that, locals get the jobs; corporate doesn't need to recruit people to come), and they're generally the upper-level types, people whom the management want specifically, i.e. "We need someone for job ____; let's bring to fill the position" or "Let's promote ___ to plant manager and have him manage HTM Russells Point." Nyttend (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting! I know there is a Japanese weekend school in west Ohio but it's probably very small. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The figures come from the "2013 Japanese Direct Investment Survey" by the Consulate-General of Japan in Detroit, Dublin had 2,002 Japanese nationals and Columbus had 705 Japanese nationals, "2013 Japanese Direct Investment Survey: Summary of Ohio Results (as of October 1, 2013)" (Archive). Consulate-General of Japan in Detroit. March 5, 2014. -- so the source conflict has been resolved. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Rape during wartime

It's well known that during wartime soldiers rape women of the enemy side, and some people assert that rape can even be a tool of war, something not only tolerated by officers but (informally?) ordered by the authorities, as with the Rape of Nanking. In American history, specifically in WWII, Vietnam, and the three Middle East wars, how widespread was rape by American soldiers? --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ideologies of Forgetting: Rape in the Vietnam War makes the point that it was routine in Vietnam, and this article by the NYT cites a 2003 DoD report according to which nearly a third of US women veterans experienced rape or attempted rape by their comrades. This does not directly tell us about rape of civilians, but suggests an ongoing problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It's hard enough for a modern civilised society to know how widespread rape is, due to systemic under-reporting, cover-ups, and some false reporting. There is no way that anything like accurate statistics will exist for places and times of war. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Rape of Nanking is so-called because officers of the Imperial Japanese Army encouraged their troops to vent their anger and frustration at the stubborn defense the city offered. While many actual rapes almost certainly took place, the term is a reference to a conquored city being put to the sword (quite litterally, in many cases) without either justification or military advantage.DOR (HK) (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The Rape of Belgium did not actually mean that the Belgians were all raped. It referred to war crimes in WW1 by German forces, including widespread murder and destruction of homes and public buildings. Some rapes doubtless occurred as well. This is similar to the "Rape of Nanking" by the WW2 Japanese forces. Edison (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reasoning systems (except from Logic)

I understand the Logic is one of many, maybe even an unending number of possible reasoning-systems. it's one possible reasoning-system manifest that Humans have Mentally-constructed; it has it's own axioms, letters, syntaxes, and rules, and it happens to be the most common, and organized way of reasoning, even within the borders of the Scientific community.

My question is: Where there any efforts to create alternative reasoning-systems, based on other axioms (or somewhat modified logical axioms for that matter)? thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many different logics, which have different axioms and reasoning schemas, different scopes, and even for the same scope, different theorems (true statements). See e.g. Non-classical logic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Logic is a very good thing, but one of the common criticisms of pure logic as a reasoning system is the GIGO problem. Simply put, logic is supposed to work to derive sound conclusions from initial axioms. The problem is that the axioms need to be sound for the conclusions to be sound. If you start from faulty initial information, no amount of sound logic is going to get you to a sound conclusion. Some interesting writing on other "reasoning systems" (if you will) can be found in some of the writings of Malcolm Gladwell, who, while not himself a social scientist, does a really good job of distilling the work of social scientists into some interesting ways of thinking about the way we think. Two of his books you may find interesting are Blink (subtitled: The Power of Thinking without Thinking), which looks at the amazing strength of human intuition to arrive at sound conclusions (intuition being an inherently non-logical process, in the sense that it doesn't rely on formal protocols and processes). In that book, Gladwell borrows on the works of several social psychologists who coined the terminology "Thin-slicing", which may lead you to some interesting places as well. Another of Gladwell's books that may lead you places is What the Dog Saw, which is a little less focused than Blink, but touches in places on some of the same themes. --Jayron32 04:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

June 15

Prince of Denmark

How long can the title Prince of Denmark be passed down? Usually most monarchies restrict the title of Prince/Princess to the children and male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Is this title inherited through the male line as long as the person marries with the permission of the monarch. The Greek Royal Family has held the title Prince of Denmark since the 1800s as male line descendants of Christian IX. The other male line of the Danish Royal Family have all been demoted to Counts Rosenborg since they married unequally before the acceptance of unequal marriage. Or is it up to the reigning monarch to decide? What is the rule on the title at this point? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about Danish, but in German there's a systematic difference between a ruler of a principality (Fürst) and a junior non-reigning member of a royal family (Prinz). Possibly this could clarify matters... AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it helps, but thanks for trying. —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The two generations rule was adopted for Britain by royal decree circa 1917; before then I believe the title of Prince was transmitted indefinitely in the legitimate male line – though (at the time) no royal British male line in centuries had persisted more than two or three generations. —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The Hanoverians did. Why did Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (1914–1987) have to be granted his British title in 1914 by George V if the two generation rule hasn't started yet and the Germans weren't deprive of their titles until 1918; he was a great-great-great grandson of George III. By the ambiguity of the rules of the title, George V didn't have to do anything. Ernest Augustus' father was born Prince Ernest of Cumberland and was a great-great grandson of George III. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's avoid getting side tracked... what other nations do has no bearing on what happens in Denmark... the OP wants to know about the Danes. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The OP asked about Denmark, but invoked a two-generation rule in "usually most monarchies". The BRF is the only specific case where I happen to know of such a rule, so I was reminded by a wisecrack of Shaw in Caesar and Cleopatra. —Tamfang (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It is passed down indefinitely. When a Danish prince has permission to settle abroad (as William and Charles of Denmark did when they became kings of Greece and of Norway, respectively) he and his issue no longer need to seek permission to marry to pass on the title. Only in Denmark do Danish princes have to abide by the marital laws or seek permission from the sovereign to marry. This was in the royal law (I forget the exact year...) that has never been rescinded, predating the reign of Christian IX. Seven Letters 21:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sophia Dorothea of Celle

What Sophia Dorothea of Celle do in her 33 years of imprisonment? Did she spent every waking moment of it in (or around) Ahlden House?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading - though I do not remember where - that every day she was able, Sophia Dorothea went for a long walk with an appointed escort, through the area round about the house where she was imprisoned. I don't think she ever tried to escape, nor was she ever allowed to go further afield for official reasons - so to the best of my knowledge, the answer to your second question is 'yes'; I'd be interested to learn otherwise. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking for funny law tutorial situations

Hi all, I once saw a classic law tutorial question, that consisted of a ludicrous tale about a nurse who was obsessed with Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman and various actors from her favourite soaps. It involved various petty things like vengeance, negligence and so forth involving the nurse and the various actors. Then it was followed by a simple question asking the various legal implications of the whole thing. Does anyone know where I can get more of the same? I'm interested in setting up fun discussion topics for ESL classes, so I don't really need the legal question at the end, but it would really be a bonus. It would be even better still if it had some online forum-style discussion of the law associated with these fictitious cases. The law tute was at Murdoch University, but I couldn't find anything on their website - it was just in a course reader. Thanks, IBE (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If English law is a suitable vehicle, I would recommend the works of A P Herbert (he of the negotiable cow) - does anyone know of an equivalent American author? Tevildo (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like it would be counterproductive - ESL students aren't likely to need to know the kind of wordplay and legal obscurantism that drives the humour in Herbert's stories. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but you can often adapt things, if you are willing to take a bit of time. The students also won't know most of the words or the grammar, and a lot of ESL teachers here would baulk at things we read. The point is that even if I have to discard the entire exercise, I have had the chance to read something interesting along the way. I should add that I do prefer fictitious, fun tutorial questions, if it's possible. IBE (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You might like User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#Clear remedies, arbitration decisions, and AE, and the external link at the end of that section.-gadfium 04:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There's more about the law against animals in parks at , but the treatment is more mathematical than legal.-gadfium 23:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really good - wasn't sure I'd get anything much with this question. Still on the lookout for wacky law tutes, but this is a great start. IBE (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Opposition leaders of Rhodesia

I've copied this from WP:AN, where it was originally posted. Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I already posted this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Zimbabwe, but maybe it would be helpful to post it here too:

For some time now, I want to create an article about leaders of the opposition of Rhodesia, from introduction of the responsible government in 1923 until the demise of Rhodesia in 1979. Also, that article could contain opposition leaders of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and Zimbabwe, since 1980 (in the same fashion as List of Speakers of the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe contain parliamentary speakers of all three entities). As you know, all the countries which adopted Westminster-style system at some point in their history have lists of leaders of official opposition (UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc), so I want to make a list like that for Rhodesia/Zimbabwe-Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any source online which contain list of Rhodesian opposition leaders. So, I'm asking all of you for help. If anyone knows where to find sources about this, please let me know. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cliftonian: might be aware of some references given his expertise on Rhodesian political history Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick, I asked him already, some months ago. Unfortunately, he was unable to find references so far... --Sundostund (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sundostund, for the more recent ones, you can apparently read the Zimbabwe parliament’s Hansard online from 1994: and . I haven’t found a Rhodesian Hansard online yet. Beyond that, several of people you need are in the Dictionary of African Biography some of which can be viewed online.

Here is a source for Josiah Gondo in 1966

and here are some other sources for some of the later, Zimbabwe part of the equation:

• Ian Smith in 1980 (see footnote on p 4)
• Gibson Sibanda in 2000
• Morgan Tsvangirai in 2002 , in 2005

I didn’t find anything that listed them all though, so this is only a very small start. 142.150.38.155 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

142.150.38.155, thank you for your effort. I really appreciate what you found so far... As you said, this is a small start, so any creation of an article about Rhodesian opposition leaders will need to wait until a comprehensive source is found (especially for the 1923-1979 period). --Sundostund (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

June 16

Industrial Edens

I'm confused by the title of this book, The Company Town: The Industrial Edens and Satanic Mills That Shaped the American Economy. I understand the "Satanic Mills" part, but what about the "Industrial Edens"? It looks like a quote from somewhere, but I couldn't find anything that looked like a likely source, and it seemed unlikely that the author was simply making an allusion to the garden of Eden in this context. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not ? Some employers actually tried to make a good life for their employees in a company town. Henry Ford was one example of this, although we might find the way he forced his version of morality on others to be a bit distasteful today. Perhaps "Garden of Eden" is a bit of an exaggeration, but then so is "Satanic". StuRat (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Catchier title than "Industrial Homes and Factories". It's a good-old-days kind of thing. As Dogbert once said, the old model was the Christian model (hence Eden being a good metaphor) in which you devote your lifelong loyalty to a firm, and you retire with a nice pension. The new model is the Hindu model, in which your job gets killed off and you reincarnate elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The term was in use at least as early as 1850 - here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an idea that dates back to New Lanark and was developed in managed new towns such as Port Sunlight and utopian fiction such as News from Nowhere. Paul B (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: - The concept "industrial eden" describes or that combination of words or both? --— Rhododendrites |  15:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked without much luck, frankly, but did find that there is a year-long celebration of a now gone 19th century mill village in Stoneham, Massachusetts with the name "Industrial Eden." Not saying this is where it came from, but possibly of interest to someone in the area to get to know one example. --— Rhododendrites |  15:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It depends what you are looking for. If you are looking for the earliest use of the phrase "industrial Eden", then I suspect you won't find a "canonical" source, in poetry or other literature, comparable to Blake's Milton. I don't think it's a quotation. It's just a phrase meaning "an ideal society created though industry", which might mean the tradition of creating ideal working towns of the kind I was referring to, or the broader ideological view that modern industry will lead us to a perfect, or at least better world. e.g.: "Mayakovski believed that Bolshevism, with its indomitable will and energy, was the force that could mechanize rural, sprawling Russia into an industrial Eden, and in poem after poem--the "Story of Kusnetskstroi and the People of Kusnetsk" (1929), the "March of the Shock-Worker Brigades" (1930), the "March of the Twentyfive Thousand" (1930), and many others--Mayakovski extols the efforts toward industrialization." (Vyacheslav Zavalishin, Early Soviet Writers, 1958) or "To focus solely on the political ramifications of Clay’s American System, however, would also be to overlook the realization of Clay’s (and ultimately McKinley’s) dream of an Industrial Eden. It was a system where tariffs were focused to help new industries, and the revenues were used to build roads and canals." (Quentin Jr. Skrabec, William McKinley, Apostle of Protectionism 2008). It's just a phrase that's been used by several authors. Paul B (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I was basically looking for any famous source using the phrase "Industrial Edens". I'd run a Google search and found nothing substantial, and being rather sleepy at the time, I failed to consider that "Industrial Eden" might also be a useful search. It helps to see that the phrase has been used repeatedly; thank you to everyone. Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

One other element to consider is the very very large difference between a New Eden and a New Jerusalem. In 19th century Socialist mythology, heavily influenced as it was by European and European colonial christianity, Eden was viewed as a place without the possibility of sin. One 19th century dream of socialism was to remake man as incapable of wronging his brother through the development of a full society. (Yes I am aware of the gendering.) Contrast with New Jerusalem which would conceive of the worthiness of the nation in terms of their sins to build and maintain a Jerusalem. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain why I should consider this? I was only trying to find a source that used the phrase, not a postmodern critique of the period. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How did Europeans manage to convert many people to Christianity in pre-modern times?

How did they do it? How long did it take? I mean, I once attended a club/lecture series on Scandinavian manuscripts, and Christianity was mentioned only in the context of legal documents, secular documents, and a bit of background of Christian history in the Scandinavian countries was mentioned. The instructor said that in one generation, everyone was Christian. Is this true that every one in those countries became Christian (converted from some sort of paganism) in just one generation? What about people from other continents? This question may be also written as: "How did Christianity spread across Europe and beyond?" 140.254.226.243 (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

For Scandinavia specifically, see our article Christianization of Scandinavia which says; "Although the Scandinavians became nominally Christian, it took considerably longer for actual Christian beliefs to establish themselves among the people... Archaeological excavations of burial sites on the island of Lovön near modern-day Stockholm have shown that the actual Christianization of the people was very slow and took at least 150–200 years". Alansplodge (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that the article cited above as well as our article on Christianization in general both come with warnings that they have multiple issues and need additional verification.--Dreamahighway (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, however some work has been done to remedy this and the piece that I quoted is referenced to a 2004 book on the subject (in Swedish). Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

For augments sake, lets leave out the religious bit for the moment. The 'church' back then meant a group of learned people. They brought an new agricultural calendar and a way of doing things that was better than the practices that were hither to practised. It was a no-brainer to adopt these better ways. Today, this role has been taken over by scientists and technologists. For example: In one generation we have embraced the World Wide Web etc,. Therefore, the ancients did not have to actively 'convert'. Rather, all they had to do was show a better way. People rapidly adopt any behavior that they find beneficial. Don't let the word 'belief' (which means accepting something with out proof) lead you astray. These new ideas brought tangible benefits. --Aspro (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)To the best of my knowledge, it was a mix of religious pragmatism (if praying to Odin doesn't work, why not try that Jesus guy?), and the pagan religious authorities converting. The religious authorities were regarded as the descendants of the Aesir, and so lesser gods in their own right. Their conversion to Christianity would have been followed by a lot of their subjects converting. It's like if the Dalai Lama converted to Islam or the second comin of Christ announced that He'd gotten into Wicca. Ok, the latter case would probably get Him shot by a fundamentalist claiming He was really the Antichrist, but you get the point. Such conversions presented similar theological problems as the head leader and object of worship in the Roman Imperial cult converting to Christianity or even persecuting anyone who might try to worship him. There's a separation of Church and State now, but then? King converts, everyone else is likely to follow.

And, not to brag about my religion (since something like this claim applies to similarly popular world religions), nor to perpetuate the old myth that religious thinking is a progression from animism to polytheism to monotheism (and then assumably to deism or atheism), but Christianity (and Islam and Buddhism) lucked into tapping into a general change in thinking in the areas where it thrived. That Rome lumped most of the gods into Sol Invictus might indicate that a shared centralization and concentration of divinity (whether it's monotheism, henotheism, or the "totally not pantheism" of Mahayana Buddhism) have a positive relationship with larger but more unified culture groups (feeding into and off of that unity). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Being a bit picky, but separation of church and state is a bit of an American thing; the Church of Denmark, the Church of Norway, the Church of Iceland and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland are all state churches. The Church of Sweden was disestablished in 2000, according to our article. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think in late Roman and early post-Roman times Christianity benefited from its association with the Roman Empire, which was seen by a lot of so-called "barbarians" as a civilisation to admire and emulate, and also with literacy, a valuable new technology that peoples who lacked it were keen to acquire. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Although in the case of the Scandinavians, contact with the Christians that they had conquered seems to have been the main force behind it. See Harald Bluetooth, Rollo, Guthrum and of course Saint Olaf, all of whom turned to Christianity while in occupied territory; cynics might say for political purposes. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Alansplodge. Your first post is a very fair point so I think it deserves answering. Back then, the main beneficiaries were those ruling families that already held power. The ordinary person had to give lip-service to his Lord (adopt the religion of your prince as it sometime said). Those things that brought tangible benefits were easily and quickly adopted but the religious bits that required belief may have well taken generations to adopt. Even today Christmas is not really a Christian festival. Rather it was adopted by the 'Church' because it was a northern European practice that fixed the start of the year instead of the Luna calender which did not. And it it suited the climate. Thus, it contains much pagan symbolism. So the US, what with its Thanks Giving and Christmas etc is still not fully converted in some senses. Much of the US lays too far north for the original agricultural calendar to be applicable and useful.--Aspro (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the paganism or otherwise of Christian festivals is hotly debated. It might be more relevant to look at Beowulf, and epic poem set in Scandinavia but written in Old English, which contains an intriguing mix of Christian and pagan references, reflecting a society in flux between the two. Alansplodge (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes groups of people converted because the Romans had already done so, and if the Romans did it, that was good enough for them. (Although they may have then latched on to something that was ultimately declared heretical, like Arianism.) And sometimes, it was because they would otherwise be put to the sword, the whole lot of them. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should forget that there were some cruel pagan practices in some places, human sacrifice and such; if people were enduring hard rituals in the name of traditional gods and suddenly the Christians come in and thumb their noses at all the gods, they might feel it was a liberation. The intensity of feeling that it evokes to see some of the ancient artifacts -- a greenstone coffer with the skull of an infant sacrificed to Tlaloc, still with the obsidian knives in its eyes, the printing press that ended cannibalism in Fiji -- it is enough to shake the faith of even someone identifying as staunchly anti-Christian. Wnt (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• "How did Christianity spread across Europe and beyond"? Answer: the threat of death. Christianity of the very early era used the threat and the actual execution of a death penalty for those that refused to convert. Many early pagans and Jews were simply murdered to show that Christianity was the dominant faith. This is also how the early church kept control. There are many other ways that the faith was spread, but the "lip service" section below is generally what happens when you tell a people they must convert. They will say they have and continue to believe what they believe. But they also used many different forms of tactics such as pretending to have the bones of Christ or a saint to attract new followers as well as financial gain. But , of course another way Christianity spread was just word of mouth. To those who have little, the promise of heavenly treasure and everlasting forgiveness for sins that all men commit can be very enticing.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • To my mind, the most general answer of how the Roman Catholic Church achieved so many conversions across various continents squares with your answer. Namely, superior weaponry. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

When you say "the very early era", when do you mean? Because in Christianity's earliest times, it was definitely the Christians, by and large, who were being put to death. The ability to execute people for not agreeing with you reflects a degree of political power than Christianity did not originally possess. Clarification would be helpful here. (Also, stop and think why no Christian would claim to have 'the bones of Christ'.) AlexTiefling (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Paying lip service before converting?

This question is related to the previous question regarding conversion. I am just wondering if it's possible, in modern-day America, to pay lip service to a church for its social benefits and then allow your children to be baptized in the church and send them to Sunday schools, so they may be believing Christians, even though you may not be. I mean, an immigrant who may come from a foreign country that is not predominately Christian may be sort of socially isolated. Would churches accept you, even if you don't personally believe but promise to raise your children Christian? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly possible. Here in the UK, the prevalence and reputed good quality of church schools (mostly Anglican, some Catholic) leads some parents to go through the motions of attendance in order to get first preference when trying to secure their children a place at such a school. Anecdotally, exposure to a form of Christianity promoted by non-specialists and aimed at primary-school children seems to be quite good at preventing the children from becoming actively Christian, but the pattern you describe is certainly possible in theory. This behaviour tends to be practised mainly by long-term resident families, though, rather than immigrants - many immigrants to the UK are much more devoutly Christian than the resident population. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It may be different in America, because America has separation of church and state since its independence. So, attending church is, for the most part, a recreational and voluntary activity. Churches are ubiquitous and provide an unique social role, such as volunteering opportunities, community service, and a peer-group social network that may help each other through life's troubles. Of course, all of these things are centered around the Christian god, but the main purpose for these things is to help people grow spiritually, socially, emotionally, and physically. In places where non-religious or non-Christian places are sparse or just very far away, churches may provide a social life and personal identity. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Is this a common problem in Dublin Ohio? While many Catholic schools do offer scholarships, are you wondering if you could educate your own kids without a means test by a big show of genuflecting, and taking communion twice? A more specific example of your intensions might help. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

June 17

Why do Guyana, Suriname & French Guiana have smaller populations?

The South American Spanish-speaking countries have huge population in the millions. But the three Guianas have less than one million people in each of their countries. Why do Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana which are about the size of some U.S. states, have very small populations? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The land and climate in those three countries are quite inhospitable. It's no coincidence that the French established their infamous Devil's Island penal facility in French Guiana. Neighboring areas in Brazil and Venezuela have very low population density as well. --Xuxl (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Tropical rainforests predominate Suriname, Guyana, and French Guiana. It goes without saying that this sets significant limitations on human settlement. The vast majority of people in each of those countries live along the coastline. There's also some historical consideration to take into account. The regions that share a border with northern Brazil were basically seen as no man's land in the late 1700s and early 1800s because the French and Dutch empires did not want to stir up a hornet's nest by encroaching too close to Portuguese territory. Kurtis 01:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Edward Teller, giving bomb secrets to Israel, security clearance, prosecution?

Hello, the wikipedia article says Teller gave advice on nuclear weapons to Israel. Was, and should, this have been considered espionage? Was there, and should there have been(in the legal sense of espionage), an effort to take away Teller's security clearance and or prosecute him? Thanks.--Rich Peterson76.218.104.210 (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"Should" questions are beyond the purview of this board. I can't speak to the "was". Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

In "should", I meant given the laws of of the United States at that time, would there have been expected to have been a prosecution of Teller? I should have said it that way, I guess.76.218.104.210 (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

On what grounds specifically? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked the original question, indicating I am seeking knowledge, not providing it. Why do you expect me to know all the arcane details of United States espionage law and the grounds a prosecution might be based on? Nor do I expect you to know, it's great if you do, but fine if you don't. But if you don't know, don't feel bad about it, and please don't heckle me with quibbles about grounds or "should vs could" as a substitute for your lack of information.76.218.104.210 (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The right question is could he have been charged with espionage. There's no indication in the article that he ever was charged nor that charges were considered. But keep in mind that Israel was an ally, while the USSR was considered an enemy, hence the Rosenbergs' trial. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "could" was the right question to ask because that's not the question I was primarily interested in. I knew, because of reading the article and reading many many things for many years since I was a child, that Israel was and is an ally of the United States, and thus spying for them might be considered by some to be less heinous, rightly or not. I don't think you intend any offense, but I have a right to be interested in my own questions, and I thought "should" would briefly connote the raft of consequences Teller might have been liable to.76.218.104.210 (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The Citizendium article says nothing about Teller giving secrets to Israel. Maybe it would be a good idea for someone to review the allegations in the Misplaced Pages article and see if they have any basis in fact. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, Baseball Bugs. Thanks!76.218.104.210 (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't deal in facts, we deal in reliable secondary sources! —Tamfang (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Given stated ref desk policy, should this question be answered? Or perhaps just be removed without comment? μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to know if the OP's premise is true. Is the Misplaced Pages article soundly sourced on this point, or is it just somebody's conspiracy theory? Because if it didn't happen, the rest of the question becomes moot. And if it did happen, it's pretty obvious nothing was done about it, so the only conclusion we can draw, without further research, is that he was not considered to have committed espionage. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It's not a request for medical advice, and it's quite a stretch to call this legal advice: I'm assuming that Rich Peterson is not Teller risen from the dead, and that's really the only way this could be legal advice, as (presumably) nobody's going to do anything to Teller as long as he's still dead. Why else would we remove it? Either answering or saying "we can't determine" is better. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just a thought -- I don't know this is relevant -- but I see the article suggests Teller did all the important consulting in or before 1967. Note that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was opened to signatures in 1968, and was ratified in 1970. I would think that the existence of such a treaty would put the U.S. government in an uncomfortable position regarding, say, Jonathan Pollard in 1987, because if the government said hey sure, you're our friends, we won't hold a grudge, that would make the treaty pretty much valueless as long as someone always said "oops, it was just a spy." Anyway, I see that a search for Teller, non-proliferation and Israel pulls up a large quantity of material ... whether any of it is good enough and on topic enough to cite to provide some context for the article, I'll leave to someone more devoted to the task. Wnt (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Who is Arabic?

I recently saw some movie, the name of which I can't remember, where the people were called Arabs and they were all "We're PERSIAN!" It got me thinking, I really don't know what either word means. Misplaced Pages seems fairly descriptive when it comes to the word Persian, but considerably less so when it comes to the word Arabic. Other google searches seems to be equally vague. Some narrow it down to language, others geographic location, others a combination. I know a decent number of people who speak Arabic, but most of them are African immigrants who speak half a dozen other languages as well so it seems sort of arbitrary to define them by that specific language as opposed to their country of birth. It also seems fairly arbitrary to group people together who were born in different countries, are different races, have different religions, and have no other shared characteristics other than language. I have always referred to people by country, as in "This person is Iranian". Does anyone have any insight? Does anyone use the word Arabic? How do you define the word when you use it? Bali88 (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Arab people are a subset of people who speak the Arabic language. Arabic-speakers are so diverse I'm not sure there's any other useful way to describe them collectively. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And Persians are those who speak Farsi as their main language; most of them are in Iran, but 1) there are minority populations in Iran (Azeris, Armenians, Arabs) and Persians living outside of Iran. Nowadays, like Arab or Arabic, it's more of a cultural than a geographic or political term. Centuries ago, however, there were both a Persian and an Arabian Empire, with very different histories - the former traced its origins to Antiquity, while the latter was set up by the successors of Muhammad 2000 years later. And, by the way, Farsi (or Persian) and Arabic are entirely different languages, and not even from the same linguistic family, even though they're written with the same script and share some vocabulary. Turks are another group from the same general geographic area who don't like to be confused with Arabs. --Xuxl (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Persian or Farsi is an Indo-European language, and quite closely related to Sanskrit (and more loosely to most modern European languages). Arabic is a semitic language, and closely related to Aramaic and Hebrew. Turkish is a Turkic language. These three major language groups are quite distinct, and they are used by different cultural groups. Now between the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great and the Diadochi, the Parthian Empire, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, the Sasanian Empire, the Muslim conquests, the Crusades and the Ottoman Empire, with a bit of Ghengis Khan for good measure, I suspect every people in the area had plenty of opportunity to lord it over the others, to exchange culture, food, words, and genes, and to form a number of interesting cultural amalgamations. But there remain significant cultural differences (and as often, the closer two neighbours are, the stronger the rivalry). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Arab people comprise what is called a panethnicity — a broad national identity that covers multiple countries with differing genealogical heritages. They are unified by the fact that they speak Arabic as a first language, and have been heavily influenced by Arabian culture since their conquest at the hands of the Islamic Caliphates during the Middle Ages. There are also some genetic commonalities as a result of interracial sex over the centuries. This should not suggest that countries of the Arab World all have the same exact cultural identity; Lebanon is very different from Morocco, for instance. It's just that "Arab" is a common denominator which they all share. It is very similar to how Mexico and Argentina are both considered part of Latin America. Those are two entirely different countries with unique cultural identities, yet they are linked by virtue of being former Spanish colonies. Thus, they have adopted the Spanish language and were heavily influenced by the culture of Spain.

  Now, Persians are different from Arabs altogether. The Persian ethnic group constitutes a majority in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it can also be considered a panethnicity of its own (albeit much smaller than the Arab or Latin American groups). That is because there are several people in Central and Western Asia who speak some local variation of the Persian language (otherwise known as "Farsi"). This category includes almost everybody in Afghanistan and Tajikistan, as well as a significant minority in Uzbekistan. The Tajik language is itself a variant of Persian, so ethnic Tajiks can be seen as having a cultural connection to Iran in a certain light. Likewise, Afghanistan uses the Dari dialect as its lingua franca, but also has significant minorities that speak the Tajik, Aimaq, and Hazaragi dialects as well. But I digress. When someone is referred to as "Persian", it generally means they are from Iran and do not belong to any of its minority ethnic groups (in other words, Afghans and Tajiks would not openly identify as Persian people).

  In many cases, it's best to refer to people by their specific countries. People who identify themselves as Persian, Lur, Kurdish, Azeri, or Baloch can broadly be identified as "Iranian" if they are actually from Iran. With Arab countries, it's always better to be specific. Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, and Lebanon are all unique countries within the lexicon of Arab culture. Does that make any sense?

  Hope this helps! Kurtis 00:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You can read endless debate on the subject (not always very edifying) at Talk:Arab people and its archives... AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

An exception in the particular context of Israel: Israeli Druze, members of that Arabic-speaking minority religious community who don't intermarry, are always designated as Druze and not referred to as "Arab." The Bedouin in Israel, while culturally distinct within the Arab population, are adherents of Islam and are considered Arab. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

June 18

J. Ewing

Who was J. Ewing? Where was he from? When was he active? When was he born and when did he die? He created a set of charcoal artwork of Hawaiian royalty around 1909 with Honolulu photograph James J. Williams. Also I still have no idea how these images were reproduced. Were they retouched by Williams and then drawn with charcoal by Ewing or did Williams provide the photographs and Ewing did all the work? Some of the photographs used were not Williams work but by earlier Hawaiian photographers and Williams name is situated so prominently on the shoulders of the finished works alongside Ewing's.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Also does anybody know the J. in J. Ewing's first name and James J. Williams's middle name stand for. Getting the full names would be nice.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the Hawaii State Archives, this image is "Charcoal artwork by J. Ewing, on a photograph reproduced by J.J. Williams. Original photograph by Menzies Dickson, 1840?-1891." You can search the Hawaii State Archives collection for Ewing, but make sure you click on the "show all 24" button. "Leleiohoku, William Pitt, 1854-1877" is another example in this collection of the Ewing/Williams/Dickson combination. Then there is also "Kaahumanu, Consort of Kamehameha I, 1768?-1832" which is described as "Original artwork by Louis Choris. Reproduced photographically by J.J. Williams with charcoal work by J. Ewing." The collection includes several additional examples of charcoal by Ewing on photographs "reproduced by Williams," but no indication of the original photographer/artist.--Dreamahighway (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am already fully aware of every example in the Hawaii State Archives, the Smithsonian and Brother Betram's photo collection. Unfortunately your answer didn't help much. Thank you anyway.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Who was J. Ewing? Where was he from? When was he active? When was he born and when did he die? Does anybody know the J. in J. Ewing's first name and James J. Williams's middle name stand for. Getting the full names would be nice.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR, you've been asking these questions for months (at least), does anyone ever have any answers for you? If you've already gone through all the possible archives and sources, how are we supposed to be any help? (And how was anyone supposed to know you were already fully aware of the archives? You never mentioned that.) I don't want to discourage you from asking, but it seems that you are already the expert here, in this extremely obscure niche subject. You could be doing your own original research. You could be famous! You could be the one guy, who works on this stuff. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank?... In the past, I've found people here who have answered questions here that have helped me in my research and providing context for images I've upload on the commons including names and lifespans on obscure engravers, artists and photographers and dating entries in primary sources accounts of certain traveler. I assume that my link to the commons category J. Ewing would show that as the uploader of these images from the state archives and the Smithsonian that I've seen them before when I was uploading them. I guess I need to be more specific next time. I don't think they are unanswerable. Askedonty provided an excellent answer and gave me access to a source that helped me a lot in citing two articles I was cleaning up. I got an answer for Lunalilo for the height question from a non registered editor who couldn't edit because of the security on this page a couple of days ago. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

John McLaughlin, MSNBC

John McLaughlin hosted the McLaughlin Special Report on MSNBC for a little while in the late 1990s. Was it John McLaughlin (host) or someone else? 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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