Misplaced Pages

:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Reference desk Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:10, 14 September 2014 editScienceApe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,424 edits →Is it true that the UK will lose its nuclear weapons if Scotland goes independent?: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 14:15, 14 September 2014 edit undoThe Rambling Man (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors286,429 edits →Is it true that the UK will lose its nuclear weapons if Scotland goes independent?: +Next edit →
Line 390: Line 390:


^Topic ] (]) 14:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC) ^Topic ] (]) 14:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
:No. But is interesting. ] (]) 14:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:15, 14 September 2014

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Misplaced Pages reference desk. skip to bottom Select a section: Shortcut Want a faster answer?

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.


Ready? Ask a new question!


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.
See also:


September 9

Meaning of the saying "The irish pray on their knees; the scots prey on their neighbors."

What does "the irish pray on their knees; the scots prey on their neighbors" mean? WinterWall (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

See pray vs prey. It'd be just as meaningful to say it the other way around, depending whether you were joking with an Irishman or a Scot. Or a Welshman. There's no absolute truth to it or anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
Yes, which you say absolutely? μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I've seen several Scots pray on their knees. Though, no, I'm not sure they all weren't just pretending to pray, while they plotted to turn their neighbours into haggis to circumvent the US import ban on sheep lungs. Didn't think to ask them, or consider whether I'm always dreaming. Not absolute. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:09, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :Note that pray and prey are homophones; they sound the same, but have different meanings. This quote is intended to be a humorous word play insult, suggesting that Irish people are pious and engage in prayer while the Scottish people are immoral and engage in predatory behavior (commonly understood as thievery, thuggery, etc.).   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to find the reference but I recall there being a Protestant/Catholic thing in there too; as in, Irish Catholics "pray" while their Scottish Protestant neighbours "prey". Works the same the other way around as pointed out above and in contexts other than just Irish/Scottish. St★lwart 05:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Possibly a mangled form of "There are four kinds of people in the British Isles. First are the Scots, who keep the Sabbath and anything else they can get their hands on. Next are the Welsh, who pray on their knees and on their neighbours. Then there are the Irish, who don't know what they want, but they'll fight anyone for it. and last are the English, who consider themselves self made men, which relieves the Almighty of a terrible responsibility." Fiddlersmouth (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
"Brothers and sisters are natural enemies! Like Englishmen and Scots! Or Welshmen and Scots! Or Japanese and Scots! Or Scots and other Scots! Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland!" InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, September 9, 2014 (UTC)

Why Christians don't want Jerusalem?

I recently watched National Geographic: Secrets of Jerusalem's Holiest Sites (2006), and I didn't understand why the Christians didn't really do anything in the conflict between the Jews and the Arab Muslims. The documentary did say that Christians did fight for Jerusalem, but now they don't seem to be very interested in it except running the church that now stands on the tomb where Jesus was buried and resurrected. Also, the documentary said that Jews consider Abraham to be the father of the Jewish people through his son, Isaac, while Arab Muslims consider Abraham to be the father of the Arabs, through his son Ishmael. So, what about Arab Christians or non-Arabic Muslims? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The unpleasant experience of the crusades might play a role, in a historical sense.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing in Christianity requires the possession of Jerusalem for individual salvation, and Jesus wasn't very fond of the place, nor did his followers see the temple or animal sacrifice as necessary. A Church you can build anywhere. Of course certain sects disagree but none of them is mainline or orthodox. The Crusades has nothing to do with this, they mostly had to do with the rise of the hostile Seljuk Turks who abused Christians and their ancient privileges.μηδείς (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • μηδείς is right. And don't underestimate the value of holy relics from the Holy Land during the time of the Crusades. The was a genuine desire on the part of (some) medieval European Christians to possess Jerusalem. St★lwart 05:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • (μηδείς is mainly right, but see Matthew 23:37 (or Luke 13:34) where Jesus seems to weep, or perhaps despair, over Jerusalem. ) Also see Luke 23: 28-31 for Jesus's prophecy about the future of Jerusalem. Arab Christians trace their Abrahamic roots genetically through Ishmael and spiritually through Isaac. Dbfirs 17:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


71.79.234.132 -- Christians do want very much for their holy places and memorial churches to be respected and be open to pilgrimage, and under the 1947 United Nations partition plan, Jerusalem-Bethlehem would have been a quasi-internationalized city (see Corpus separatum (Jerusalem) -- the Vatican was very strongly insistent on neutralizing or internationalizing Jerusalem until at least the late 1970s). However, that doesn't require sovereign domination, and the experiences of Christian sovereign domination over the area in the last thousand years (Crusades and British Mandate) did not end too well, as 71.20.250.51 alluded to... AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. According the Tabula Gentium in Genesis chapter 10, the South Arabians are the descendants of Joktan son of Eber son of Shem... AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Known in the day as happy Arabians. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
This might be useful. I don't know. There's a lot to read. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:21, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
There's also the idea of the Heavenly Jerusalem, which does not necessarily have to be the actual Jerusalem. As for the Crusades, there was a certain amount of fervour about hastening the End Times once the Christians conquered it, but even back then they realized how unimportant the actual city of Jerusalem was. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Another theory is that the dominant churches for most of history, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, might not have wanted Jerusalem, since it served as a reminder that they totally changed Christianity from it's origins at the time of Christ, when it was relatively democratic and pacifist, somewhat like the Quakers remain today, to rather authoritarian organizations. The difficulty in actually holding it would also play a role in deciding if it was a worthy goal (much like the proverbial Sour Grapes, if they couldn't have it, then they decided they didn't want it). StuRat (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Citation needed on that one please. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that seems unlikely. The idea that Catholicism/Orthodoxy "totally changed Christianity" is a fringe conspiracy theory invented by those Protestant upstarts. And as we all know, Protestantism is just a passing fad. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
... and some of the "Protestant upstarts" have turned into "rather authoritarian organizations"! Dbfirs 17:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In more recent times General Allenby entered Jerusalem on 11 December 1917 during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign in World War I, having forced the Turkish army to retire. He and his staff entered the gate of the Jerusalem on foot in a show of respect. His subsequent announcement to the population said; "...since your city is regarded with affection by the adherents of three of the great religions of mankind and its soil has been consecrated by the prayers and pilgrimages of multitudes of devout people of these three religions for many centuries, therefore, do I make it known to you that every sacred building, monument, holy spot, shrine, traditional site, endowment, pious bequest, or customary place of prayer of whatsoever form of the three religions will be maintained and protected according to the existing customs and beliefs of those to whose faith they are sacred." Jerusalem remained in British hands as part of Mandatory Palestine, during which time the British attempted in a very heavy-handed way, to balance the aspirations of both Jews and Muslims, but ended up antagonising everybody. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Allenby's entry into Jerusalem is seen by some as the fulfilment of Biblical prophesies. See The Deliverance of Old Jerusalem - An Awe-Inspiring Fulfilment of Scriptural Prophecy. Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
There was also a cartoon, in Punch I think, of Allenby as Richard the Lionheart, saying "at last my dream fulfilled". Adam Bishop (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This is it. It's not clear that the figure is supposed to be Allenby, I read it as being the ghost of Richard I of England, but the message of the cartoon is the same however you interpret it. Alansplodge (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

spinoza's ethics

what's the point of this book? I am lost as to why it was written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The mathematical form is meant to provide certainty to his conclusions, what he wishes to demonstrate is that God is Natura Naturans, and that as part of God (God being nature) we will find happiness if we act in accordance with nature. I am unaware of any good commentary on him, I did take a 400 level class on him. Rebecca Goldstein's Betraying Spinoza is a hugely enjoyable popular book that's a blended confessional by her and biography of him but doesn't go into the ethics deeply. One problem with the work is that he assumes determinism is true, ten set's about offering advice. I suppose that would make him an automaton-prophet. He is largely a "classical" liberal from the modern perspective, and a stoic from the ancient one. If you read Epictetus first, Descartes (in relation to whom he stands as Aristotle to Plato), and the Maxims of Epicurus you might get a head start.μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :"Why" it was written requires quite a bit of context. The biography section of the Baruch Spinoza article provides a good background. In order to understand the "point of the book", it is important to realize that he lived in the 17th century, before the (18th century) Enlightenment, and his writings are considered to be an important influence for the Enlightenment, especially Ethics, Demonstrated in Geometrical Order —→ Ethics (book). Hopefully one of the friendly and helpful reference desk helpers has the time to provide a concise explanation in 30 words or less; I'm going to bed. Or you could find a copy of:  Curley, Edwin (1988). Behind the Geometrical Method : a reading of Spinoza's Ethics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 069102037X. — It's not very long, and relatively easy to understand.   —Eric the Read:71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll give it another try...
Ethics, the nature of reality and Man's role in it, were considered important in classical antiquity. However, beginning with the Dark Ages freedom of thought, and the expression thereof, were taboo. Spinoza's background includes severe religious oppression, both for his Jewish heritage and his synthesis of rational thought from antiquity. —I've already exceeded 30 words, so shall sign off: ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the information - but who said thirty words! You didn't get to the point of the book. what's the point? why was it written? :) I appreciate everyone's references to literature, above, however I was hoping for your own brief summary, not so much as to the minute contents of the book as the overall point, i.e. why it was written. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The book was written for the purpose of explaining the nature of creation and how man can achieve happiness in it based on what Spinoza believed was a logically certain argument fro his premises. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
In case you're asking about the odd final part: In A Study of Spinoza's Ethics (CUP Archive, 1984, p372-375) Jonathan Bennett wonders why Spinoza wrote the "last three doctrines" (mind's eternity, intuitive knowledge, intellectual love of God) which are deemed worthless and beyond salvation.
"Clearly he wants this final trio of doctrines. Why?" Bennett dismisses explanations of Spinoza merely "trying to capture in his own terms the doctrines of others —e.g., Aristotle's views about immortality" as not credible.
He wonders whether Spinoza was perhaps "terrified of extinction, and convinced himself —through a scatter of perverse arguments and hunger for the conclusion —that he earned immortality."
Another possible explanation refers to C. D. Broad: "These doctrines, I am convinced, are the philosophic expression of certain religious and mystical experiences which Spinoza and many others have enjoyed and which seem supremely important to those who have had them. As such they belong to Spinoza's philosophy of religion rather than to his ethics in the ordinary sense". Five Types of Ethical Theory.
Anyway, I probably just added to the confusion. But these "why" questions often lead to confusing answers. (and sorry about adding more book references :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 22:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Durdane Series - Age of The Land of Shant

Its been a while since I've last read the series but in Jack Vance's Durdane Series was it mentioned roughly how long Humans have been on the planet Durdane and/ or how old the land of Shant is ? Scotius (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, long before I get around to rereading it, this question will have rotated away. —Tamfang (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

How is American Lutheranism different from German Lutheranism theologically?

How are the two Lutheranisms different theologically? 140.254.226.223 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There are many more kinds of Lutheranism. In the U.S. some are in Category:Lutheran denominations in North America. For Germany Category:Lutheranism in Germany.

September 10

The Indonesian Tree of Life

Tree of life ("levensboom") This specific one is used in Wayang to mark the beginning, end or the break of a Wayang play. The Tree of life is called Dewadaru. It stands for gift of the gods. The tree grows on the Karimunjawa Islands north of Java. The inhabitants believe the wood of the tree has heeling power and is used as an charm for protection.
Fine weaving representing a large stylized bird ‘pregnant’ with a smaller bird, surrounded by various creatures and humans stacked in a configuration resembling the mythological tree-of-life’. Birds in the Indonesian archipelago often are associated with creation myths, with omens for good and evil, and with concepts of death and resurrection. In this rendering, the bird is a reddish brown figure on a natural color cotton base.
Very good and interesting tampan-ceremonial textile- from Indonesia (Lampung-Sumatra), 19th century, size 68 x 76 cm/ 27 x 31 inches. a boat with a large bird and tree of life with on top a frog or toad (rare!). Several other stylized animals.

These "Tree of Life" textiles with birds and many other animals were produced by Indonesians of the 19th century. I think today's Indonesians are mostly muslims. Did the use of clothes with animal decorations in a ceremony constitute some kind of idolatry in Islam? -- Toytoy (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I can't speak for the 18th century (other than to note that Raden Saleh was Muslim and painted portraits). I can, however, note that a) Indonesian Islam (particularly Javanese) has historically featured an amalgamation of Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic symbolism (Syncretism, such as in abangan Islam) and b) in modern Indonesia, many Muslims have no problem with depicting animals or humans... just so long as its not a/the p(P)rophet (see, for instance, the many "Pop Islam" films such as Ayat-Ayat Cinta). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Japanese art/ Chinese history question

I was browsing reproductions of Japanese woodblock prints on ebay and noticed one that seemed to portray Yue Fei. My reasoning is that the character has the same tattoo that the Song general was known for. However, a cursory Google search hasn't turned up any information on Japanese reverence for Yue Fei. Is it possible that this could just be a representation of a Chinese literary hero who paid homage to the general by tattooing themself? I can't make out any of the characters in the top of the picture and no larger versions are available. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sughauli treaty

Question moved from RD/L Tevildo (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

when its effect are going to end? --182.74.188.218 (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)azic

We have an article - Sugauli Treaty about the treaty. DuncanHill (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It would appear to have been superseded by the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship which "cancels all previous Treaties, agreements, and engagements entered into on behalf of India between the British Government and the Government of Nepal". DuncanHill (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

was Spinoza an atheist, i.e. pseudo- theist (by analogy with 'pseudorandom', i.e. not at all random)

Hi,

Based on the arguments in The Ethics of Spinoza, is he really a total atheist, i.e. pseudotheist? I mean by analogy with a pseudorandom number generator: it's just not random at all, it's just an algorithm. Likewise, if you remove all choice from God, and say he has no choice but to follow Nature, then isn't it just a 'pseudo-theist' in perfect analogy with a pseudorandom number generator and, in fact, you are a perfect atheist?

I would like a high-level meta-analysis here, and if you don't understand my analogy with pseudorandom numbers, I still welcome your opinion about whether he's really an atheist, based on the fact that he thinks nature is deterministic. a third-party web site says, "The difference goes back to that simple-sounding question: Does God have a choice? Spinoza says no; Leibniz says yes. Spinoza says that God has only one world to choose from, namely, the one that follows ineluctably from its own Nature." Well, okay, so then how is there a "God". It sounds logically equivalent to me saying that I control all cloud formations with the power of my mind, but with the caveat that I can - and must - make them move only, and in the exact way, that follows from meteorology and the laws of Nature. But I totally control them yo.

So in this sense is Spinoza literally an atheist or a pseudo-theist (believes God exists, much as a pseudorandom number is random; i.e. not at all.)

thanks for clarification on this.

213.246.165.17 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

For Spinoza's atheism (or not), see Baruch_Spinoza#Pantheist.2C_panentheist.2C_or_atheist.3F and the dozen or so references therein.
For your analogy, I think it's unhelpful. Random has different meanings in different contexts. That is why we have the word "stochastic," so that in technical writing we can distinguish things like dice rolls from deterministic chaos, and other phenomenon that could be grouped into the catch-all term 'random'. It is true that pseudorandom number generators are not stochastic processes, but the whole point of the term is that pseudorandom numbers are 'sort-of-random', even 'nearly indistinguishable from random'. Saying pseudorandom numbers are not at all random is an almost willfully obstinate abuse of terminology. You can phrase your idea however you want, but I'd challenge you to look at a stream of a few thousand digits, and reliably decide if it came from the Mersenne_twister or from measurements of radioactive decay. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
But what I mean is suppose that you use "random" to mean "stochastic". Then a pseudorandom process is not at all random. For example, a program that uses an unseeded pseudo RNG. That may have a single deterministic output, not at all random. In formal terms, we might not know what that output is, for example perhaps the program has a very long running time, and we do not know the output unless someone calculates it through some short-cut. In one sense, then, the output might be "random", as it has not been calculated. In another sense, however, it is not at all random, it is totally fixed. Calling the program "random" (stochastic) is then totally false. Likewise, saying there is an intelligent, omnipotent God "ruling over" the Universe, when in fact "the God" is indistinguishable from one that does not exist, might be "totally false" (He is not intelligent, not omnipotent, and does not actually rule over anything. In fact He is nulpotent, having no ability to do anything whatsoever". In other words, my analogy comes from this: a stochastic random process might have entropy of 1 bit per 1 bit of output. The program I mentioned instead has 0 bits of entropy per bit of output: non whatsoever, it is totally fixed. Likewise, an omnipotent God might have 1 unit of "power" to affect the Universe. A nulpotent God has 0 units of power to affect anything. I feel the analogy is quite useful (and not just a matter of terminology) so if my analogy is still unclear I would be interested in expounding it further. Have I made my question more clearer this way? (I still don't know to what extent the analogy applies to Spinoza's philosophy - i.e. as a determinist - and quoted a third-party summary of his view; therefore I am interested in to what extent what I've written, and quoted, actually applies to spinoza in your opinion.)
"For Spinoza's atheism (or not), see Baruch_Spinoza#Pantheist.2C_panentheist.2C_or_atheist.3F and the dozen or so references therein." Thank you for that! When I read "It is a widespread belief that Spinoza equated God with the material universe. He has therefore been called the "prophet" and "prince" and most eminent expounder of pantheism." For me, specifically when you add determinism, it seems that this now fulfills the definition of Atheism. If a program ignores 100% of my keyboard inputs and then exits , it is proper to call it a non-interactive (batch) program, regardless of my wishes. Likewise, if the universe ignores 100% of God's "input" (He has no control over anything today), it fits my definition of atheism. My only question is whether Spinoza in fact believed this to be the case. 213.246.165.17 (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Our article on Atheism defines it as "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities," or "specifically the position that there are no deities." It does not include affirming the existence of a God who lacks free will. Gravity has no free will, but it exists nonetheless.
Our article on Baruch Spinoza discusses him as a pantheist (from a simple perspective), or (from a more nuanced perspective) a sort of transcendent panentheist. Connections with atheism appear mostly from detractors (and Shelley, but he's an overglorified hack, Ozymandias excluded, especially compared to Keats). This seems as applicable as claims that Socrates, Jews, and Christians are "atheists" for rejecting the state gods of Greece and Rome despite a rather firm belief in some sort of God.
The Spinoza article, in the section on beliefs regarding God, notes that he did not think that God was an aspect of Nature, but rather Nature an aspect of the transcendent God. It also says that "Spinoza meant God was Natura naturans not Natura naturata." In other words, God is not bound by determinism, God binds determinism. How, why, or in what way God binds determinism is not what defines God, it is that It binds it that matters.
For the record, I'm definitely more in the Indeterminism camp (such that I cannot personally reconcile Calvin and Christ), but I'm not seeing the conflict here between God being deterministic and God being omnipotent. To reverse the argument that God without free-will is not God: God with free-will makes His own choices, and so creates His will (which is at most a part of Him). If God does what God chooses to do, He is ruled by something He created rather than Himself. (I'm not affirming that that's correct, either, since I stick to the cop-out that humanly-contrived concepts of fate or free-will, while relevant to theodicy, are irrelevant to trying to understand the ultimate source of those human thinking).
Ian.thomson (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

American astronauts' fluency in Russian

Runglish contains the quote: "We say jokingly that we communicate in 'Runglish,' a mixture of Russian and English languages, so that when we are short of words in one language we can use the other, because all the crew members speak both languages well." Are American astronauts really fluent in Russian? Or is the above quote a mistranslation or something? WinterWall (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking Russian is a requirement for all new astronauts. Nanonic (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! That's completely new information for me. Does this apply to just NASA or do the other national space agencies (of non-English speaking counties) have similar requirements? Or does learning both English and Russian present too much of a burden?WinterWall (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Degrees

Are degrees worth it considering the fact that most graduates go onto jobs that didn't require them to go to college? What advantage if any does the degree give them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.148.85 (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Only if you like money. See This article as of June 2014 as to the value of a college degree in the United States. Even factoring in the exorbitant fees and crippling debt most college graduates end up with in the U.S., the investment still pays off hugely over the average person's working life. Such statistics don't excuse the debt burden (after all, if one could reduce or remove the debt burden, the education would be worth THAT MUCH MORE), but clearly, employers still value the degree itself. If a college degree were merely about job training, we'd all just go through vocational education. The college degree is still an expression of the value of the liberal arts education; and regardless of what you or I think about it, or arguments we could make in either direction, employers and the marketplace still value it. That you have reasons you could invent as to why the market shouldn't value such an education is mostly irrelevant. The market does, so explanations which say it shouldn't are dead ends. --Jayron32 23:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Employers who value graduates over non-graduates speak of them having learnt how to think. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, that is something of the value of the liberal arts education (speaking extemporaneously and VERY OR/personal view here), the real value of education is not learning how to do specific tasks, like skills or knowledge specific to any one job, it's learning how to learn; really it's all those skills that make you good at any job. I've never heard of any employer who doesn't expect to have to train you on the job; no one expects a new hire to understand how to do anything at the company. Instead, what employers want isn't necessarily "The specific skills to do this specific job" what they want is that when they teach you something, it stays learnt. People who have demonstrated the perseverance to learn anything and to do well at it no matter what it is, regardless of whether they find it "relevant" to themselves, are highly valuable. Does knowing how to write an essay about Hamlet's soliloquy get you a job as an Engineer? Specifically, no. The fact that you were willing to persevere and learn how to do that task because you had to, and did a good job at it even if you wouldn't have chosen to do it yourself, however, IS an employable skill. The liberal arts education also teaches the sort of soft skills that translate well to any job: the ability to reason, use logic, write and speak well, organize your thinking, come up with novel solutions to problems, collaborate with others, etc. That sort of stuff are things employers don't have the time to teach you. They can teach you what they need you to do for your specific job you are hired for, and are expecting to anyways. They don't want to deal with someone who needs to be badgered to complete simple tasks, or can't figure out how to solve a novel problem on their own. --Jayron32 23:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Worth noting there are some who think there is a higher education bubble which may soon burst, thanks to higher education expanding too quickly, the costs of getting a degree increasing, the value of a degree in terms of future employment decreasing because so many more people have one, and the loan system threatened by defaults. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
A lot of jobs which used not to need a degree now need one. The jobs haven't got harder, but there's been a lot of "pulling up the ladder" by people anxious to maintain their status and money. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Some economists say the value of a college degree is more as a positional good than in anything learned. —Tamfang (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Oliver-boy?

The Who's Who entry for the novelist Joseph Keating (1871-1934; no enwp article) is one of those odd gems clearly written by the subject - it has a detailed digression on his career as a child labourer in a Welsh coal-mine:

...earning six shillings and ninepence per week as a door-boy; at thirteen he fancied he would like to be an oliver-boy; after twelve months at the oliver-fires he decided that the coal pit was more attractive... he was a collier boy; later he worked as a pit-labourer

Most of these are fairly clear (a door-boy, as I recall, worked doors inside the mine itself to let trucks of coal through) but I'm baffled by oliver-boy/oliver-fires. Any idea what this might have been? Andrew Gray (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a delightful entry - especially enjoyed at eighteen became a pit haulier, a delightful profession in which a horse does the work and the haulier draws the pay. Anyway, an oliver is "A tilt hammer having the arm or handle attached to an axle, worked with the foot by a treadle which brings the hammer down, and with a spring which raises it, used esp. in the shaping of nails, bolts, or links of chains." (OED) There are (or were) also steam olivers, presumably powered by the oliver-fires. DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You can see a picture of a steam-oliver here. I did, for a moment, entertain the thought that he might have stoked the fires which bake another sort of Oliver, but discarded it as unhelpful. DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
There's probably a good article to be written just on quixotic entries alone. (Tony Benn's has had some wonderful evolutions over time).
Thanks for the pointer - I'd assume id was some kind of machinery and -fires definitely suggests steam-driven. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Most police officers killed by one person

All I've found is the "Lakewood, Washington police officer shooting" which was apparently the highest amount of police officers killed by one person at one time. What about most police officers killed by one person all together(Excluding bombings or use of weapons of mass destruction)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactivemutant (talk • contribs) 23:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find more than 4 officers killed at any one time. There was the Lakewood, Washington police officer shooting that you mentioned, the 2009 shootings of Oakland police officers and the Mayerthorpe tragedy. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I've found quite a few, but they all involve bombs. If we're excluding them, it seems likely those three are the answers. Easy to fall through the cracks, serial killing riffraff. But the net closes very quickly when a cop is the first victim. Hard enough (relatively) to even kill one, with their training and equipment. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, September 13, 2014 (UTC)
I found a fictional serial cop killer in The Poet. Apparently, the key is making it look like suicide. No idea if there have been sets of mysterious police suicides in actual districts, but if so, there's a maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:33, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

September 11

Name of dictator?

Does anyone know the name of the dictator who one day decreed that there were now eight days in the week - and named the extra day after himself? Or maybe it was that there were 13 months in the year, with the new month named after himself. It was something along those lines, anyway - pretty much King Canute levels of hubris. It was within the last 25 years too, I believe. But that's all I can recall now. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he actually added any days or months, but Saparmurat Niyazov, self-called Turkmenbashi, did rename the days and months in Turkmenistan, naming one month after himself, another after his book, and one after his mum. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
That's the guy - thanks very much. Is this also the same fellow who made it illegal for anyone to speak of his toupee? There's no mention of it in his article, so maybe that was someone else. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Gerhard Schroeder is famously touchy about his hair (which is, of course, entirely natural and without any artificial enhancements whatsoever), and has used the courts to enforce this undeniable fact, but I don't think he actually passed a law against mentioning it. Tevildo (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
As for King Canute (or Cnut the Great if you're brave), he has acquired an undeservedly bad reputation. He put his throne by the seaside and commanded the waves to recede, specifically to prove that he DID NOT have the magical or divine powers attributed to him and that he was a mere mortal like everyone else. He's the patron saint of anti-hubris, if anything. See King Canute and the waves. -- Jack of Oz 01:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, right. I'd always thought that it was the (maybe fictional) story of the king who ended up on the beach with wet feet, looking foolish in front of his people after arrogantly proclaiming that even the waves would obey the divine power of the king. I also thought myself superior to those who get it the wrong way around and appear to think that it was the story of the king who actually *held back* the waves (fairly common in sports metaphors)... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
July and August were named after Julius Cesar and Augustus. StuRat (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
In I, Claudius, one of Caligula's first acts as emperor is to continue the pattern by renaming September for Tiberius, but if that really happened it obviously didn't stick. —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Reminds me of the French Revolutionary Calendar, which while not being the answer to the question, is interesting of itself in this context. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the British side of the American Revolutionary War?

What is the British side of the story? Do they really consider themselves losers? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

They thought the colonies should pay higher taxes to pay for the costs of the French and Indian War, which, after all, removed the French as a threat from North America. And they didn't think the colonists would be able to govern themselves. Put those together, and they wanted to continue to impose taxation without representation on the colonies. StuRat (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The question seems to be asking what Brits think of the war now, rather than what they thought at the time. I suspect that the truth is that we rarely think about it at all - not considering it a particularly significant event in British history. The Britain (or rather the British political/military establishment) lost the war is indisputable. How much difference it made in the long term is of course open to question - and a matter of conjecture for 'alternate history' forums rather than this reference desk. I think it is safe to say however that it is readily apparent that the pre-war status quo was untenable in the long term, and accordingly that there is little sense of 'loss'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
At the time, the war was really unpopular in Britain, and many of the British commanders sympathised with their opposite numbers who had so recently fought with them against the French. In short, the military dragged its feet and failed to follow up advantages, while the British public often supported the colonists. George III and parts of his Government might have been incandescent, but Britain as a whole was more glad it was over that sorrowful in defeat.
Challenged to put a label on it, I suppose most contemporary Brits would see the whole debacle as a colossal mistake. We Celts, the Scots and the Irish, are stil waving our little Stars and Stripes. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Celts waving the Stars and Stripes? What world are you living in? The majority of 'Celts' share the very sensible antipathy towards Yankiestan as the rest of the UK. 131.251.254.110 (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Talking exclusively about the American Revolutionary war, which was a good result. Attitude to contemporary Americans might soften if they were much quieter and didn't stride round the Scottish capital wearing a selection of clashing tartans. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
My partner and I, both Americans, are a very quiet couple. Neither of us wore any kind of tartan when we visited Edinburgh. But then, nobody noticed us except on the rare occasions when one of us opened his mouth. Since we did not fit the stereotype, maybe they took us for Canadians. Too bad that some people base stereotypes on the actions of a conspicuous few. Marco polo (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to modern technology, the world has moved on from stereotypes, to quadrophonotypes.  :) -- Jack of Oz 22:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The Americans objected to paying for their own defence, didn't want to honour the treaties with the Native Americans, and American smugglers objected to tea taxes being lower in America than in Britain. Looking at how America has turned out, it seems we were lucky to be rid of them. Not so lucky for the Native Americans though. Oh, and it was a War of Independence, not a revolution. DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
A quick Google failed to find any references to give you, but I can provide a personal opinion as several other editors have done. Militarily, the War of Independence (it's never described as a "Revolution" in the UK) was analogous to the Vietnam War for us - a professional army trained for conventional warfare, beaten by guerilla tactics of an opponent backed by a rival superpower (France). Politically, it still seems that the grievances of the Colonists were rather minor and that war could have been avoided with a bit of compromise and common sense. The lessons learned were subsequently employed in the creation of the British Dominions and eventually the Commonwealth of Nations, which seems to me to have been a rather good thing. Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, so interesting point about "revolution" versus "war of independence". We sometimes call it a "war of independence" as well. I don't think Americans really make a political distinction between the two descriptions; we just use whichever one comes to mind or seems to sound better at the moment.
Do you think the British have a political meaning for choosing one term over the other?
The reason that it's interesting is that it's hard to think of another "good" revolution. The French Revolution certainly overthrew a regime that needed overthrowing, and would have been "good" if it had stayed in the hands of the liberals instead of being taken over by a gang of vicious criminals. The Russian one, very very similar situation (though in the broadest of strokes I suppose I'd describe the February Revolution as "good" and the October Revolution as "bad"). You finally get to some "good" revolutions in the late 20th — early 21st centuries (the People Power Revolution in the Philippines, the various "colored revolutions" in Eastern Europe), but these were, for the most part, not even wars, so the term "revolution" seems in some sense a little strong. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Marxists define "revolution" in their progressive model of history as a move from one class-power to another, and I think there's poplar notion that a "real" revolution has to be some Les Miserables-like event built on the idea of overthrowing a supposedly corrupt or unjust social structure. But the term originally meant simply "turnabout". The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was essentially a coup, and that's all the term meant - but it acquired the connotation of progressive change because of the legislation that came after it. The American Revolution was a turnabout in government - hence 'revolution' - that came to be associated with the same idea of progressive social evolution. I think it contributed to the way we use the term "revolution", but to such an extent that the events themselves no longer quite fit the way the word is used. There's also the concept of counter-revolution, which is also still influenced by the Marxist model, so that the overthrow of the Eastern block regimes in 1989 such as the Romanian Revolution can also be called the Romanian counter-revolution! Paul B (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, well, let's quit letting the bloody Marxists influence our speech so much. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Is penis envy a Marxist term? This is silly, very few Americans realize King George once ruled a small strip of our continent, and we Americans all think scouse and cockney are oh, so posh. As for the Nazis and the Huns, well, all in a day's work. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Medeis, just once in a while, I have trouble working out exactly what it is you're getting at. --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Is this a poem by Tristan Tzara? Paul B (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, Trovatore, my comment wouldn't have made sense if you thought it was only a direct answer to you. My point was the Marxists above you seem quite jealous of us, while we don't notice they exist. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be a lot of opinion and not much in the way of references. Hack (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
How shocking! That's never happened here before. What could possi-bly have gone wrong? -- Jack of Oz 00:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
<cough>. <sniff>. <Hmmm...>. --Jayron32 00:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There's some discussion of this in Boswell's Life of Johnson. One issue was that British traders and merchants were paying far, far more in taxes specifically to fund the French and Indian Wars than the Americans ever did - and without any real representation, either. That class of Briton saw the Americans and their "no taxation without representation" mantra basically as thieving scamming con artist liars. Their rage at what they saw as being taken advantage of by the colonies led them to support the King and Prime Minister - at least until it became clear that the uprising wasn't going to be put down quickly or cheaply. Their entire interest was in their pocketbooks: little else mattered to them.
Another group that had an interesting view on the war was the intelligentsia, who were more likely to be in favour of American independence than against it. Boswell himself, a Conservative, was on the side of the colonists, as was the radical Wilkes. Samuel Johnson was very, very anti-independence not just because of his Tory love of monarchy and his view of the revolutionaries as traitors but also because of his extreme hatred of slavery. (He's the one who, when asked to make a toast at a formal society dinner, replied with "Here's to the next insurrection of the Negroes in the West Indies!") In fact, many of those most adamantly against American independence were abolitionists.
The vast majority of English, though, even at that time, were illiterate agricultural labourers who probably didn't have any way to know what was going on, and anyway had more pressing concerns than an overseas war that didn't much affect them. --NellieBly (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Bridge cultures

(Apologies if this seems vague.) In the fields of history or anthropology, is there any concept of a "bridge culture" that (within a short span) takes on aspects of another culture and then transmits them to a third? I'm thinking of things like the Normans carrying French culture to England, or the Turks/Mughals carrying Persian culture to India. Has anything been written on this topic? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Kudos for a fascinating question, Lazar Taxon! I await answers with interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Cultural diffusion often occurs from one culture to another by way of one or more intermediary cultures. For example, the idea of gunpowder reached Europeans from Arabs, was learned by the Arabs from the Mongols, and was in turn learned by the Mongols from the Chinese. This would be an example of indirect diffusion, as discussed in our article. Marco polo (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Are there Muslims that proselytize in Asian countries?

By "Asian", I mean India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Taiwan, China, Japan, etc. Are there Muslim groups that send missionaries to Asian countries and proselytize the people to Islam? 140.254.227.101 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh and Pakistan are already Muslim majority countries and India has a large Muslim minority so none of those countries would have to rely on outside sources for missionaries. As for the rest of Asia, there are groups that work to gain converts but a lot of this tends not to be nearly as organizational about it as Christians. Whereas christians might start a big missionary organization to supply and support missionaries in other countries, most Muslim groups tend to be somewhat smaller local groups already in the place where they are looking for converts and many already have a main purpose besides getting converts so seeking converts is one concern among many. Bakmoon (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a practical purpose to gaining converts? Or is sending missionaries purely for spiritual reasons? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Why does any religion seek converts? The faithful might say they are trying to save souls. The cynical might say they are tying to gain increased monetary donations to the the church. A realist might say that churches are the strongest memes ever encountered by humans. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Your realist might say that churches aren't as strong as other religious groups, but that's a matter of degree. See Meme#Religion; if this is your own idea, you've independently come up with a significant chunk of the original idea of what a meme is. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
If by "etc." you include Indonesia, well, that country has the largest Muslim population in the world. There are more Muslims in South and South-East Asia than the rest of the world combined (including the birthplace of Islam, the Middle East.) Check out islam by country for such demographics. Mingmingla (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it true that Australia and Africa offered land for Israel after WW2?

^Topic ScienceApe (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The Australian option was certainly discussed. I've read of it, but not sure where. Not aware that an actual offer was made. The African idea is somewhat different. Australia is a single country. Africa is made up of dozens of countries. Who would/could have made an offer? HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) : Not "offered". It was "suggested" by others that these, and many other places over the years, all covered at Proposals for a Jewish state, would be suitable locations. -- Jack of Oz 22:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
For Africa, see the Uganda Scheme, which was proposed in 1903. Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

September 12

Greek orthodox bible

There are so may article about the Septuagint, its manuscripts and their critical editions, but I don't get, which is the Greek bible text used in Eastern churches over the centuries, and where it is on the internet? Maybe there is nothing uniform at all? trespassers william (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

See "Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible".—Wavelength (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
That's an English translation. I am asking about the Greek original. The article says "The Old Testament (in progress) is based on the Greek text of the Old Testament (Septuagint / LXX)..." but when I try to figure which is the "default" vversion of the Septuagint I get stuck. There are four major manuscripts with differences and three "recensions" from the first centuries AD, what had eastern priests read in the following 15 centuries? What had they printed inthe later ones? trespassers william (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
See Byzantine text-type for the New Testament, if I understand rightly. It's similar to the Textus Receptus, but it differs in some respects. For the Old Testament, see the "Septuagint" article on the Orthodox Wiki; it's a pretty good resource for Eastern churches. You may want to contact the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America; I'm sure they could give you an answer more helpful than mine. Go to this page on their website for the "authorized 1904 text of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople" for the New Testament, but I'm not finding the Septuagint on their site. Alternately, are there any Eastern Orthodox churches in geographical proximity to you? If so, I'm sure the priest would be happy to help you. Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
(ec) You may find the discussion on Septuagint manuscripts from the Catholic Encyclopedia ( and ) helpful. Note that the recencions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, mentioned in the wikipedia article are Jewish recensions, and though they may have had some influence, the Christian versions are not primarily based on those. According to Jerome, writing around 400 AD, (in his preface to Chronicles]), there were three geographically separated manuscript families (or revisions) at the time, that of Hesychius, popular in Egypt, that of Lucian in the region between Constantinople and Antioch, and versions based on Origen's edition in the Palestinian region. The various readings of these revisions were preserved in various manuscripts throughout the following centuries. The Catholic encyclopedia mentions that most manuscripts (including many medieval ones) are difficult to ascribe any one manuscript family, but rather contain a mix of readings. Printed editions are also based on a variety of manuscripts, but it appears that Codex Vaticanus is the most popular 'standard' text. So while it appears to be complicated, you are right, the Septuagint has definitely not been entirely 'uniform' over the centuries - Lindert (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
By the nature of scribal copying, it was quite impossible for any lengthy text existing in multiple manuscripts to be completely identical in all versions. AnonMoos (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Except the Qur'an, obviously. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure whether you're joking or not, but see Qira'at... AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
But he's also asking "what had they printed in the later ones", i.e. later centuries. It's quite possible to have a standard Septuagint text today, and one can expect the Greek Orthodox Church, for example, to have an official text. This would be comparable to the Catholic church identifying a specific standard Vulgate text; textual variants might cause it to be different from the autograph, but it's still a single official text. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There's no "autograph" of the Septuagint; different books were translated at different times (the Pentateuch first, of course) and with different translation philosophies. After Greek-speaking Christians adopted the Septuagint, Jews then produced new Greek translations of Hebrew scriptures with a more strictly literalistic translating style, and based on Hebrew Biblical manuscripts respected by Rabbinic authorities -- and there came to be some cross influence between Septuagint manuscripts and Aquila etc. manuscripts. Then after the majority of the Jewish community of Alexandria, Egypt converted to Christianity, and harsh repression of Judaism under the Byzantine empire continued, Jews pretty much gave up the use of the Greek language for religious writings for a while... AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There was an earliest translation of Genesis, an earliest translation of Isaiah, etc.; that's what I meant. Whether or not the LXX really translated the Bible for Ptolemy the Whatevereth, someone produced the first Septuagint manuscript of each book. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Length of a court appearance

I can find a bunch of info about what an arraignment is but can't find how long one takes. Does it change for what the charges are? In the US specifically? Dismas| 00:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Dismas, this is going to vary by jurisdiction within the United States. Federal arraignment takes place in two separate stages, usually on different dates: 1) reading of charges and setting of bail; 2) entering a plea. Arraignment procedures vary by state. In some states, charges are read, in other states, they are often not read in full. The arraignment itself is likely to be a matter of minutes, but the time involved for the defendant or his or her lawyer could be much greater due to waiting time if a court is handling a number of arraignments that day. The wait is likely to be longer in a major city than in a small county. Marco polo (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Marco. And thanks to the rest of the community for not closing or removing this thread. Dismas| 01:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Do speakers of Kansai dialect feel pissed off when someone speaks awkward Kansai dialect?

I've seen this in Case Closed (season 21) of the Detective Conan series. Is that true for most Kansai dialect speakers?--Wdsss (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you could find one. Indeed, when people misspeak English, there's at least one English speaker in the entire world that gets pissed off at that. Probably two or more even. I'd suggest it's plainly true for any language, that'd you find at least one person who speaks that language who doesn't like it when you misspeak it. --Jayron32 14:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I highly recommend this short story , written by Haruki Murakami, a generally critically-praised Japanese author. It includes some nice description and "translation" of Kansai dialect, and also discusses how some Japanese people feel about it. One of the characters has mastered Kansai as a 'foreign' language, being a native speaker of Tokyo/standard dialect. But Jayron's basically right, at least some native speakers of any given dialect will be annoyed if outsiders try to speak it, though others might find it to be a sign of good faith and friendship. See e.g. Style_(sociolinguistics)#Style_matching, it's generally accepted that when speaking to people we like, we tend to subconsciously mimic their speech characteristics. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I found an interesting discussion on a language blog; Attitudes of minority languages speakers to learners. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Soviet violations of US borders

Off the top of my head I can't recall any and my web search also yields nothing, so I wonder whether there were any instances of violations of US airspace or territorial waters by Soviet aircraft/ships/submarines? Brandmeister 19:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Tupolev Tu-95 variants equipped with electronic surveillance capabilities often flew parallel to the U.S. coasts, and sometimes played games with approaching very close to U.S. airspace, but there doesn't seem to be anything about this on Misplaced Pages... AnonMoos (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
They still come close. for instance. Rmhermen (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Sort of, in the case of Sputnik. Up until that time, it had been somewhat assumed that national air spaces extended out into space. However, after Sputnik, the US decided not to protest, but instead use it as a precedent and put their own spy satellites over the Soviet Union. (Of course, it took many years to bring this goal about.) StuRat (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Mike Tyson rape case

Mike Tyson's been in the news recently so that kind of piqued my interest about his rape conviction. It says at the Mike Tyson article that, "Further testimony came from Thomas Richardson, the emergency room physician who examined Washington more than 24 hours after the incident and confirmed that Washington's physical condition was consistent with rape." Was it ever revealed what those physical conditions were, and how they were consistent with rape? ScienceApe (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a standard examination in most jurisdictions done on rape victims; it is highly standardized and the same for every victim, and there are rigidly defined standards for what qualifies as "consistent with rape"; medical examiners and other forensic scientists work within these standards. See Rape kit for a description of how rape exams are done. --Jayron32 00:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
That didn't answer my question. ScienceApe (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Private communities and HOAs

I'm curious to know through what legal mechanism private communities and homeowners associations function. Are they one giant slab of property or is it more complex than that? — Melab±1 ☎ 23:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has an article titled Homeowner association which covers some of the legal background regarding their operation. --Jayron32 00:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
So are they some sort of agreement? — Melab±1 ☎ 22:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
HOA's are generally set up as a covenant whereby the prospective buyer must agree to enter the covenant (sometimes called a CCR or "Covenants, conditions, and restrictions") which are riders placed on the deed that obligate the owner of the property to certain standards of property maintenance, and to pay fees to an HOA to both maintain common property within the development and to enforce the covenants within the neighborhood. For example, the HOA can fine homeowners for not maintaining their property; these fines can be placed as liens against the property which must be payed before the property can be sold. The HOA generally has a local board (with a president and several members elected from the community), the board usually then hires an HOA management company (a sort of property management) to manage the HOA system. The entire purpose of an HOA is to maintain property values for the whole community; if your nextdoor neighbor's home is left to rot, it takes down the value of your own house. HOAs are supposed to prevent/discourage that. --Jayron32 05:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

September 13

Need entry: James T. Hackett

This man is the network center of energy companies supplying a US market worth about 15x the U.S. government's annual budget. We need a page for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.65.80 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Then create one! Instructions here. Nanonic (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
We do have a page on his company, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. Is Mr Hackett notable independently of the company? If not, he may not be entitled to a separate article - see WP:BIO. Note also that any article about him, or any material about him added to the APC article, must satisfy WP:BLP. Tevildo (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Male film actors portraying female characters or vice-versa

It is somewhat of a common knowledge that male theatre actors used to play women for certain reasons. I'd like to know how many (if any) film actors were hired to portray characters of the opposite sex simply because the producers thought they would do a good job. Neither the actor nor the character should be a transvestite. To make the matter simpler, let's exclude transsexuals as well. Surtsicna (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I have the 2007 version of Hairspray in mind, specifically John Travolta's role since he did a good job as danny zuko, but idk if that counts..is op looking for a list of some sorts? ~Helicopter Llama~ 18:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Cate Blanchett played Bob Dylan (or a piece of him, anyway) in I'm Not There. Not sure if the producers thought she'd be good, but she was, so they'll likely say it was on purpose. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, September 13, 2014 (UTC)
I am looking for examples, and yours appear to be good! Surtsicna (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Linda Hunt won an Oscar playing a man in The Year of Living Dangerously. Peter Pan, according to that article, has "traditionally... been played on stage by an adult woman". --65.94.51.64 (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't confuse pantomime with straight acting! All principal boys in panto are played by women: all dames are played by men. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
French male actors Michel Fau, Nicolas Maury and Guillaume Gallienne playing women's roles http://yagg.com/2013/11/26/ces-acteurs-qui-jouent-des-femmes-telerama/ Akseli9 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Angela Winklair, Fiona Shaw, Nadia Vonderheyden, Marief Guittier, Iben Rasmussen, actresses playing men's roles http://www.hetsr.ch/upload/file/D_Delmar_Catherine_rech_04_10.pdf Akseli9 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
If it's a plot point, it doesn't answer the OP as stated. —Tamfang (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. -- Jack of Oz 02:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Besides which, I'm familiar with all of these movies and I don't think Jack is correct anyway for any one of them. And I'll say no more. --65.94.51.64 (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Queen Elizabeth I is played by a man in Orlando (film). The movie is about gender-bending to some extent, but Elizabeth's gender is not called into question- she was just played by a male actor. Staecker (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
That same movie has the suspiciously male-sounding Oleg Pogodin playing Desdemona. -- Jack of Oz 22:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Breeches role... AnonMoos (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In Monkey (TV series), the monk Tripitaka was played by Japanese actress Masako Natsume. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure this quite fits your requirement, but Dustin Hoffman played a woman in Tootsie. -84user (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, he didn't. He played a man disguised as a woman. That was the main premise of the movie. --65.94.51.64 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The main character of CJ7 is a boy played by a girl. Probably because the actress was only 11, she passed as a boy pretty well. Also in Iron Monkey (1993 film) a 12 year old girl actress played the male character of Wong Fei-hung. In both cases no gender confusion in the character is suggested. I guess they just liked the actress best, and put enough makeup on them that you can't tell the difference. Staecker (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Not quite what you're looking for, but Spuds MacKenzie was actually a female dog despite being dressed up and otherwise portrayed as being a "male". Matt Deres (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

September 14

Baby bottles - a teat at each end

You used to see baby bottles which were sort of banana-shaped, and had a teat at each end. What was the reason for having two teats, and why the switch to one? DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Too many babies, and contraception, in that order? HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Only one teat was usable at a time, so I don't think the number of babies would have anything to do with it. DuncanHill (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not all: The same site describes that upright feeders (bottles with one teat) already existed early in the 20th century, but due to their long thin necks, they were harder to clean than the banana bottles they were competing with at the time. "Wide neck upright bottles did not appear until the 1950's in the UK. However they had been around in the USA since the early part of the 20 century." The History of the Feeding Bottle. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a fascinating site! DuncanHill (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

German interrogator/torturer in the Second World War - Bonner

The Daily Telegraph obituary of the historian M. R. D. Foot mentions "a notorious German interrogator called Bonner who had tortured some of the French SAS after capture" - who was this Bonner and what happened to him? DuncanHill (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I searched a bit, but couldn't find a first name. In his Memories of an S.O.E. Historian, Foot only refers to him as "a subaltern in the Sicherheitsdienst called Bonner". The book's index lists him as "Bonner, Hauptsturmführer". ---Sluzzelin talk 06:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Well that's a start - all I've found in a quick google are some very strange conspiracy theory sites. DuncanHill (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
And Foot says that no-one ever found him, and supposes him to have got away to "Egypt, or South America, or Hell". DuncanHill (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it true that the UK will lose its nuclear weapons if Scotland goes independent?

^Topic ScienceApe (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No. But this is interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Categories: