Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 22

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 22

D-Notice with partially blank front pages in UK

Long ago when I was a kid I remember newspapers showing a partially blank front page instead of a photo of Elizabeth Windsor in her gold carriage I think. I expect she was sneezing or something. D-Notices and partially blank pages do not seem to happen anymore. Is there a list of them, and what was EW actually doing in the incident I've described. Thanks 92.28.253.8 (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As that article notes, a DA notice was issued (in regard Wikileaks documents) on 25 November 2010, so evidently they are still in use. A D notice is a request to the newspaper, asking them not to publish something on the grounds of national security; the newspaper is quite free to ignore a D notice. If HMG feels it necessary to force a newspaper not to publish something, they take out an injunction, as they did (for example) in regard to Spycatcher (ref), Zircon (ref), and Chevaline (ref). I expect blank pages or sections were a result of a D-notice or injunction being received shortly before the newspaper was due to print (and with old metal type setting, it wasn't practical to reset new copy into the space lost to the notice before print time). That is, I don't think it was evidence of the newspaper protesting the notice: for a D notice they voluntarily complied with it, and for an injunction they'd want to run a story about them being injuncted. If the injunction forbade even mentioning the injunction itself, wilfully blanking a section of the newspaper would risk being a breach of that injunction. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 10:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's very difficult to imagine a D-notice being issued for a spurious reason like an embarrassing photo of the Queen. The D-notice system relies on mutual trust between the Government and the press; it means "you might not understand why, but trust us when we say this is a matter of significant security concern to the realm, and we really think you mustn't publish this". It is particularly of value to the Government when the press intends to publish something that, to it, seems rather minor (e.g. the odd behaviour of an ambassador at a recent function) but which really signify something of genuine national security concern (e.g. said ambassador plans to defect to the UK and bring juicy details of his country's government). If the Government started issuing D-notices for daft things like bad photos of the Queen or what Prince Andrew said to the chauffeur, they'd destroy that trust and lose the utility of the system. They'd be forced to rely only on injunctions, a process that is complicated, expensive, risky, and very newsworthy. I can see how Buckingham Palace might object to a photo or story and write a stroppy letter (they have done so in the past), and a newspaper might reluctantly spike it in fear of losing access - but that's very far from a D-notice. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If it was not the normal toadying, perhaps someone had jumped onto the coach. 92.15.5.152 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Who is this Elizabeth Windsor and why does she have a gold carriage? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

She is a woman who has been divenely ordained by God to be kept in the greatest possible luxury by the British taxpayer. This luxury must be maintained at all costs even if public services have to be cut back (ie people die and suffer) to pay for it. 92.15.4.2 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

She doesn't "have", i.e. "own" it: it's a publicly owned vehicle she sometimes has to use as part of her job, despite its primitive suspension, unreliable motive power, and lack of air conditioning, stereo, and most other routine modern features :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about that - if the queen owns all freeholds, then dosnt the queen also ultimately own everything in Britain? Job? Is going to a wedding or a toadying session part of a job? And since she is the head of a state which could (until recently) kill people for cowardice etc, then perhaps she owns all of us also. 92.15.4.2 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some confusion between ownership and allegiance. Not sure that EW owns the freehold to much I think you may be confusing the head of state with the individual. Perhaps it should be noted that without the house of windsor the UK still has to have a head of state and some fancy building to entertain visitors, they would still have to represent the country at events. I suspect the cost would not be much different. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The OP said "partially blank front page instead of a photo of Elizabeth Windsor in her gold carriage I think", how would you know that it was if it had been censored? I would think if it had happened then some record of it would exist. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the hole had a detailed caption. —Tamfang (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The "hole" was described on radio or tv. They said it was a picture of EW in her coach, but did not give any further details. Seeing a blanked part of the front page of some major national newspapers was quite something. 92.28.252.136 (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Children's Day / Boys' Day / Girls' Day in Sweden

I read on Chinese Wikipedia that Sweden does not have a Children's Day for both male and female kids, but a boys' day and a girls' day separately. I can't find the same description on English:Childrens' Day, which instead says Swedes celebrate 2 Children's Day, one in October as International Children's Day and one on 13 May as national children's day. For the Chinese claim I can actually find a source, "Backgrounder: Children's holidays around the world", from the state-owned xinhuanet. Could anyone please confirm whether the source correctly describes the situation in Sweden? It's interesting to know Sweden has Lobster Festival as Boys' Day and Saint Lucia's Day as Girls' Day!! English wikipedia should mention it too if it's confirmed!! Thank you very much!! :) --Poeticlion (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That information is not correct. I have never heard of any Boys' and Girls' days, and Saint Lucia's Day is definitely not regarded as a Girls' day. It is Saint Lucia's Day which, as that article describes, has a bunch of traditional activities associated, where the main part of the main one is usually done by a girl, but that does not make the day a girls' day. The part about two Children's Days is a bit more correct, though neither celebrated as such. On International Children's Day, there is usually features in media about poor kids in other parts of the world, associated fund-raiser events on TV etc., but no celebrations as such. The national one Barnens dag in May has a ring of maybe 1910-1970 about it. Back then, there were apparently fairs, fun-fairs, parades etc. in cities and towns. (For example, one such event in the sixties is a part of the plot of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.) My home town seems to have had such an event in August last year, so it seems it is now more of a generic name for a town fair with focus on events for children. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The passage on Sweden in the Xinhua article is, as pointed out, totally false. It brings to mind the Chako Paul City story, seems that somehow individual journalist thinks it's ok to cough up any story to fill out space, but a practice made more complicated in the internet age. --Soman (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the courageous lobster, so revered in Swedish folklore. There is no Lobster Festival on August 7 and no one thinks that lobsters are courageous. August 7 used to be the start of crayfish season.Sjö (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Coffeeshivers. As I understand, there is no nation-wide children's day celebration after 1970s, and now celebration is not limited to 13 May. Considering xinhuanet's background, its local news in Chinese language is most likely unreliable (to me at least), but it is hard to think why they even bother fabricating news in a country soooo unrelated to China. I thought this piece of article could somehow be true since it's published in xinhuanet's English version. Am I to crush someone's fantasy about a Northern paradise again :( ?--Poeticlion (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Geography/GK question

Which city went green in a big way in the last 5 years. It is the site of one of the Worlds's major developments. It was a small sleepy town in the early 19th century. Security is tight as international terrorism is a concern here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If we tell you the answer, will you share the prize with us? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

EC: The proper wording of the quiz is as usual available at [1], and as usual we expect you to donate the $100 to Wikipedia if you win. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Think People's Republic of China.
Sleigh (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

international terrorism is a concern? Corvus cornix_talk 18:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

China was "a small sleepy town"? I very much doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sleigh was making an oblique allusion, not a direct answer, but I think was in any case wrong. Think Olympic Games and other forthcoming sporting events, droogs. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking Washington, D.C.. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking Los Angeles, California (or even better, San Francisco) Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

San Francisco was NOT a small, sleepy town at the end of the 19th century, it was far-and-away the largest city on the West Coast. It was only surpassed by Los Angeles in the 20th century, which was a small, sleepy town in the 1800s. --Jayron32 02:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

San Francisco may not have slept since 1848, but the question says "early 19th century". —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Shanghai was rather a small place up until the 1840s. Whereas, large parts of Beruit are green now. 79.66.108.45 (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I got it. The answer has to be Baghdad. See Green Zone for "went green". Maybe? This quizzes often go for the "punny" answer. At least its a different way of thinking... --Jayron32 16:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That's gotta be Valdez Alaska. Googlemeister (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, 1971 war and South Asia

How is Sheikh Mujibur Rahman a Cold War figure? How is Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 considered as part of Cold War? United States and Russia were not involved in this? Were they? How are Indira Gandhi and her father Jawaharlal Nehru Cold War figures? In Pakistan, how are Muhammed Ayub Khan and Muhammed Zia-ul-Haq Cold War figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.145 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Any politician on the international scene 1948-1991 would be, willingly or unwillingly, involved in the Cold War. The 1971 was certainly a Cold War proxy conflict, in which USA and China backed (to some degree at least) Pakistan and India and Soviet Union supported the formation of independent Bangladesh. --Soman (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The term "proxy conflict" is inaccurate if it is used to imply that the Soviets and U.S. were directly and proximately supporting the sides to any degree remotely comparable to what went on in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war etc. Rather, each power's general approach to the overall issue was influenced by their pre-existing regional alliances... AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

? Wherein lies the difference? Around the Bangladesh Liberation War there was definately a diplomatic and political battle, demarkated along Cold War rivalry-lines. --Soman (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, both sides were directly shoveling large quantities of fairly high-tech arms to their clients, and U.S. and Soviet military observers were taking careful notes about how their weapons stood up against those of the other side (this was in fact pretty much the last war in which aerial dogfighting played a significant military role) -- and there was an aggravation of the tensions in direct U.S.-Soviet relations. I don't think any of this was true to anything near the same degree in Bangladesh. AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean that the Bangladesh Liberation War wasn't a Cold War conflict, in which the borders of Soviet and US spheres of influence clashed. Now in the case of Bangladesh, US was supposedly neutral and politically rather defensive (but was in fact in close liason with the Pakistani regime). USSR relied largely on India to intervene in the conflict. But is 1973 war is the bar, then there are a lot of other proxy conflicts that would fall out of scope. --Soman (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't object to the term "cold war", I objected to the term "proxy". Has it ever made any kind of sense to suppose that the West Pakistanis were fighting on behalf of the Free World, or that the Bangladeshis/Indians were fighting on behalf of Communist power, or that the outcome of the Bangladesh war could meaningfully shift the balance between the U.S. and Soviets? If not, then it doesn't make much sense to speak of it as a "proxy conflict". If you want real proxy conflicts at a humbler level than the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, there are Sandinistas vs. Contras, MPLA vs. UNITA, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, then we simply disagree. I think that the war was fought on Cold War lines, Pakistan representing the imperialist camp, the Bangladeshi rebels/India aligned with the socialist bloc. And the outcome definately "could meaningfully shift the balance between the U.S. and Soviets". The conflict is definately on par with Nicaragua, Angola, etc. in this regard. However, the common perception of the war is quite different from these other conflicts. Western historical narratives often try to downplay the US-Pakistani linkages, for obvious reasons (not wanting to be linked to a genocide). And the official Bangladeshi narrative also wishes not to emphazise the Cold War context, it runs contrary to the ambition of presenting the Liberation War as a rallying point of national unity and consensus. Bangladesh today has long abandonned Sheik Mujib's BAKSAL socialist single-party state project, and there is little interest in wanting to problematize this aspect of the political career of a ntional hero. In fact, the narratives that give more weight to geopolitics would be the Pakistani discourses (framing the war primarily as contradiction between Pakistan or India, rather than as a liberation struggle of an oppressed nation) and then Maoist discourses (framing the war as a contradiction between imperialism and Soviet social imperialism). --Soman (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How would it significantly shift the balance, since India was by no means a Soviet satellite or indiscriminate automatic advocate for all Russian interests, and after the first few years Bangladesh was by no means an Indian satellite -- while Pakistan was regionally aligned with both the U.S. and the P.R.C.? Furthermore, your opposition of "imperialist" vs. "socialist" seems like a crude caricature of mostly outdated and discarded propaganda, and so does absolutely nothing to advance understanding, since the Soviets committed plenty of acts of imperialism of their own, and there's quite a bit of difference between Swedish "socialism" and Stalinist "socialism" -- not to mention that plenty of third-world crimes against humanity were committed under the aegis of so-called "socialism", from Nasser's Egypt on down.

Even more importantly, under your approach, there seems to be no difference in meaning at all between "proxy conflict" and "conflict to some degree enmeshed in a Cold War system of regional alliances, but not a direct cause of significant U.S.-Soviet friction". I think this is a distinction worth preserving. AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We have to separate some different matters. I maintain that the war itself was very much a Cold War conflict, in which the borders of different spheres of interest was at stake. Now, the post-war developments were somewhat different (notably, US managed to develop workable relationship with independent Bangladesh, through the overthrow of Mujib, thus Bangladeshi independence per se didn't significantly hurt US influence in the region).

Some points; 1) India was not a Soviet satellite, but had a close relationship with USSR at this point. Egypt was by no means a Soviet satellite, either. At least not in the sense that Poland was.

2) The key issue isn't naming, you say "Free World", I say "imperialist camp". There is not much difference, we are refering to the same power bloc anyways.

3) Pakistan was (and remains) a key US ally in South Asia. Chinese interests at this point largely coincided with American interests, and at least politically was clearly supporting the Pakistani side in the war. China at this point had begun to be increasingly hostile to the Soviet Union, and the Indo-Chinese territorial conflicts were also set in the context of Sino-Soviet rivalry. Interestingly, this put Indian and East Pakistani Maoists in a peculiar situation, who had great difficulties in explaining the Chinese line of supporting (or at least being supposedly neutral towards) the Pakistani state actions. However, it would be wrong to say that the US and China were allies at this point, since they (still for a few years) clashed over influence in South-East Asia.

4) If we are to believe the Wikipedia article on the Bangladesh Liberation War (unreferenced passage), it certainly gives the impression of being a Cold War conflict, by no means of less importance to the general Cold War setting that say Angola. :::::::::"The United States supported Pakistan both politically and materially. U.S. President Richard Nixon denied getting involved in the situation, saying that it was an internal matter of Pakistan. But when Pakistan's defeat seemed certain, Nixon sent the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal, a move deemed by the Indians as a nuclear threat. Enterprise arrived on station on 11 December 1971. On 6 December and 13 December, the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of ships, armed with nuclear missiles, from Vladivostok; they trailed U.S. Task Force 74 in the Indian Ocean from 18 December until 7 January 1972.

Nixon and Henry Kissinger feared Soviet expansion into South and Southeast Asia. Pakistan was a close ally of the People's Republic of China, with whom Nixon had been negotiating a rapprochement and which he intended to visit in February 1972. Nixon feared that an Indian invasion of West Pakistan would mean total Soviet domination of the region, and that it would seriously undermine the global position of the United States and the regional position of America's new tacit ally, China. In order to demonstrate to China the bona fides of the United States as an ally, and in direct violation of the US Congress-imposed sanctions on Pakistan, Nixon sent military supplies to Pakistan and routed them through Jordan and Iran, while also encouraging China to increase its arms supplies to Pakistan.

The Nixon administration also ignored reports it received of the genocidal activities of the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan, most notably the Blood telegram.

The Soviet Union supported Bangladesh and Indian armies, as well as the Mukti Bahini during the war, recognizing that the independence of Bangladesh would weaken the position of its rivals – the United States and China. It gave assurances to India that if a confrontation with the United States or China developed, the USSR would take countermeasures. This was enshrined in the Indo-Soviet friendship treaty signed in August 1971. The Soviets also sent a nuclear submarine to ward off the threat posed by USS Enterprise in the Indian Ocean." --Soman (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the United States really didn't care all that much about East Pakistan / Bangladesh at that time, but was slightly annoyed and concerned when its regional ally militarily imploded (though not enough to make a big issue of it), while the Soviets continued their pattern of supplying arms to India, but were sadly deluded if they imagined this would lead to any great upsurge of Soviet diplomatic or ideological influence in the region. AnonMoos (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's quite selective interpretion: "slightly annoyed" = sends out nuclear fleet. I see little point in belittling the importance of the 1971 war. --Soman (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The war was greatly important to India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, but from the point of view of direct U.S.-Soviet relations, it was of distinctly secondary importance, and reflected on the credibility and capacities of regional allies much more than it touched upon any vital U.S. or Soviet strategic interest. The U.S. maneuvered the Navy to send a carefully coded and calibrated message to the Soviets, not to get excited and overextend themselves (as a result of the Soviet regional ally beating the U.S. regional ally). You can melodramaticize the situation all you want by calling it a "nuclear intervention" or whatever, but the U.S. didn't use the ships to launch any military action, and never had any intention of doing so (unless something unexpected were to happen). AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Official Bible of the Roman Catholic religion

Does the Roman Catholic religion have an "official" Bible? That is, scripture that can be quoted verbatim (chapter and verse) — for official Roman Catholic purposes — should be quoted from which Bible exactly? (I am referring to the English language, also ... not Latin, Italian, etc.) Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Do you mean the Douay–Rheims translation? Gabbe (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ... I really have no idea whatsoever. Is that (today) considered the "official" Bible for Roman Catholics? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

In the U.S. the New American Bible translation is used for the readings in Mass. Read our article to find out about its various editions and revisions.--Cam (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Douai Bible was considered somewhat official before the 20th century (even though in its original form, before the 18th-century Challoner revisions, it was idiosyncratic and rather unidiomatic, sometimes being almost more of a gloss on the Latin Vulgate than a true translation). One well-known mid-20th century predominantly Catholic effort was the Jerusalem Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In Catholic school in Canada we used the New Revised Standard Version. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, that is exactly my point. There are many, many Bibles (and translations) out there. So, I am not sure which one to refer to. Let me re-phrase my question. What Bible version does the Roman Catholic Church/the Vatican/the Pope/etc. "officially" use or endorse or sanction (or whatever the correct term would be)? I am assuming that there is one specific Bible version. Perhaps my assumption is wrong? Does anyone know? I mean, I am sure that they do not endorse/use/sanction the Protestant version or translation, for example. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

I've sometimes seen reference to a Psalm that uses 2 numbers, one in parentheses, e.g. Psalm 47 (45) (those numbers are made up for this example) . On checking out Psalms, I see that the number of Psalms varies between versions. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches use the numbering system from the Hebrew manuscript, and the Protestant churches use the system from the Greek manuscript. I conclude from this that a Greek-sourced Bible would not be acceptable to Catholicism, but a Hebrew-sourced one might stand a chance.

Bible#Apocryphal or deuterocanonical books lists various books that are considered canonical by Catholics, but apocryphal or deuterocanonical by Protestants. Again, this would be a point of departure for assessing whether a particular edition of a Bible is possibly OK or definitely not.

Then there's the language question. We tend to think of the Bible, whatever version we're talking about, as a book written in English. That's fine for English-speaking countries, but what about all the others? I find it hard to believe there would be one and only one core Bible approved by the Catholic Church, which is the basis of all the approved translations into the thousands of languages and dialects found on Earth. For all their famed rigidity, it surely can't be as black-and-white as that. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, Latin is still the official language of the Holy See, and by extension, the Roman Catholic Church. (It was really only after Vatican II that Mass was officially allowed to be conducted in local languages.) The "official" version of the bible for Roman Catholics is thus the Vulgate. That said, in practice most Roman Catholics these days use a translation of the bible into the local language, and this practice is supported by the Roman Catholic Church. For English Speakers, we have a list of various R.C.-relevant translations at Modern English Bible translations#Catholic translations. Catholic Online claims the New Jerusalem Bible is the most widely used Catholic bible outside the United states [2]. EWTN and americancatholic.org both note that a modified version of the "New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament" is the official American bible for services - i.e. it's the one the lector/priest will do the readings from during Mass [3] [4]. Those two links also discuss other bibles and make comments on the differences/merits. P.S. I make no endorsements of the linked organizations, they're just what I found when I did a Google search of "official catholic bible".) -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

140 has it accurately and correctly. I would add that lectionaries in England and Wales (and probably many other English-speaking places, but not the USA) use the Jerusalem Bible (not the New Jerusalem Bible), but that the Vatican seems to prefer the NRSV-Catholic Edition when translating Biblical quotes in official documents that are written and released in Latin, and translated into English for English-speakers. So, the original document will quote the Vulgate, and the English version will quote the NRSV-CE. For example, look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Vatican website. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also check out the Grail psalms here, here, here and here. 86.163.212.179 (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If i understand correctly it says here that the only "official" Bible recognized by the catholic church is the Vulgate--Zoppp (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Bible 1966, designed to "...bring the modern clarity of the text before the ordinary reader". There is no, therefore, official text for a Catholic Bible in any of the popular languages. You would have to look to the Latin for that.

Apart from the inclusion of the Books that are not in other Bibles, which without them would not be considered a Catholic Bible.

Hence, if asked to swear on a Bible in Court, you should ask for a Catholic Bible, or not swear at all, (Matt 5:34). MacOfJesus (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As one of America’s least educated clergy once said, “If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for me.” DOR (HK) (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Often attributed to Ma Ferguson... AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hence, to answer the OP: There is none. If you wish to despute a finer point of Scripture you would have to go back to the originals. Even the Latin is a translation, begun by Saint Jerome, who was commissioned to go to the originals and translate into Latin.

An example of this can be found in the Book of Geneses, where Eve was given her judgement and so too the devil:

To the devil: "...your offspring and her offspring. It will crush your head.." (Genesis 3: 15)

The Greek translation indicates this as "He", the offspring.

Saint Jerome's translation: "She" will crush your head.

Dead Sea Scrolls, would be a study point here. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

icons of Saint Georges

In some icons representing Saint Georges on the horse and sitting behind him is a child : who is that child ? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.96.155.68 (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

He is sometimes described as the "youth of Mytilene", a boy whom George rescued from captivity. But in this article other explanations are given for the child (see page 19 [the 13th page of the pdf]).--Cam (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cam , thanks for the link! I was wondering about this a while back; now I know (that we don't really know)! -- Vmenkov (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Abduction of boys would have been a big concern to Christians in the Ottoman Empire who were subject to the Devşirme. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

French

Hi. I've noticed many languages/cultures have certain art forms for which it is very famous across cultural boundaries; for example English is known for its plays (specifically those of Shakespeare) and Italian for its operas. What is French known for? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Painting, sculpture, music, architecture, etc. etc. They've also made food preparation and presentation into an art. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fashion (Paris) ... love/romance ... cuisine ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Oui oui! Cuisine literally means "kitchen", and the two words actually descend from the same Latin word via different routes:[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)I am not sure the premise of the OP is correct. It is true that Shakespeare, arguably the greatest playwright ever, is from England, but I wouldn't say that England is generally known for its plays. I would guess most people outside of the UK would be hard pressed to mention an English playwright besides Shakespeare. Likewise Italy may be known for operas because opera was an artform originally developed there, but I would argue that the works of Wagner or Mozart are generally more known internationally than Italian operas (for example a standard comic cliché concerning operas are fat ladies in horned helmets, stemming from Wagner). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_dramatists_and_playwrights There are so many, many more famous playwrights than just Willie, whose birthday it is today by the way! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That would make Germany more infamous for it's operas than famous, wouldn't it ? StuRat (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)\

And the opera ain't over until she sings. :) There are a number of Italian opera composers, of which Rossini is certainly well-known. But one of the most famous operas in the world is Carmen, written by Georges Bizet, who was French! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Or The Marriage of Figaro by Beaumarchais, another French. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

He wrote the libretto, but it's best known for the music, which was the creation of an Austrian, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Between Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Beethoven, Wagner and the Strausses, the German-speaking world did pretty well for themselves musically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Italy is also known for food. I would say England is much better known for Shakespeare than for cuisine. The old joke goes, "If your guests are Italian, serve French. If they're French, serve Italian. And if they're English, boil something." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No offence Bugs, but that's bit rich coming from the nation that gave us Easy Cheese ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

But being known for Shakespeare does not mean that England is known for its plays in general. It means that it is known for a singular playwright. Like Wagner with opera in Germany. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

True. The US is much better known for plays in general, wouldn't you say? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. In my book if a country should be defined as being known for an artform, it should be because a school or even generations of artists produced continually, or at least during a longer period, many examples of that artform that are generally and internationally known. Though of course I admit a precise definition is difficult, because many of the truly great, like Wagner, Ibsen or Shakespeare did seem to stand alone and appear out of nowhere, yet have defined a lot of the internal culture of their origin country. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Shakespear didn't "appear out of nowhere"; he was part of a great cultural movement in Elizabethan and Jacobean England which included Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, John Webster et al. Alansplodge (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have to make this clear once more, but I am perfectly well aware Shakespeare was not a stand-alone. I was merely concerned with replying to the wording of the OP. And as I said above, you would be hard pressed to find someone outside of the UK (and someone that was not generally well-versed in English literature history, since most people wouldn't be) that would know Bacon (as a playwright), Marlowe or Webster. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, point taken. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No (small!) part of the appeal of all-things-French is the language. If I go to McDonald's in the US, I'll order "French fries" or just "fries". If I go to McDonald's in Paris, I'll order pommes de terre frites or just frites. (They don't need to call them French fries, since they are already there.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a period in the 18th Century when all operas were written in Italian. Handel and Mozart's operas mostly have Italian librettos despite being intended for the ears of German-speakers. French is famously used to describe the techniques of classical ballet. Alansplodge (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course to people who really know an artform, what a country is known for undoubtedly is markedly different than what a person that just has a basic knowledge. So I would agree that to opera-fans, Italy would be the country, but in a popular mind, I would still say, based entirely on anecdotal evidence, it would be somewhere where there's big blonde girls with pigtails, chainmails and horned helmets. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Ho jo to ho!" Speaking of which...[6] Be careful with that spear, Kirsten. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Pommes frites are as French as Hercule Poirot. —Tamfang (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

French is known for comic books. —Tamfang (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the English language be best known for its popular music? There are people all over the world who know the lyrics "You ain't nothin' but a hound dog" without having a club what the words mean. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be one of the things. If we stuck to countries England (or the UK) would be known for rock/pop on an equal footing with the US, no doubt about it. Personally I would add novels when it comes to England. Daniel Defoe, Samuel Richardson, Henry Fielding, Charles Dickens, just to name a few. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No question, the USA is a prolific source of various kinds of popular music - much of which originated from the ABBA-American population. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

France, particularly Paris, was also the birthplace of modern painting - Impressionism, Post-impressionism, Cubism, Fauvism, and other movements, and Paris was for a long time the number one city in the world for modern art (from mid 19th to mid 20th century, when New York took over); even non-French artists like Van Gogh and Picasso spent significant amounts of their careers in France.

Also, Marcel Proust is regarded by many as the finest novelist ever (though Russia has the other claim as the greatest producer of novels). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Remissions in US law

Do you get automatic remissions on your imprisonment sentence in the US? (for example, for working, for going through a therapy, for good behavior). 212.169.189.166 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Automatic? Yes and no. They are generally called "reductions" (in sentence), rather than "remissions". A state may have a statute that (automatically) credits a prisoner's sentence by X number of days/years for good behavior, for example. Instances such as working, therapy, etc., are generally voluntary (not required) and may or may not carry a reduction. It all depends on the state, its statutes, and how its prison system is administered. So, yes, some of these reductions may be automatic (i.e., a prisoner is entitled to them by state law); some of these reductions are not automatic (i.e., the prison warden has discretion to award or withhold them). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for what? I thank you for your answer. 212.169.189.166 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Some folks automatically say "Thanks" when they sign their names. I've had colleagues who include it as part of their signature [on e-mails]. I think what they're saying is "Thanks for your time and attention". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

To 212.169.189.166 ... you're welcome. Hope my answer was helpful. And, yes, Baseball Bugs is correct in his interpretation of my original response. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

It very much depends on the state involved. Rhode Island (in the northeastern U.S.) is at this very moment engaged in a heated debate about "good time" (a reduction in time in prison for good behavior) for a convicted killer, Michael Woodmansee [see Cannibalism#Recent examples], whose 40-year sentence was reduced under then-applicable laws and rules by 12 years (up to one-third remission for good behavior used to be a common standard in the U.S.) Woodmansee is thus due to be released from incarceration this summer. The Rhode Island General Assembly is being presented with many proposals to limit or even abolish good time for future felony convicts, as it's generally conceded that under the ex post facto and bill of attainder clauses of the United States Bill of Rights and the Rhode Island Constitution, new laws can't be applied retroactively to Woodmansee's particular case. Correctional officials see the hope of getting good time, and the fear of losing it, as very useful tools in the control and rehabilitation of inmates. For these purposes, good time can also be an important element of flexibility when the indeterminate sentence (such as "5-10 years") and parole for Federal convicts have been abolished or drastically curtailed. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The "good time" that Shakescene mentions is discussed in good conduct time. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)