This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2604:2000:712c:2900:3594:9808:988a:351f (talk) at 13:21, 10 August 2015 (→heroic flight attendant: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

August 5

Songs about Lucifer in Latin during Mass

There are a lot of videos circulating about the Catholic Church allegedly singing songs worshipping Lucifer during various ceremonies such as canonization and Easter Vigil. What is the correct translation of these songs, and what is implied? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As a not native speaker of English, years long when my radio set fixed to AFN instead of the Norddeutscher Rundfunk, all I mostly got between any pair of two country-music songs was always "Marijuanaschreeweekschreeescree, marijuana shrriiii and so on. German is almost easier to understand. Listening to the BBC hat you get is "whaps woe, whaps woe, woap?". --Askedonty (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? I've never encountered them. I general, I would suspect the interpretation to be a hoax, or a form of uninformed Anti-catholicism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: I'm not sure if they are hoaxes, but they are easy to find using search engines and typing a few key words like "Lucifer worship in Vatican" and there are YouTube videos in which such songs are apparently sung loud and clear. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If you search for "moon landing faked" you find a bunch of stuff too. People claim all kinds of things. But as Nanonic notes, 'lucifer' means 'morning star', and is used in that sense in the Exsultet. I speak decent Latin and own a Latin missal; I hope I don't need to tell you this, but for the avoidance of doubt: there is no Satan-worship whatever in the Latin Mass. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

See Exsultet and the article Lucifer which comments on 'morning star'. Nanonic (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As a Catholic myself I wonder why the Latin word sometimes means both things and yet sometimes is completely irrelevant to the devil. When should the distinction be made, and how should I distinguish between the two meanings depending on context? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The answer is in the article Lucifer. Go ahead. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It's when they start invoking Beelzebub that there might be a problem. Nothing wrong with exalting the light. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

If I didn't think somebody already linked Paschal candle, I'd have put that where I put the matches. Much clearer. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

In protestant churches, if they are of a high church and liturgical sort,(Anglican or some Lutheran) the Latin term "crucifer" is used for the person who carries a cross, from the Latin words for cross and bearer, "thurifer" is the person who carries the thurible with incense, and the "lucifer" carries the candle or taper to light the candles. The latter is sometimes bowdlerized to "torchbearer" or the Greek "acolyte" to avoid frightening the dimwits who might hear "lucifer" and think the kid with the candle is the Devil. One pastor joked that the person carrying the communion wine should be called the "jucifer."Edison (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I remember having heard the remark about the flame bearer. There was no question of a joke however, just a short whisper about the fact. --Askedonty (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It was not the usage of being smart back then, neither of holding postures. Backward in the country, everything unsure deserved being observed with its amount superstitious candor, if the incense perceptible or enough of yellow moss on the battered and greyish stone. --Askedonty (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The origin of "Lucifer" may prove illuminating.

Two Sardinian Archbishops were weighing the pros and cons of an official Saint Lucifer when the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition "imposed silence" on them. Apparently, that was that. For the night is dark and full of censers. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

Satan has been raging 'gainst the dying of the light for a lot longer than that. -- Jack of Oz 21:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

And long before him, Azor Ahai stood against the darkness. Or maybe it was Atar. Whatever it was, it was always burning since the world's been turning. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

• Of course, there would never be a case of two persons and/or places and/or concepts from the bible with the same name. Like, there has only ever been one Mary in the bible, and one Joseph, and one Salome and one Place called Antioch and so on ever mentioned in Religion or the Bible, and therefor all uses of those names refer to just a single person, place, or concept. Or maybe, they don't, because names are repeated and used by different people. --Jayron32 16:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It's like "Mick" says in "Sympathy for the Devil". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Lucifer goes into detail about the term, which is basically a metaphor applied to a king of Babylon, and thence extracted to create a sort of metaphor about Satan. Given that it was simply a name for the morning star (not even 'Lucifer', except in translation) I doubt those present at the first reading would have been surprised to see it applied to various things. Wnt (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

d. aft

What does d. aft. mean? As in this page: Philibert de Chandée, 1st Earl of Bath

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:FA00:6:10:F838:34A8:DBB7:B549 (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It means "died after". -- Jack of Oz 08:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've sent the silly abbreviation to its own demise. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't you mean "d.aft abbreviation"? Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I really, really hate you for coming up with that. In my declining years, I'm not as sharp as I used to be. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the second reference on that page is completely worthless as a source, and the claim (which seems quite bogus) that is referenced to it ("He is an ancestor of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, through her father Bruce Shand') isn't even mentioned on the page. In fact, he isn't mentioned on that page!! - Nunh-huh 10:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the Complete Peerage, and it states that nothing further is known of him. Therefore it is unlikely that anyone can trace a valid descent from him. (As the surname would seemingly have to pass in male line, and no male inherited his peerage, the claim seems additionally dubious.) I'll make the appropriate adjustments to the page. - Nunh-huh 10:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

41st Regiment Infantry U.S. Colored Troops

Can anybody help me find some detailed information about the 41st Regiment Infantry U.S. Colored Troops during the American Civil War? Were there any famous soldiers in this regiments? Who was the commander? What state was it from (Pennsylvania???)? What action besides the surrender at Appomattox Court House did this regiment see during the war?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a start. The page says the data is from this book, which isn't available online but might be from a library. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

History of Pennsylvania volunteers, 1861-5 pp. 1066-1081.—eric 02:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. I think that is one of the more detailed sources about this regiment that I've seen.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a short bio of Lewis L. Weld, the commanding officer, at Yale library. Connecting places and dates, he might have been tried by the Kansas District Court for ("...with force and arms, towit, with a club, knife, pistol, and other hurtful weapons...") violating the Fugitive Slave Law.—eric

Misplaced Pages has an article for him apparently as well Lewis Ledyard Weld.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

August 6

Missouri Civil War monument

Can anyone discover anything about this monument beyond what's in the image caption? I quote myself there:

Northern and western sides of the Civil War monument in the public square park in La Grange, Missouri, United States. "1864" seemingly is not the date of the monument's placement: Lewis County was strongly pro-Confederate, making it unlikely to be a Union monument (especially because Union monuments typically refer to "defense/preservation of the Union", not "defense of their country"), and the first Confederate monument was placed in 1867.

As I read it, the inscription is Erected to/the memory of the/soldiers/of Lewis County/Missouri/who fell in defence /of their country/1864, although it might be 1884. I think the circular figure is File:Seal of Missouri.svg, so that doesn't particularly help us. The article on Monticello, Missouri, the local county seat, is my source for claiming that the area was strongly Confederate. I've tried Google searches for <"La Grange" Missouri monument> and similar combinations, plus parts of the inscription, and I've checked the usually helpful waymarking.com, but I found nothing. Below the monument (not visible in this picture) is a plaque calling it the "Lewis County Civil War Monument" and noting that it had been restored in 2005 by the Sons of Union Veterans. I forgot about that when writing the caption. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

PS, there's something wrong with the rotation. If you have any clue what's going on, please chime in at WP:VPT, section "Image properly rotated and not properly rotated". Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I downloaded it and looked at it, and it needs to be rotated 90 degrees clockwise. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The original was uploaded sideways. The other sizes were all uploaded correctly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the separate entry with the same size as the original, appears to be corrupted. I can't view it or download it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In the square is the Union Soldiers Monument, a marble shaft bearing the great seal of Missouri, erected in 1864 to the memory of those soldiers of Lewis County who fell "in defense of their country."

Missouri: A Guide to the Show Me State.—eric 05:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Mexican-American War

Are there any African-American, Asian-American, Pacific Islanders combatants of the Mexican-American War which history knows of? Not interested in European or South American adventurers who may have enlisted though. Asian and Pacific Islander combatants would have been interesting.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Military history of Asian Americans makes no mention of the Mexican-American War; but if there were already Asians fighting in the War of 1812 and later the Civil War wouldn't there be at least a few known Asian soldiers in the conflict.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Military history of African Americans#Mexican–American War.--William Thweatt 03:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting how little there is about the subject.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Invisible Men: Blacks and the US. Army in the Mexican War"--William Thweatt 03:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In terms of Native Americans, I am looking more for ranking officers or even enlisted soldiers/privates within the Mexican or American army instead of border tribes who fought independently like the Comanches who often could be considered a third party in the conflict.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Asian immigration to the United States was really minimal. The first few Asians to settle in the United States came as part of the China trade during the early 1800s, but according to our article Chinese American, their number totaled just 325 before the California Gold Rush (which postdated the Mexican-American War). If any Asians fought on the U.S. side, they were unlikely to number more than one or two dozen, and even more unlikely to have been historically notable. Likewise, Asians had almost no presence in Mexico at the time. While there had been some movement of Asians to New Spain during the 16th and 17th centuries, if these migrants married, their descendants merged with the Mexican population. Marco polo (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... What about Asians and Pacific Islanders serving on US ships?... In the age of sail, ship captains found crewmen in many different ports around the world. Not sure if these would have been counted in immigration records, unless they settled in the US after leaving the ship. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a record of a Chinese sailor in Boston as early as 1798, but their numbers would have been tiny. Marco polo (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Asian Americans can also mean Filipino American or "Manilamen" and there were already evidence of them in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. . --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Lascars were South Asian sailors on European ships. This seems to suggest that there were Lascars aboard American ships in 1847. I can't find any reference to them coming ashore or settling in the US or fighting aboard war ships though it is probably likely (in albeit relatively small numbers).--William Thweatt 22:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Repression and dissent in USA.

This is a tricky one as I am based in the United Kingdom, but I am looking for stories, articles or examples that convey the importance today of dissent in a free and democratic society from any period in U.S history. Could anyone (perhaps U.S based) help point me in the right direction? Kind regards, --Bonisklegga (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There is rather a lot on this, since freedom of speech is considered a core value in the U.S. and freedom of speech is largely about protecting the right to dissent, inasmuch as popular speech does not need a whole lot of protection. You might start with our articles on First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Freedom of speech in the United States, and Freedom of the press in the United States and the linked sources. Our article on Freedom for the Thought That We Hate looks to be pretty good and links to several important Supreme Court decisions. John M Baker (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The American Civil Liberties Union often takes unpopular stances in defense of the right to dissent; famously defending the rights of groups like the Ku Klux Klan to assemble and demonstrate. --Jayron32 15:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• The big things to look at would be the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, HUAC and recently the NSA, the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, and comparisons of Nixon's and Obama's abuse of executive powers against political opponents. That's a good month's worth of reading. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Women suffrage in pre-1795 Poland?

Both in the article Women's suffrage and Feminism in Poland there I found this phrase: "Prior to the Partition of Poland in 1795, the tax-paying women were allowed to take part in political life", with no reference what so ever. This phrase need to be specified. What does it mean? In every country in the world, women "took part in political life" in one way or another, for example in France were women did so through political debates in political salons. Does this phrase mean that they had some kind of formal, legal, political rights? Some kind of suffrage rights? Does any one know if women had some kind of suffrage in Poland prior to 1795? It would not be impossible, since other countries, such as Sweden, did so in the same century. Thanks!--Aciram (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This book states that women in the 1600s (17th century) participated in the Sejm, which was the Polish equivalent of the House of Lords; that book also notes other instances of women having direct political influence, either de facto or de jure. --Jayron32 15:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, an interesting book! But did the women had some sort of voting right or seat in the sejm, or did they simply participate in the political debate in informal level? Because of the participation was merely informal, the it does not belong in the article Women's suffrage.--Aciram (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There certainly were women in pre-partition Poland who were rich, ambitious and influential, but there was no such thing as female suffrage in Poland before 1918. Women did not hold offices and could not be elected as members of parliament. In this regard, Poland did not differ from other European countries of the time. "To take part in political life" can mean a lot of things; in this case, it may only refer to behind-the-scenes scheming, not official power. — Kpalion 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, there were a limited suffrage for women in Sweden and Corsica in the 18th-century, so I wondered if the phrase intended something of that sort: perhaps some female magnates were allowed to vote to the Sejm? But if not, the phrase should perhaps be deleted from the Women's suffrage-article, since there is no reference...--Aciram (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. — Kpalion 21:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about cursive handwriting

Back in the "old days", when I was in school, we had a specific course in school that was devoted to penmanship. In the younger grades, you would learn printing and, as you progressed through to the older grades, you transitioned over to cursive writing. We all used standard penmanship books, in which the "models" of letters typically looked like those seen here, at this page: D'Nealian. So, my curiosity brings about this question. If we are all taught from the same basic principles of cursive handwriting, and we all use the same "models", how is it that everyone's cursive handwriting is so wildly different from everyone else's? I mean, oftentimes, it's not even close. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would you assume that, after 20-30-40 or more years, people wouldn't slowly change the way they write? Your assumption, that a process taught to a bunch of people when they were 10 years old would, after 30 years, be reproduced perfectly by every one of those people in exactly the same way, seems the more outrageous. --Jayron32 16:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Re-read my question. Where did I say that, exactly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

When I see samples of my own handwriting at age 10 or so, I can see that it's mine, but I'm not so sure anyone else would. One factor is that we tend to write slowly and carefully in elementary school, but over time practicality has a way of forcing you to write in the most efficient way you can, rather than trying to go slowly and carefully. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The eye is very capable of discerning small distinctions. The premise that our handwritings differ markedly is flawed. In fact our handwriting is remarkably the same. But we have the ability to discern relatively minor visual distinctions. It is by this means that we distinguish for instance the difference between the handwriting of different people. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, we were given models to use--but after that, what was stressed was legibility, rather than absolute conformity to the model. For what it's worth, here's a site for the Palmer method which more than once mentions individuality....the implication is that you could both use this method, but display individual style: http://palmermethod.com/ Herbivore (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a little like how a class of students are all taught the same material, but when asked to write an essay on a specified topic, they'll all produce unique essays. Not one will even start with the same sentence as any other. Handwriting is also governed by individual factors. Graphology claims that personality traits etc are revealed in our handwriting. Whether that's true or not, it's undeniable that signatures of notable people have been collectors' items for centuries and are very highly prized. If we all wrote the same, the signatures of George Washington, Adolf Hitler and John F Kennedy would be worthless scratchings that nobody would want, because a computer could be programmed to produce exact replicas of them, from the template set down by our teachers. Also, signatures are almost as good as fingerprints for ID purposes, which is why they appear on passports, drivers licences, bank notes etc, as corroborative evidence, and why people are sometimes asked to re-sign some document because the first attempt was too dissimilar to the sample signature. -- Jack of Oz 20:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There are references in the Handwriting article. And google brings up this which quotes a US government report that taps such factors as visual perception and motor abilities, plus a tendency to individualism and subconscious habit. It seems that since writing is a form of expression it becomes a form of self-expression too. P.S. See also Regional handwriting variation. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• It varies with time through laziness? We all seek to save time and in doing so we find different abbreviations. See Teeline Shorthand. I'm only 26 and I learned to handwrite in elementary school with a book as the OP describes, but in adulthood I've incorporated parts of Teeline into my normal handwriting, for example looping a letter d from in, curling out. The loop on my g's now go to the right. --81.145.165.214 (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Consider affectation: conscious adoption of features that make one's writing distinctive (or conform to an in-group). I soon dropped most of the goofy quirks I tried on in adolescence, but at least two things had permanent effects: some time overseas and some study of calligraphy. — On another hand, I can't tell my mother's hand from her sister's, and their mother's (who was a schoolteacher) is recognizably similar. —Tamfang (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Was Leonardo da Vinci Italian?

Even if today someone born in PisaVinci would call himself Italian, wouldn't it be the case that he would have defined himself as florentine (or fiorentino) back then?

Does Misplaced Pages has a policy for such cases, and similar cases of people who lived in a place before a nation was founded?

Should we call them by the present national denomym retroactively?

The same applies to Vivaldi, Galileo Galilei and many others, not only in the Italian region, but also in present day Germany. For example, Beethoven died in 1827, Germany exists since 1870.

Or would you say that Jesus is Palestinian too?

--Scicurious (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Someone from Pisa would typically identify as Pisan or Italian; unless I'm mistaken, Florentine would have been an unlikely identity for anyone not from the city of Florence or its very immediate environs (such as Vinci).
• I personally would call Leonardo Florentine or Italian. We go with "Italian" in the lede in that case, presumably because it is better understood by more readers.
• The terms "Italy" and "Germany" were in wide use in the periods relevant to Vivaldi, Galileo, and Beethoven: it's just that they weren't nation-states. But in that era there simply weren't nation-states. I can't speak to Vivaldi in this respect, but Galileo wrote in Italian at a time where almost all other scientists wrote in Latin, which shows a strong attachment to Italian identity, and similarly I would say that Beethoven's identity as a German is not in doubt.
• Clearly the term Palestinian is anachronistic when applied 2000+ years ago, just as we would not call someone from that era Israeli, Saudi or Jordanian.
• The policy gets murky before the age of nation-states and the modern notion of citizenship. There is a certain extent to which you have to use common sense. - Jmabel | Talk 23:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, Leonardo was from Vinci Republic of Florence (therefore, he's called da Vinci). Galileo was from Pisa. The question remains the same.--Scicurious (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

For Misplaced Pages policy on this issue, there's WP:OPENPARA, which states the criterion as "the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." However, this goes on to use Petrarch as an example, listing his nationality as "Italian" (not Tuscan or Florentine). The general guideline probably therefore should be to use (a) what reliable sources use for a person's nationality (which gives us "Galilean" for Jesus), or (b) the results of discussions on individual talk pages. This question might be better at the Village Pump (WP:VPP). Tevildo (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course just because there is a guideline to cover it doesn't mean that there aren't disagreements. Nikola Tesla, Nicki Minaj and George Bernard Shaw have all been subject to disagreements over their nationality. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• The ultimate answer is "We do what reliable sources do, and don't make our own judgments on decisions on what we think should be done, merely because we have "reasons"." If the preponderance of reliable sources call Da Vinci Italian, we do too, even if we have reasons we could list why we think those sources are wrong. --Jayron32 01:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

What Jayron said. It's worth also echoing what was said earlier: the word "Italy" (or more accurately, "Italia"), has been in use for far longer than the nation of Italy has existed. The Italian peninsula has been referred to as Italia for over 2000 years. Roman historians also began referring to the area of modern Germany and the people who lived there as Germani since the time of Julius Caesar, even though there was not a nation called Germany until the late 19th century. It may seem strange to us now, but there was absolutely a time when most Europeans did not tie their identity to the state of which they were subjects. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There was a Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation before 1806. —Tamfang (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

...Which never included all of Germany, and also included many non-German areas like Northern Italy and Bohemia (Czech). It was far from a nation state, and for many centuries before it folded in 1806, it was a shell of an organization, weakly held together by historical tradition, and having no real power over the constituent states which by-and-large managed their own affairs as independent principalities for several centuries before it's abolition by Napoleon. During the Habsburg Empire, any power held by the Imperial office came more from the territorial and financial power of Austria than from imperial institutions themselves. After the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, any remaining vestiges of imperial power itself became quite meaningless. --Jayron32 14:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The question was about nations, not about nation-states. (I'm one of those cranks who do not accept the latter's claim to be synonymous with the former.) I mentioned the Empire, which named itself in part after the German nation even if it did not encompass the whole, in snarky support of the proposition that there existed a German nation. —Tamfang (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

See also Mozart and Mozart's nationality. There was a huge amount of debate over this on his talk page.--Phil Holmes (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No because Italy did not exist when he was born. Erunaquest (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Gotta wonder how someone got the idea to unify something that did not exist. —Tamfang (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Significance of a virgin-martyr in Christianity

What is the significance of a virgin-martyr in Christianity? Why would the blessed saint be venerated as a virgin and as a martyr? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Most organized religions (and nations, and many movements) have one or another degree of cult around their martyrs. Most forms of Christianity strongly associate virginity with innocence of sin. I'm not sure what more there is to say.
• But I'm not sure I understand the question, and you may wish to expand on it. Are you asking how/when this came to be? If not, then what are you asking? - Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought there was something special with treating "virgin" and "martyr" as one term: "virgin-martyr". Since when did Christianity strongly associate virginity with innocence of sin, or did this association predate Christianity? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily with innocence of sin, but celibacy as an ideal; in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul notes that celibacy (refraining from all sexual activity) is the highest state, but concedes that as people find sex a strong drive, that it is allowable to be married for the purpose of having sex. --Jayron32 01:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That may be the current teaching (thanks to Tertullian and later like minded "fighters of heresy"), but many early sects of Christianity (before the 66 books were canonized) demanded celibacy and eschewed marriage. See for example Acts of Paul and Thecla and, especially, Acts of Thomas in which Thomas (or his twin brother Jesus) get into a series of predicaments as a result of preaching celibacy even in the context of marriage. "If you refrain from this filthy intercourse you become temples holy and pure, released from afflictions and troubles" (Acts of Thomas 12). Jesus himself was said to appear to a king's daughter and her husband on their wedding night(!) and convince them to remain celibate. "I have had no conjugal intercourse with a temporary husband, whose end is repentance and bitterness of soul, because I have been united to my true Husband", i.e. God. (Acts of Thomas 14). The idea of remaining celibate to maintain purity has strong roots in historical Christianity. The Acts of John also taught celibacy and contains the story of Drusiana, who was raised from the dead after a miraculous snakebite prevented a necrophiliac from ruining her chastity (read it, you can't make this stuff up lol). This may also be interesting to the OP.--William Thweatt 06:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that assumes mainstream living Christianity is the heresy, and that true Christianity is the historical one suppressed by the ancestors of mainstream Christianity? My question is concerned with mainstream living Christianity, regardless of whether they are holding the truth. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

All of those works are Apocrypha, which are excellent works for understanding early Christianity in historical context, but do not hold relevance as theological or dogmatic guidance for any modern, mainstream, or significant Christian sects, and have not for many, many centuries. --Jayron32 14:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember when this place became so adversarial, or has it always been so? One wouldn't expect to be sucked into a debate by posting references at a reference desk, but this is the internet, I guess. @71.79.234.132: No, that assumes no such thing. It means that before one book or another was declared heretical, they all contributed to early Christian thought. You asked "Since when did Christianity strongly associate virginity with innocence...", I pointed out that such a belief has been present since the earliest days of Christianity. @Jayron, I didn't claim that the Apocrypha hold relevance as theological or dogmatic guidance for modern Christianity, in fact, my very first sentence implied I'm well aware that they don't. Although the Docetic/Gnostic/Arian/etc. theologies found in some of these books were declared heretical and the books themselves subsequently denounced, the traditions/myths/histories/etc. remained in the consciousness of Christians and were part of the development of what today is mainstream. I admire the variety of knowledge you demonstrate through your excellent posts here, so I'm sure I don't have to tell you, Christianity didn't develop in a vacuum--in fact, there were many Christianities and in order to understand modern ideas (such as the "virgin-martyr"), we need to understand their history...all of their history. The apocrypha remained popular long after they were excluded from the canon. For example Thecla is considered one of the very first virgin-martyrs. She is still venerated to this day, with all the major orthodox churches giving her a feast day. And, in the 14th century, Giotto painted "St. John Raising Drusiana" from the dead in the Peruzzi Chapel. While not valid as modern sources of official theology, these books may be the source of many beliefs (doctrinal or otherwise) we adhere to today and have, at the very least, served to perpetuate and reinforce ancient ideas such as the one about which the OP has inquired.--William Thweatt 20:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I made no statement that any reasonable person could interpret as being adversarial. --Jayron32 22:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! Oh, boy! Lots of links and reading! 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference Desk had some good background on virgin martyrs recently: Humanities Reference Desk archives: virgin martyrs -- 02:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Tampico Affair?

I'm trying to put better categories, description, date, etc. on Commons:File:1A1182101XVIII001 (15248753605). I'm guessing this would have to be a photo from the time of the Tampico Affair in 1914, leading to the occupation of Veracruz. Does anyone think otherwise? Does anyone know anything more specific? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in replying User:Jmabel, but I've had a couple of attempts at this with not much to show for it. The nearest battleship in your photo seems to me to be a South Carolina-class battleship, which means that she was not among the warships that participated in the Tampico Affair. In our US Atlantic Fleet article, there's a list of ships for 1913 and as you can see, there were a large number of battleships in that particular command. However, that's just my opinion and somebody more familiar with US warships might be more certain. I've left a request for help at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history which might yield better results. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

USS Plunger (SS-2)

Got another one here. The chronology of the sub itself limits this to 1902-1921; does anyone have any ideas for narrowing it further? - Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There's lots of detailed info in this article by a retired USN commander. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems to be basically the same info as what we currently have. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

When did China learn about America

When did China first learn about the existence of the Americas (post 1492; I'm not looking for theories of Zheng He and his fleet beating Columbus)? When did they first recorded it down or mention Europeans finding/mentioning lands to their far east beyond Japan? What was the first/oldest known Chinese exonym for this region of the world?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found a direct answer to your question, but our article on Foreign relations of imperial China mentions that trade with Portugal began in the early 1500s. Tuen Mun was in fact home to Portuguese settlers as early as 1514. Given this I'd say it's certainly possible the Chinese found out about the Americas not long after everyone else. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume that the Chinese would have known about the area indirectly through the Spanish China trade in the Philippines. The Spanish paid with silver and gold from the New World, so what would the Chinese have called the land from which this wealth originate or did they thought it came from Xiyang (Europe).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that someone at the language desk could answer the language part of the question. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

We may never know for sure because early voyagers may have been undocumented. Erunaquest (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm not interested in if theories and assumed the Chinese learn of the region from Europeans after Columbus' discovery.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a name that you might take to the language desk. According to The Economist, this map File:1763-1418ChineseMap.jpg might be dated 1418 (an alternate date is 1763). There is a label (in Chinese) on the Americas. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And see Kunyu Wanguo Quantu, made in 1602 and said in that article to be the first Chinese map showing the Americas. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

more links for 184's answer see: De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas and Yee, Cordell (1987). Traditional Chinese Cartography and the Myth of Westernization. In Harley, J. B., In Woodward, D., & In Monmonier, M. S. (1987). The History of cartography. (Vol. 2, Bk. 2) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.—eric 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The difficulty here is in treating "the Chinese" as a unified entity. There is little doubt that some individual Chinese people learned about the American land mass in the early 1500s. But how far did that knowledge propagate? It might be worth pointing out the the Norwegians knew from around 1000 A.D. onward of the American land mass down to the latitude of the Saint Lawrence River -- but that knowledge was not communicated to southern Europe. So when did "the Europeans" learn about America? Looie496 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Individuals who funded the American revolutionary war

Supreme Court: Decision in Shelby County v. Holder, Doc. 12-96

A preclearance provision (Section 5) of the Voting Rights Act. The Case was brought as a Facial Challenge, which I thought meant the Decision had to either accept "all" or "nothing" of the challenge. The Decision, however parced out only part of Section 5 (taking out the teeth of Section 5...or at the least sending it back to Congress), which felt like the Case was being decided as if AllynFuller (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)it had been an As-Applied Challenge. What am I missing in my understanding of Facial v. As-Applied? Thank you!

See Shelby County v. Holder and Facial challenge. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 4(b) of the act was unconstitutional (that is, the facial challenge to that section was upheld; there are no circumstances in which it can be applied in compliance with the Constitution), but upheld the constitutionality of Section 5; or, at least, "issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula." Tevildo (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Criminal issues arising from withheld information

What are the possible criminal implications arising from withholding information from police to the extent to which the protagonist in Nightcrawler (2014) withheld information from police according to California law? I would have some serious difficulties finding criminal liability. --91.64.67.98 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a very unsafe thing to make assumptions about, and we can by no means give legal advice, but it's worth considering obstruction of justice and accessory after the fact, also contempt of court if a court order for the tape and equipment is given (wouldn't they?). I wouldn't be confident about destruction of evidence either, even if what they did was to make a copy of the tape, stop, then go back and tape over part of it, because after all, isn't the temporarily more informative copy "evidence"? Prosecutors seem to have carte blanche to write their own rules of logic as they go along. If they want you in jail, you're going to jail... and this would really tick them off. Wnt (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Though if the prosecution wants to send you to jail, but knows of exculpatory evidence the police have, they must not bury it. Sort of the opposite of defending yourself by burying inculpatory evidence, but opposites are sort of relevant to each other. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

The plot summary in our article says the protagonist tampers with crime scenes to make better pictures. That goes beyond withholding evidence. —Tamfang (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

He does many not-quite-ethical things (at least by other people's standards). After he records the scene of a fatal burglary, the killers come back and he gets a clear shot of their faces and vehicle from a hiding spot. But he has his own plans for them, so gives the detectives a shorter version of the video, and tells them he didn't see anyone. I think that's what the OP is talking about. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

August 8

Closing down the shop. A big shop.

Many large companies have gone bankrupt over time - for instance, Kodak, but do large companies ever decide to sell their assets and dissolve themselves the way a small business person might? I'm thinking of companies that think they can't innovate enough to survive, but it could be for other reasons. 188.247.76.211 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes—Lehman Brothers and Woolworths Group are probably the most spectacular recent bankrupt companies to close the doors and fire all the staff because they were unable to find a buyer or provide a credible restructuring plan. I assume from the fact you mention Kodak that you're asking about the US, in which case Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code explains the actual process of dissolution. – iridescent 19:55, 8 August 20188.247.76.211 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)15 (UTC)

I may not have formulated my question clearly. I am wondering about big companies that voluntarily, while liquid, just decide to stop trading. (And I'm Canadian, but interested in any huge company anywhere.)188.247.76.211 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Any large company that is a going concern—i.e., not facing likely bankruptcy—would seek a buyer if its shareholders felt they no longer wanted to operate the company. Simply liquidating a company and selling off its assets would bring in less money then selling the company intact, because of all the intangible assets, like institutional knowledge and goodwill, that operating companies have. You can see this demonstrated when a publicly-traded company is acquired. The acquisition price is very often above the acquired company's market cap, which represents the price it would cost to simply buy outright every share of the company's stock. Partially this is because if someone actually tried to do this in the market, the market would react, and people would start asking for more for their stock, driving the share price up, but also this is often in recognition of the company's intangibles. Because of this fact, that you would get a lower price by liquidating the company, it would be a likely breach of their fiduciary duty if the board and/or executives decided to do this without a very good reason. Now, small companies liquidate fairly often, but these are usually personally-owned or privately held small businesses, say, a doctor deciding to retire and close down her practice. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles were a financially viable business, but chose to dissolve. DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

They dissolved the partnership for the band itself; but many assets of the Beatles continued to operate; like Apple Corps and Northern Songs. Even down to today, Apple Corps has four primary shareholders: the two living Beatles, and the estates of the two ex-living Beatles, and is quite a viable business. --Jayron32 23:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It does occasionally happen that a large solvent business has tangible assets that are worth more than the value of the business as a whole, and the decision is made to sell the business. When this occurs, however, the business almost always looks for a single buyer, or at least a small number of buyers. There is considerable loss of value in the liquidation and winding up process, and a single buyer can be expected to pay something much closer to the full value of the assets. John M Baker (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Tipping & Sales Tax

Why is it considered common practise in certain countries to expect people to tip poorly paid staff. Why are more people not annoyed by the fact that they're coerced into subsidising low pay? Also, are there campaigning efforts in countries such as the United States to ensure that the wage paid to waiting staff is sufficient for them to live on. In the UK, where I'm from, the expectation is that you tip a job well done - in other countries, and some very high-end restaurants in the UK, it doesn't seem to be optional. This article suggests that service industry employment in restaurants, in the US at least, is a huge burden on American taxpayers, so I don't understand why more isn't being done. --Andrew 2:59 pm, Today (UTC−5)

More being done by who? GregJackP Boomer! 21:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

On another topic, I don't understand why the United States doesn't have a flat sales tax - if you're a US citizen and you wanted to purchase the exact same thing in a different states, I don't understand why you should have to pay either the price of the item or the price of the item plus up to eight percent. I also don't understand why congress doesn't force businesses to display their prices inclusive of tax, rather than finding out when you're at the checkout - as it is, it seems very misleading.

Sorry to rant, I'm going to Florida in september and have just come across these things, which seem completely alien to me. Coould somebody explain to me why the US has these in place, and is there net benefit to them--Andrew 19:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't care if you add stuff, but don't alter your original post after someone has responded to it to make it read in a different manner. Congress doesn't force it because the people won't stand for it. Congress has limited powers. GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. Why would people not stand for knowing the price they pay for an item before they go to the checkout?

• People who want to enact change, of course - pressure groups, lobbyists, those who believe in equality. It's deeply unfair to the consumer and to the employee.

When I was a restaurant server in Montreal (where our salary was legally below the Quebec standard minimum wage) I earned so much more in tips that I wouldn't have minded not having a salary at all. I certainly wouldn't have traded my tips for a 'living wage' salary.188.247.76.211 (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

As an American, the answer to your second question is because American political culture has always been deeply suspicious of centralized power. We started with an armed revolt against a government, after all. Limiting centralized government power is the impetus behind our whole federal system. State and local governments set their own sales taxes, and different governments set different taxes. Any proposal for a national sales tax would face strong opposition from people who would dislike giving that power to the national government and imposing a single tax rate across the whole country. We needed to amend the Constitution to impose a national individual income tax, because the Constitution otherwise requires all "direct taxes" levied by the national government to either be assessed equally per state, or assessed based on each state's population. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 9

Why does McDonalds use cardboard boxes to store its sandwiches?

Why do the sandwiches come in cardboard boxes instead of a wrapper? Is there a reason for this corporate decision that is strikingly different from its competitor Wendy's? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it has to do with the amount of grease in their respective sandwiches. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

My WWW search for ask mcdonalds a question found several useful websites.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It may boil down to some group at the company thinking that a box is better than just a wrapper. After all, a box makes it harder to crush the sandwich contained within. I would not be surprised if the corrugated cardboard that they use retains heat better than a paper wrapper and thus keeps food warmer for longer. Cardboard boxes are also better/easier for stacking in the bag. At least they don't use Styrofoam (polystyrene) anymore. Dismas| 03:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Back a few decades, McDonalds used Styrofoam boxes, but changed to more eco-friendly card in 1987 after a protest campaign by environmental groups in the US. See The McToxics Victory. Alansplodge (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

First, not all McDonald's sandwiches come in a box (smaller sandwiches, such as a simple cheeseburger, are sold in just a wrapper). That said, I am willing to bet that MacDonald's packaging is consumer driven. The company has likely conducted lots of surveys to see what packaging it's consumers prefer. I won't speak for others, but I know that I like the box packaging when I order a "meal" that I will sit down to eat in the restaurant (as opposed to when I order just a sandwich to eat on the run). The reason I like it is that the box doubles as a plate... one side of the box can hold the sandwich between bites... while the other can be used to hold the fries and catchup. Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"Catchup"? Never seen that one before. Was that a typo for 'catsup' or 'ketchup' or a neologism I was unaware of? 99.235.223.170 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandwiches from McDonalds? I thought they sold burgers. DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hamburgers are a type of sandwich -- food that comes placed between two pieces of bread. Our article notes that the hamburger are also sometimes called a "hamburger sandwich," to differentiate it from the hamburger steak. Our sandwich article also lists hamburgers in its examples. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Burgers come in a bun, not two slices of bread. Both the burger, and the burger-in-a-bun, are called burgers, not sandwiches, or steaks. A steak is a proper cut of meat. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hamburger and hot dog buns are bread. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And yet Sandwich lists hamburgers, and if you order a hamburger in some parts of the world you'll get just a Salisbury steak, and if you want to order a Salisbury steak without gravy in many restaurants you order a hamburger steak. Defining sandwiches as two sliced pieces of bread is incomplete: it omits Submarine sandwiches, Mexican tortas, paninis, and many deli sandwiches. Really, my earlier statement "two pieces" is incomplete as it omits many open-faced sandwiches and flatbread sandwiches. Food placed between two slices of bread, or halves of a bun or roll, or sides of flat bread -- food placed in bread that was cut or torn open to hold it -- is a sandwich. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Catchup"... sorry... auto correct malfunction. Re: Sandwich... that's what MacDonald's itself calls anything that comes in a bun. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Blueboar. Catchup is a legitimate spelling variant. Deor (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Unlike this recent case. The original (unintended but should-have-been-noticed-before-it-was-too-late) error was compounded by a (since deleted) joke on Twitter, then an apology of sorts, which referred to a "regretful error", which ought to have said "regrettable error". Ah, the joys of culinary (mis-)communication. -- Jack of Oz 19:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in British English, a hamburger is never a sandwich which requires sliced bread. However, it's clear that a hamburger definitely IS a sandwich in American English. ""two nations divided by a common language". Alansplodge (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Renaissance models

Have there been much study done on the identity or human models behind Renaissance sculptures? Were there any stigma of being portray in the nude that would have made most of lower class such as prostitutes or courtesans and whatever the equivalent in male subjects.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Female models were generally either itinerant traders, poor immigrants or prostitutes, and were regarded with suspicion and stereotyped as promiscuous. Male models were generally soldiers or sportsmen, as they were more likely to have the desired physique and also had the discipline to hold poses for the necessary long times. In Renaissance and post-Renaissance Europe, male nudity had very little stigma in art, as the Greek sculptures (which were considered the ideal) were generally nude. Male models came from the lower classes but their bodies were frequently compared to the classical heroes, in contrast to female models, whose low social status was seen to conflict with the high cultural status of the mythological figures they were required to emulate (The Victorian Nude, Alison Smith (1996) p.25), if you want chapter-and-verse; that's talking about the early 19th century, but little changed between the Renaissance and the 1830s. Female nudes are actually very rare in Renaissance art outside of Venice (and non-existent in England and those countries following the English tradition until William Etty in the 1820s–30s), owing to assorted anti-pornography laws.

Incidentally, a lot of Renaissance "female nudes", including well-known ones like The Birth of Venus, are actually painted from male models with breasts added and genitalia removed. Raphael is generally considered the first significant European artist to use female models for nude studies. (There's some evidence the Rokeby Venus was painted from life, but nobody is quite sure.)

Outside of portraits, there are very few records of individual models, other than occasional jottings in artists' notebooks or letters about a particular favourite model. The practice of treating the model as important in his/her own right, rather than as interchangeable props, only really began with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (1848 onwards) in England, and gradually rippled out (which is why there are so many pictures, even by very well-documented artists, with labels like "Two Women" or "Standing Male Nude"). Even with modern paintings, it's not uncommon for there to be little or no documentation for who the model in a particular picture is.

Regarding sculpture, bear in mind that a lot of renaissance sculpture was a combination of elements from Greek or Roman originals, rather than being depicted from sketches drawn from life. Michelangelo's male bodies, for instance, were generally copied from the Belvedere Torso. ‑ iridescent 18:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"Flat Earth" conspiracy theories

Since NASA released their video of the moon crossing earth I've been encountering a lot of people spouting crazy conspiracy theories relating to it. Not just "the moonlandings were faked", which I've seen before, but a surprising number of people claiming that not only that, but that the earth is actually flat, and the idea of a round world is the result of a conspiracy. Can anyone explain what these conspiracy theories are actually about? In particular, 1) how/why they think the earth is flat, and 2) who they think is trying to cover this up and why? I've checked our flat earth and Flat-earth society pages, and they don't give much information about the actual "justification" for their beliefs, and I have more important things to do with my life than watching the three hours of youtube videos they pointed me to that would supposedly convince anyone with an "open mind". Iapetus (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki has more information about this. Of course I can't know what your particular conspiracy theorists are on about, but for some flat earthers it's a case of extreme biblical literalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It depends on what other conspiracy theories the flat earther believes, but "no, (fact) is the conspiracy!" is a pretty common retort by conspiracy theorists. Basically, whoever they think is behind the New World Order, be it the Masons, Catholics, Satanists, Jews, white people, black people, lizard people... would be faking the evidence to hide the "truth" of the Bible (I thought the truths of the Bible were things like "Love your neighbor," and the Beatitudes, but whatever) and control our lives (either out of a belief that cosmological knowledge trumps faith, or to prevent global uprisings, or enable alien invasions, depending on who the NWO has and what motive they have). This article describes their views some. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I bet that for every one who really believes it there are a dozen who are just trolling us, but how would you measure? I mean, is there anything more sensible about pretending fealty to some corporate ball team in order to make conversation than espousing some nutty conspiracy theory? Wnt (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that New Horizons has passed Pluto, I have to admit that there is a perverse part of me that secretly wants it to suddenly crash into a crystal sphere. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Would the Oort Cloud suffice? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"why they think the earth is flat" Mental illness is a hell of a drug. --Golbez (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

VE Day and VJ Day

A few years ago, VE Day and VJ Day were merged, but just once. Now they are separate again. Why? KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because they are different days? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I know Bugs, but why were they merged - just for oe year - and then separated again? We all thought the merger was going to be permanent. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 07:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean this on 10 July 2005?—eric 21:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 07:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

August 10

Psychobiography Resources on Internet

Hello. We are Designing a form of Class for managers and Leaders motivating them to know themselves better to be more efficient and productive. Our idea is to use Psychobiographic Material to help our cause ,for example "Nikola Tesla Was Obsessive because of his Childhood issues" But the problem is that many information out there are biased and Unreliable ,Is there any specific site or Database to help us find cases to study ? if not is there anything that you propose for us to do ? -- Best Wishes, 2.147.201.133 (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

One person has compiled a Psychobiography Web Resources page and refers to a particular textbook. In the Misplaced Pages page on Psychobiography, the section on origins and development provides examples of published psychobiographies of noted individuals, and the section on criticism indicates some serious objections relevant to your proposed use. If you're doing a thorough study, authors whose works are cited as references may have published other useful materials. You might beware of superficial web content produced by copywriters rather than qualified professionals and academics. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Abrahamic Religions

An Islamic friend of mine has just told me that Islam was the first Abrahamic religion. Does this make sense to anyone? KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 07:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The claim is that Muhammad was just restoring the original religion of Adam. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You know, after reading this, Mormonism seems to bear some resemblance to Islam. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The Quran explicitly makes the claim that Abraham was not a Jew or Christian, but a Muslim (surah 3:67), and in a sense, even Jews and Christians may agree with this. A Muslim literally is 'someone who submits' (to God), and therefore one could call Abraham simply a Muslim, considering that Judaism is named after Judah, Christianity after Jesus Christ, neither of which had been born in Abraham's day. That said, there is no historical support for the claim that modern Islamic doctrines and practices (hadj, ramadan, the shahada etc. ), which derive from Muhammad and 7th century Arabian culture, have any connection with the faith of Abraham and early monotheists. - Lindert (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

... and, of course, from a Christian viewpoint, you haven't taken into account John 8 verse 58, where Christ claims to have existed before Abraham. If Abraham followed any religious system, it was most probably Zoroastrianism. Dbfirs 12:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

heroic flight attendant

I remember watching a video on YouTube. It went viral shortly after being broadcast on the news locally and nationally. It was about Delta Airlines Flight 1549. The aircraft was flying from Atlanta, Georgia to White Plains, New York. It had to make an emergency landing at JFK International Airport due to the right landing gear getting jammed. The only flight attendant on board shouted "HEADS DOWN! STAY DOWN!" over and over until the airplane came to a complete stop on the tarmac. She's a true American heroine. Who is she?2604:2000:712C:2900:3594:9808:988A:351F (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

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