Humanities desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

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.

January 4

Where are the true facts about the Ark?

Hi n' thanx for your time. I'm not too computor literate when it comes to searches.. that's why I'm here. I read about 30 years ago that the translation of the "books" of the Bible were mis-translated, more specifically the the description concerning the "Ark of the Covenent". I remember reading it's make up of gold and silver caused electrical surges to strike anyone close by. So what I'm asking you is where I can read the original (in english please) description and measurements Moses was given. Again Thanx for your time. terry Sr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTsr (talk • contribs) 06:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well one record is in Exodus 25 (verses 10 to 13) (repeated at the start of Exodus 37)

"And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about. And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in the one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it. And thou shalt make staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold."

I have never heard the theory about electrical surges, I thought the gold was just for decoration, and expensive carrying-handles. I don't know whether there are other records. Dbfirs 09:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online articles like this one exist, but they are very highly unlikely to be "true". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this one. Again, caveats about the reliablity of this self-published article apply. I vaguely recall a Fortean Times piece on the subject of the Ark of the Covenant and electricity some years ago, although it doesn't appear in their online archive. Proponents of this theory cite the Baghdad Battery as evidence in support of early electrical experimentation. Ka renjc 10:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically electricity, but some stories of the ark's destructive power are:

1 Sam 5, where the ark is captured by Israel's enemies and ends up diseasing every town it goes to until they decide to give it back.
1 Sam 6 (the next chapter), where the ark arrives back in Israel's territory and kills 70 people who look into it
2 Sam 6, the ark is being carried by oxen who stumble and an Hebrew puts out his hand to prevent the ark from falling, and dies from touching it

The Ark seems to put out a lot of electricity in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, but as far as I know this is not recognized as canon by any mainstream Christian or Jewish group. Staecker (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in Num 4, which gives specific instructions on how the ark should be handled and moved. It can only be handled by the Levites (including the sons of Aaron and the Kohathites), who cover it with cloth and leather, and put the poles in place for carrying it. Verse 15: After Aaron and his sons have finished covering the holy furnishings and all the holy articles, and when the camp is ready to move, only then are the Kohathites to come and do the carrying. But they must not touch the holy things or they will die. Staecker (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find it believable that the Ark of the Covenant could have been a rather weak battery, capable of making a visible spark, but nothing more. This would have still been impressive, when viewed in the dark, by those unaccustomed to such sights, and thus serve to convince doubters that the Jews had the power of God on their side. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How was it a battery? Does gold alone, or gold touching wood, cloth or leather produce any electrochemical potential? No voltage, no sparks. Edison (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a battery. Its a capacitor, the two layers of gold, inside and out, are seperated by the wood of the ark; which acts as the dielectric. So it does not generate potential like a battery, but it will store charge. You would, of course, have to have a means of "charging it up", but there is no reason to suspect they didn't use something like this to do it. There are considerable "blanks" left in the biblical record about what went on in certain ceremonies. No one is really sure what the Urim and Thummim were, for example (maybe the some sort of battery? Who knows?) No one is really sure what the priests were doing back in the holy of holies, excepting that they needed a rope tied around their chest to yank them out, incase the ark went haywire. This is all speculative, but the story goes that the ark was a capacitor by its described construction, not a battery. --Jayron32 21:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out http://ancientskyscraper.com/118901.html and http://einhornpress.com/arcark.aspx for much more information on the electrical nature of the Ark or Arc of the Covenant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.15.233.58 (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For it to be a capacitor, the material between the two sheets of gold would have to be a superb insulator. Wood fails miserably in that respect, a fact which was learned by 18th century electrical experimenters such as Stephen Gray. Wooden parts were considered conductors in high voltage static electric experiments. The charge would drain off too quickly for some sort of static generator to build up a charge which persisted more than momentarily. Mica would be fine. A thin sheet of glass or glass would work fine. Quite a small glass bottle can store enough charge to stun a person, when it is lined inside and out with metal, or even when it is filled with water and held in the hand. But glassblowing only originated in the first century BC. Perhaps a fired porcelain jug, if thin enough, would work. Beeswax, rosin, shellac, or sulfur would work fine electrically, but would not be as mechanically strong as a wood box. A metal clad wood box could be lined with a thin coating of mica, wax, shellac, or sulfur, the thickness required to be determined by the desired voltage. The inside of the (somewhat conductive) wood would be one plate of the capacitor. Inside that would be another layer of gold. The inside metal layer would be brought out to the top through an insulating bushing made of any of the substances noted, with a metal discharge terminal. The outside would be at ground potential, and the inside (and a terminal on top) could be charged to thousands of volts by 18th century means, basically friction against an insulator producing a static charge, which gets inductively or by corona discharge transferred to the terminal. Then anyone standing on the ground and touching the terminal would receive a stunning or fatal shock. A thicker dielectric would allow a higher voltage (without being punctured by a discharge) but would decrease the capacitance and thus the amount of electric charge which it could store at a given voltage. If 18 inches is used for the "cubit", a back of the envelope calc says that with a 1/10 inch (2.5 mm) layer of beeswax, assuming dielectric constant of 3 and 5100 square inch area, it would have a capacitance of .034 microfarads. The breakdown strength of waxed paper is given as 30 to 60 megavolts per meter, so the 2.5 mm layer of wax might break down at 75 kv, allowing a 95 Joule discharge. If it were charged to half the breakdown voltage the charge would be about 24 Joule. (Please excuse any math error.) [1] says a 1 J static discharge is painful to any recipient. A Taser is said to discharge about 0.3 Joule. Merckmanual says that a defibrillator runs 120 to 360 Joule. Edison (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the Ark of the Covenant was not a battery or a capacitor. It was a bullshit religious relic, perhaps even fabricated. Most of the above is nonsense. Hope this helps.Grandpamithras (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fashionable colours of clothing in 12th century England

I am curious as to which colours would have been fashionable for the clothing worn by the royals and Anglo-Norman nobility in 12th century England? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether this blog is based on reliable sources or not, but it suggests "green and gold, orange and green and burgundy, blue and red and orange and green, and many versions thereof." However, one of our articles here suggests that blue was not introduced until after 1200. This site states: "The meaning of colours also played an important part in the Middle Ages. Green, for instance, stood for love, grey for sorrow, yellow for hostility. Blue, partly because of its connection with the Virgin Mary, became the colour of fidelity, and was allowed to be worn by everyone from the 13th century. In the Low Countries, however, this was the colour for adulterous wives. Red, on the other hand, was strongly connected to the nobility. It is notable that black and grey, colours of lower status people in the Early Middle Ages, in the 15th century were worn by the high aristocracy and royal personnages." Hope that helps a little. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Thank you, Ghmyrtle. I have also read that blue dye was not invented until the 13th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were using vegetable dyes and didn't have the same choice of colours that we have today. Some dyestuffs were more difficult to obtain, more expensive than others. Mordants too might have to be imported. Woad is indigenous to Europe, so they did have a blue dye. As trade expanded, the Europeans had access to imported indigo. Red was from madder. Browns and yellows from easily obtained items like onion peel or blackberry leaves. Can't remember re green, but apparently poppy flowers, with the right mordant produce a very vivid turquoise colour. I thought I would try it once, but lost heart at the idea of picking a kilo of poppy petals. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To some degree, the quality and richness of the dye was more important than the color. Brighter tones of color were harder to create with medieval dying techniques than "muddier" tones, and thus more expensive. Textiles were also important... the nobility and royalty could afford imported fabrics like cotton and silk, the peasantry had to make do with wool and more wool. And cotton and silk hold dyes differently than wool. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminated manuscripts show kings and nobles: they give you contemporary snapshots.--Wetman (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They show a lot of blue. There's some speculation that blue was not used as a dye until after 1200. I find that hard to believe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since our article on woad mentions that an archeological excavation of dye shop in York dating to the 10th century found both woad (blue) and madder (red). Googlemeister (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to check out sumptuary laws. Corvus cornix_talk 05:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just found something by John H. Munro in: Medieval Colthing and Textiles, Volume 3, by Robin Netherton, Gale R. Owen-Crocker on Google Books, which looks good. There is also something called Cambridge History of Western Textiles. (2003) Also: http://www.alquennas.com/bibliography.html (a bit chaotic, but there are some interesting sources towards the end of the page)--Radh (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confused Aspie guy here

Like most Aspies, I have my obsessions, such as computers. Unlike most Aspies, I have a few close, genuine friendships. Only one of my close friends is female. How can I tell whether my feelings for her are romantic, close platonic or close platonic plus Aspie obsession? Can people even be a valid Aspie obsession? --218.186.8.254 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an autistic spectrum, not an either/or status. You're allowed to have feelings and still define yourself as Aspie. And intimacy is a spectrum too. Do you want to be physically, intimately close to your friend? If you do, it's romantic. Best of luck with the relationship, however it develops. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human emotions and relationships can be confusing to many people, not only those with named medical conditions. I would point out that sexual and romantic relationships, while often conflated, are not the same thing. It is perfectly possible to enjoy long dinners, exchange little gifts, and read poetry with one person, and be aroused by (and acting on that arousal with) another. As long as communication is clear, things have a good chance of going well. Why not ask your close female friend how she feels? If it's appropriate, tell her that you have trouble understanding emotional cues and reading between the lines, and that you'd appreciate directness from her. Good luck. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to add that this sort of thing is difficult even for "neurotypical" people to parse out most of the time. There's no "one size fits all" solution even for those of us who supposedly have more understanding of our emotional states. Numerous 19th century British novels have been written on this very subject... --Mr.98 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like physical contact with her, such as hugging. I sometimes want to hug my guy friends too, maybe because I have difficulty expressing how much I care, but I learnt guys hugging is considered gay. I would never want to do anything sexual with her. I think a lot about her, more than I think about my guy friends. I suspect she may be an Aspie obsession because I sometimes secretly gather information on her, but not to harm her.

I want to know more about the intimacy spectrum and is it possible for a person to be a valid Aspie obsession? Thanks for the advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.254 (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. While I haven't been diagnosed, I am almost certainly an Aspie, too. I think that the idea of "Aspie obsessions" is kind of unfair and insulting to Aspie people. We have interests, not obsessions. Sometimes these interests are very intense. People can be fascinating to me, but I think that people can be fascinating to neurotypical people, too. So I don't think there is anything particularly Aspie about that. The word "romantic", as far as I can tell, is really synonymous for "sexual", when it is applied to relationships, at least these days. So, you can tell whether your feelings for a person are romantic by whether or not you feel sexual arousal or at least a desire to do sexual things in this person's presence. If you don't feel that, then it isn't "romantic", as people usually use that term. I would point out that when I was younger, in my teens and 20s, I had a fascination, maybe like the one you describe, with a woman on some occasions. It later turned out that I am gay, so this kind of fascination does not have to be about sex. However, I would not try to collect information on anyone secretly. That could cause them to feel "spied on", which would make them fear and distrust you. You don't really want that. Better to ask the person anything you want to know, though people like to keep some things private, for example details about their bodies or their innermost feelings. Asking about those could threaten a relationship. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. I agree with Brainy Babe that it might be good to talk with your friend about your feelings and her feelings. This can be very tricky. If you don't have romantic/sexual feelings, I would recommend starting with saying positive things that you do feel toward her, like "I think you are a wonderful person and I really value you as a friend." Then ask her how she feels about your friendship. As soon as you say, "friend", she will get the message that your feelings aren't romantic. This is important. Pretty much all of the women that fascinated me when I was younger thought that I had a romantic interest in them, when in fact my interest was platonic. When they eventually discovered that I had no romantic interest, they were very hurt and felt rejected, even though I never rejected them. As a result, the friendships ended. I think the earlier you address this issue the better your chances of saving a friendship, because you may be able to prevent your friend from developing feelings and expectations that could get in the way of a friendship. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Intimacy spectrum" is one way of understanding what intimacy is. Use it if you find it helpful. A relationship is never a fixed thing. It changes through time. As you get to know someone, you can get to trust them more and more. You feel that you can share more things with them. Sharing "things" could mean sharing ideas, talking together, hanging out together. Or it could mean sharing cuddles and hugs, kisses, sexual experiences. With most of the people we know, we only share a few things, there is not much intimacy, but it is really nice to have plenty of acquaintances like that. But if you have a special person you want to share your whole life with, then your intimate relationship will get deeper and deeper over the decades. That takes a very long time. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My... I never realized that Wikipedia had an advice for the love-lorn column. For a second I thought we were debating whether "Dear Abby" was a reliable source or something. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We ought to have a template for that, perhaps something along the same lines as {{homework}}. I'm sure the responders here gave good advice (though TLDR myself), but still, we should probably avoid this sort of thing at the reference desks... WikiDao ☯ 01:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it verges on a request for medical advice (concerning Asperger's syndrome). WikiDao ☯ 01:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control

Which countries completely ban gun ownership for civilians? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China and East Timor are two that I know of. In general, totalitarian states ban gun ownership. Obviously, there is a fear of being overthrown by the populous. So, I haven't checked, but I strongly suspect North Korea to ban gun ownership as well. -- kainaw ™ 15:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You likely meant "populace" instead of "populous," which reminds me of a fun Robert Frost poem:

But outer Space,

At least this far,

For all the fuss

Of the populace

Stays more popular

Than populous. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japan? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Japan just has strict requirements that they are required for sport shooting only. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do hunting rifles count? A couple of years before the break up of Yugoslavia, when it was obvious things were brewing, there was a total recall of hunting rifles in Slovenia - for the reason kainaw mentioned. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Gun law. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the socialist states ban private gun ownership less because they are afraid of popular uprising (which is not going to be easy even if you do allow handgun or sports gun ownership, for example), but more because they want a monopoly on violence. There is a difference in thinking nobody should have guns because you want them to always rely on the police for arbitrating crime, and because you are afraid they could use said guns to wage revolution. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe its because they don't want people to be killed? Never think of that? 92.15.22.77 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Gun_control#Worldwide_politics_and_legislation for a nice breakdown, although it is missing a number of important countries. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note... what are the rules for Antarctica? Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Our article on gun politics in the United Kingdom notes a description of British legislation as some of the strictest firearms legislation in the world. Possibly this may be relevant to your question, despite the UK not having a blanket ban on civilian ownership of firearms: getting hold of them legally is made very difficult (allegedly also illegally). The UK does not ban, for example, certain types of rifles, which you may own with a licence, and certain types of pistol, to obtain a licence for which you must give a "good reason" to the police (which in practice means that you need it for work or for a sport), as well as two character references who will be interviewed, a letter from your doctor, and other things. As an example of the result of this legislation, the UK Olympic pistol shooting team trains in Switzerland because it would be illegal to practice in the UK. Marnanel (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question on Antarctica, the National Science Foundation, which operates all U.S. bases in Antarctica and provides law-enforcement services for other bases, prohibits lethal weapons in Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty System prohibits any military presence on the continent. However, bases operated by nations other than the United States, particularly within a territory claimed by the nation operating the base, regulations conceivably might permit the presence of firearms, though almost certainly not for individual use, but rather only for a security force meant to protect the base. Someone would need to do further research into the regulations of every nation operating a base in Antarctica to confirm whether any of them allows firearms for any purpose. Marco polo (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protect their base against whom? Snowmen? 92.15.22.77 (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there's a need for guns in Antarctica to protect themselves from animals. They don't have polar bears, and penguins aren't much of a threat. Perhaps large seals/sea lions could pose a threat at bases near the coast, especially during breeding season. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was once pecked by a penguin I was trying to untangle from some fishing line. Didn't need a gun to ward it off though. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a need for flare guns, and would imagine that those are present in Antarctica, but those would be of limited use in self-defense if the angry leopard seal was intent on mauling you. I suspect that flare guns are less likely to have restrictions then conventional firearms, but never having tried to purchase one, I am not sure. Googlemeister (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect firearms in Antarctica might be a bad idea because they don't mix well with cabin fever. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nice thing about seals and sea lions is that, over distances greater than a couple of meters, they move much more slowly on land than people. Presumably people visiting Antarctica know not to get within a few meters of a pinniped. Marco polo (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine a scenario where a cameraman is setting up a camera to film a sea lion colony, on a bluff overlooking them, but falls and injures his back. His coworkers could then use a gun to ward off (or kill, if necessary) the enraged sea lions, if they decided to attack him. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is very much less of an unlikely train of events that one of the coworkers accidently shoots someone, or in a fit of rage deliberately shoots someone. On the other hand, I can imagine a scenario where the antartic base is invaded by hostile space aliens from a prehistoric UFO brought back to life by scientists ungodly meddling. 92.29.115.233 (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this diary of life at a British Antarctic Survey station. They have biologists researching the large mammals, and I expect they are properly equipped to shoot tranquillising darts. My impression is from the diaries that the scientists are not expecting to defend themselves from human or animal attackers on a day to day basis. But By Jingo, if those Argies come too near the Falklands, we have Gunboats. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is so unusual about not having a gun? Why does it need so much discussion? In my country, only the nutters have guns or have any interest in having one. 92.15.22.77 (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have shocking news for you. Not every country is the same as yours. Marco polo (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if anyone is well suited to break that news, it's Marco Polo! 82.153.211.251 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

92, your IP geolocates to the Netherlands. According to this there are 30,000 registered hunters in your country. That's not trivial for such a small and densely populated region. APL (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some countries hunters are seen as nutters by many. HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested in having a gun ought to be thereby regarded as being unfit to have one, a Catch 22. 92.28.242.164 (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might think so because you come from such a densely urban area. In rural areas firearms are useful tools. Perhaps not strictly necessary, but useful, and not really more dangerous than many other tools often found in rural settings. (Those chainsaws on the end of long sticks come to mind, those things are terrifying.)

In some very remote parts of the world firearms are a must-have for protection from wild animals. I've read that small pilots flying over Alaska are required to carry a weapon in their survival kit for this reason.

(To be clear, I am in favor of strong gun control and do not own a firearm myself.) APL (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chances of anyone needing to kill a wild bear in self-defence in for example New York are practically zero. 92.15.1.103 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That happened in Detroit (I think; maybe it was Lansing) once, actually; a rabid bear went staggering around for hours in the city and almost killed a couple of people. It was during the 2000 election counting, and it badly disrupted the city's ability to do said counting because everyone had to be evacuated from the building. So it's not as improbable as you might think. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were the police having a day off? Why didnt they deal with it? In any case the chances of being attacked by a bear in a city or elsewhere must be tiny compared with accidental gun deaths, let alone the intentional ones. 92.29.121.37 (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting the chance is particularly large, I'm just pointing out that weird things can happen. I'm an American, and I'm not a huge fan of people running around with guns myself. As to your other question; the reason it took so long is that rabid animals are hard to subdue, and bears especially so. It's not like the movies where the tranquilizer dart takes effect 1 second after the animal is hit; it takes a long time, especially with an animal that big. Even regular bears usually take several shots to kill, and rabid animals are very dangerous, so it's extremely difficult. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kainaw, China does not totally ban fire arms. There are hunters who use them, as well as recreational shooting clubs. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reference for that and update our article on gun control which currently reads: "Gun ownership in the People's Republic of China outside of the military, police, and paramilitary is forbidden. Possession or sale of firearms results in a minimum punishment of 3 years in prison, with the maximum being the death penalty." -- kainaw ™ 11:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did that statement get in there in the first place? A statement like that is ridiculous, and anyone with any familiarity with contemporary China would realise that it cannot possibly be true.

Here is the text of the Hunting Firearms, Ammunition and Equipment Administration Regulations of the People's Republic of China. As you can no doubt see, it provides fairly detailed rules for how hunting firearms (and other equipment) is to be manufactured, sold and used.

For example, see Article 15. A literal translation for those who cannot read Chinese: Those who need to purchase hunting firearms, ammunition and equipment for hunting needs, should bear special hunting permits or hunting permits, and personal identification documents, and make an application to the local city or county People's Government's wild animal administration authority, and complete the purchase request form. After this wild animal administration authority approves the application, and the public security authority of the same level has reviewed and consented, the public security authority will issue a hunting firearm, ammunition and equipment purchase permit.

And, as DOR (HK) has said, firearms for hunting use are not rare (though mainly found in the outlying provinces) - and recreational gun clubs are common. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The article oversimplifies the facts on the ground (no surprise, given that the claim is based on a citation to the state-controlled China Daily newspaper, a wholly unreliable source which Wikipedia should never use). The prevailing law is the Law of the People's Republic of China on Control of Guns - article 6 of which describes circumstances under which civilian ownership of guns is permitted (mostly for hunting, wild animal control, and sporting purposes) and later parts of Chapter I of that law describe the issuance of licences by the state to "units" (by which it means "organisations") for various purposes. While the practical implementation of the licencing scheme is very restrictive, licences are by no means never issued. Aaron Karp's paper "Completing the Count: Civilian firearms" (published in Small Arms Survey by Cambridge University Press in 2007) says the number of licenced, legally held civilian firearms in China is 680,000. In practice ownership by individuals is illegal (because the security authorities almost never grant individuals a licence) - this Reuters story describes the effects of the limited availability of firearms on a private game-shooting business; and this Wall Street Journal notes that while private ownership is forbidden, the government does sanction organisations like shooting clubs. Note incidentally that China is the largest manufacturer of small arms in the world, and these haemorrhage illegally into the civilian sphere - Karp estimates there are around 40 million illegally held firearms in the country (60 times the legal number). -- 87.115.79.246 (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea??? --Neptune 123 (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bookkeeping transactions

1) You pay a tradesman some money for work done, but a third party will (or should) pay the money back to you. 2) Someone is suppossed to pay you a hire charge every week, but they sometimes skip payments, so there is a debt building up.

How are these generally handled in traditional bookkeeping records (especially in the days of paper records)? Not a homework question, but I use my own home-made bookeeping software and I'm wondering how best to deal with these situations. Thanks 92.15.22.77 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guesses, awaiting better answers from others: 1) You pay the tradesman out of accounts payable, and you charge the third party out of accounts receivable. Treat them as two seperate transactions; in other words a seperate debit and credit. 2) It's outstanding credit in your accounts receivable. Eventually, you'll need a record if you take him to tort over the missed payments. --Jayron32 21:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With situation number 2), I was wondering how you deal with what should be paid, not just what has been paid. The debt is obsviously the difference between what should be and what has been paid. To calculate the debt, you need therefore to generate some record of what should be paid. 92.15.22.77 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would do it like this: Initially you bill the entire amount into "Long term debts". Then each week you record a transfer from Long term debts into Accounts Receivable. When you receive a payment you also record it in Accounts Receivable. This lets you see at a glance what payments are due (Accounts Receivable), but it also lets you know how much you are owed altogether (Accounts Receivable + Long term debts). Ariel. (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood 2 (or I have). It's a weekly charge, not a loan. If you are using double-entry bookkeeping then each week there should be a credit entry added to accounts receivable and to income. Then when they pay you debit accounts receivable and credit your bank account. If they don't pay, you don't do that second bit and it just stays in accounts receivable. The total on accounts receivable is the outstanding debt. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 January 4