Humanities desk
< March 31	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 2 >

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 1

Suzani textiles

Hi, I need to find a supplyer of this kind of textiles are there any sites on the web where you can find several suppliers and get in touch with them? I have looked in the web for this info but can't find anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzani_textile Thanks very much Tam – — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamTamUy (talk • contribs) 02:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the Suzani textiles page here, the last paragraph in this weblink indicates that this style is still being produced in Uzbekistan. Whether you're a wholesaler, retailer, or retail customer, note that a web search on "fair trade"+Uzbekistan+textile reveals that there's a Uzbek-British Trade and Industry Council (UBTIC), an annual International Uzbek Cotton and Textile Fair in autumn, and that the the Ecologist recently reported that Anti-Slavery International contends:

[I]n 2012 hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in Uzbekistan were forced to work harvesting cotton. Activists who spoke out on the issue were arbitrarily detained and threatened, claim the campaigners, who have targeted clothing giant H&M over the issue. The cotton trade is believed to be worth an estimated US$1 billion annually to the Uzbek government.

You might consider alternative sources, such as fair trade businesses that specialize in ethnic needlecrafts workers in the style and geographic locale of your choice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main Industries In China's Economy For 2000

Help in identifying the main industries in China's economy for the year 2000? (Can be approximately 10 years ago) 220.233.20.37 (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Economy_of_china#Sectors is a good place to start.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is extremely hard to determine which ones were more prominent in the time period of 2000. The information there ranges very much so time period wise. 220.233.20.37 (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? 220.233.20.37 (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what if you look for books published around that time? For example, searching google books for "China economy" brings up these kinds of things: The Chinese economy in crisis: state capacity and tax reform, by Shaoguang Wang, An'gang Hu, 2001, Growth without miracles: readings on the Chinese economy in the era of reform, edited by Ross G. Garnaut, Huang (Yiping), 2001, Models of the Chinese economy, by Peter John Lloyd, Xiaoguang Zhang, 2001, China and the Global Economy: National Champions, Industrial Policy and the ... by Peter Nolan, 2001, China's Economy Into the New Century: Structural Issues and Problems edited by John Wong, Ting Lu, 2002. You could also try searching the BBC news site for an article from 2000 - go to google and enter this string: site:news.bbc.co.uk +"2000" china economy sectors. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also take a look at the oldest version of the article Lenticel linked, from Feb. 2002. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skinning a cat

What is the history of skinning cats? --Carnildo (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of a dictionary, Phrase Finder is a good place to look up idioms like this. This one originated in 1840 in the U.S.. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy of the catholic priests

Can a Catholic Priest loses his priesthood if he was raped? And can he demand that the foetus be aborted so that he does not beget children? 220.239.37.244 (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Priests are not capable of giving birth. They lack the equipment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP means "raped by a woman," who has the foetus in question. I think a priest raped in this fashion can demand all they want, but there is no legal sanction for it, and there is likely no Catholic sanction for it (as they don't support abortion under any circumstances). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the first question, given that the Church has in the past actively sheltered priests who actually raped other people, I doubt they would kick out a priest who was himself raped. But it's up to them. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is a serious question, someone being raped does not in any way break their vow of celibacy. The discipline of priestly celibacy currently practiced in most (but not all) of the Catholic Church is a current law limiting the pool of priests to those who are not married. There is further Catholic dogma (unlike a discipline, this is held to be universally true and unchanging) which says sex is only to be within marriage. There is no dogma or discipline which says priests must not beget children: this is simply a consequence of the rest.

Add to this that the Church does not consider itself to have the power to revoke a Sacrament, so a priest cannot "lose" his priesthood, no matter what the Church wants. I gather there have been some quiet cases in which the Church has concluded a man never truly became a priest in the first place, because he lacked the mental capacity to meaningfully consent: the only cases I heard of involved the man having abused children while apparently a priest, and I don't expect to find good references for it either way.

And obviously, no, he could not demand that the foetus be aborted, should the woman become pregnant, any more than he could demand that the child be killed after it had been born. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Catholic doctrine, does a person even sin if he or she acts under duress, as in the hypothetical example? Sjö (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Catholic doctrine is that sin requires consent. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the word "celibacy" in the header is a red herring here. Celibacy is about choosing not to marry. It's not about sexual activity per se. The rules around sex are that it can happen only between a man and a woman, and only within marriage; and that's where the connection between sex and marriage comes in. Priests and anyone else who isn't currently married cannot have sex, at all. A priest who has a mistress or male lover is breaking the rules about sexual relations, but is not breaking the rules about celibacy. A priest who is raped is breaking no rules at all; unless they find themselves rather enjoying it and wanting it to go on. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, inflammatory, and unreferenced side discussion. APL (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would think the priest would almost certainly have to be "enjoying" it on some level, if a pregnancy results. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A common, if understandable, misconception. See Rape by gender#Rape of males by females. --BDD (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. It's an excuse, and I don't buy it. If a man is being terrorized, he is highly unlikely to get aroused, unless (1) he has no self-control; or (2) he's secretly enjoying it; or (3) both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously hope this is an April Fool's joke, and that you're not validating rape culture, denying scientific evidence, and blaming the victim. By the way, the same article says: "A woman's physiological response to sexual contact is involuntary. In some cases, women can become physically aroused, produce natural lubrication, and even experience orgasms against their will during rape." --140.180.254.209 (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What has that got to do with a man being terrorized by a woman yet somehow getting aroused and impregnating her? Sorry, the notion of male response being "involuntary" in that circumstance is highly suspect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're not aware that penises are renowned for having minds of their own, and they will often respond to any form of "encouragement", even if it's while the penis's owner is being raped. The rest is just plumbing and mechanics. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still say that's an excuse to rationalize a lack of self-control. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also think that a woman who becomes physically aroused during rape 1) has no self-control, 2) is secretly enjoying it, or 3) both? Are you disputing the scientific evidence that says otherwise, despite having done no research of your own? Are you not aware that human sexual instincts, just like the sexual instincts of other animals, are deeply ingrained in the organism's biology by a billion years of evolution, and a mere 100,000 years of sapience is never going to reverse the effects of natural selection? After all, reproduction is the goal of natural selection. Just to be clear, I'm not disputing your claim that men lack control of their penis or women lack control of their clitoris. I'm disputing that this fact has any other cause than basic mammalian biology.

The next time you consider it "highly suspect" that a response is involuntary, try suppressing your own patellar reflex or plantar reflex. Alternatively, try to stop your heart from beating faster while exercising. Remember that sexual reproduction is far older and more crucial to evolution than any of these reflexes. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A woman can be raped and impregnated while being thoroughly terrorized and without being aroused. The same is not going to be true of a man who's being terrorized. He has to get aroused if he's going to impregnate the woman who's terrorizing him. The idea that men "can't help" getting aroused or that it's a "reflex" is just part of the "look what she made me do" excuse. Men have used that excuse forever, to justify having committed rape and then blaming the victim for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this question again, because you avoided it: "Do you also think that a woman who becomes physically aroused during rape 1) has no self-control, 2) is secretly enjoying it, or 3) both?" I want a yes or no answer, without equivocation.

Again, you have presented nothing but moral blackmail, and certainly no scientific evidence, to support your points. Our own article on rape by gender contradicts you at multiple places, and provides references for its claims. Again, we're talking about a woman raping a man, not the other way round. You are the one blaming the victim. Again, try controlling your patellar reflex and get back to me on how successful you've been.

Do you think nocturnal emission is involuntary, or is the boy secretly getting aroused while asleep (and unconscious)? --140.180.254.209 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of various excuses, it is not possible for a man to impregnate a woman if she's "raping" him. I'll allow as how someone like a celibate priest, who might not be sufficiently in-tune to his own sexuality, might be able to be seduced by a woman. That's not the same thing as rape, which is an act of violence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's about as dumb as Todd Akin's claim that women who are legitimately raped can't get pregnant. It has been explained to you that those sexual responses can happen without desire or even the brain being involved at all. You might not be are aware that quadriplegic men get erections and orgasm, even though the brain isn't connected to the reproductive organs. Sjö (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men cannot get aroused unless they want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been in an article I would have tagged it "dubious", but I would like to ask you to provide your sources for that last statement. Sjö (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, it appears, has never been sixteen years old. --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Just the same, I sort of agree that the scenario is not very likely, though I wouldn't be confident in calling it impossible. --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, have you never read about men who are anally raped? They usually find there are various levels of shame, which often prevent them talking about it for a long time (sometimes never). A common issue is that, even though the victim may have been totally hetero forever, they find themselves with an erection caused by what the other guy (or gang) is doing to them. Here we have a situation that is like the nightmare from hell: they're being invaded in the most painful and horrifying and emasculating and degrading way imagineable, and they're totally revolted by the entire thing and just want it to end - but in amongst all that, they have a raging hard on (some even ejaculate), and that confuses the f**k out of most guys, so they just bottle it up, never report it, and take out their rage on their wives and kids, or kill themselves. Don't dare tell us this must have been what the victim wanted. That is tantamount to saying that any woman who's raped was asking for it, and you know how utterly offensive that would be. There's a lot of literature about this. Please read some of it, and please just stop saying ignorant and uninformed stuff. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear your explanation of how a woman can get pregnant by committing some kind of "impalement" rape on a man. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same way it happens if it's not a rape? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, she's going to be impaling him with some object, such as a broom handle, while "forcing" him into the "missionary position"? No, you'll have to do better than that explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who ever mentioned missionary positions? You made that up all by yourself, and now you're arguing against it. Classic definition of a straw man. It's you who will have to do better than that, Bugs. - Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manorial dues

My history textbook says: "In the Dutch republic, in Switzerland, in Italy and Germany, Napoleon simplified administratives divisions, abolished the feudal system and freed peasants from serfdom and manorial dues. In the towns too, guild restrictions were removed." What are manorial dues and guild restrictions? --Yashowardhani (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles Manorialism and guild should help. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that those articles offer obvious definitions of those terms, though the articles may be interesting to the questioner for background. Manorial dues were obligations that a serf had to the lord of his or her manor. The typical form of a manorial due was an obligation to devote a certain number of days each year (sometimes specific days of each week) to labor on the lord's fields or other property (for example, buildings on the property) or on tasks the lord wanted done, such as food processing, cleaning stables, etc. Other forms of manorial dues (not all of which applied on every manor) could be monetary dues instead of or in addition to labor dues, or dues in kind, such as so many bales of wool or so many eggs or whatever. Guild restrictions were rules in cities and towns requiring anyone making or selling a certain type of good or practicing a particular trade to belong to the guild controlling that good or trade in the city or town. Guild restrictions meant that guild members exercised a cartel over their business within their city or town. Marco polo (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is an April Fool Joke not an April Fool joke if it is real

If an newpaper publishes an article as an april fool joke where the article states that a scientist in China has invented a car than runs on cow manure and it turns out that someone in China did invent a car that runs on methane gas from cow manure in the tank. Then is the article still an April Fool's joke? 220.239.37.244 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... but the joke is on the newspaper. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God speaking to man... According to the Bible?

Just curious... if we examine the plot of the Bible (as if it were a work of fiction) ... we find several "scenes" where God appears and speaks directly to a human (Adam in Eden, Moses on Mt. Sinai, etc). What is the last "scene" in the plot in which God does so? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... it's definitely the New Testament. I'd go with either the Transfiguration of Jesus (with God speaking) or the Conversion of Paul the Apostle (with Jesus speaking post-ascension), depending on your preferred criteria. A case could also be made for the Book of Revelation. — Lomn 15:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely the Book of Revelation. Sorry for grabbing KJV here, but it was the first version that came up. It reads "[9] I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.[10] I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet," The Bible (TV series) depicted Revelation by showing Jesus standing before John dictating the opening of the book. Ryan Vesey 15:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... what about Old Testament? Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue offhand if it would make a difference, but are you thinking chronologically in the old testament or in order the books are written? Ryan Vesey 16:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) While the Bible is fiction, that doesn't mean it has a coherent plot. The Book of Esther, for example, has no relationship with the rest of the OT. It doesn't ever mention the Law, the Covenant, or even God. The Song of Songs is a somewhat erotic love poem that only has 1 reference to God. The Psalms are just a collection of 150 songs, with no particular structure and certainly no plot.

So, the answer depends on what you mean by "last". Do you mean the last reference in the youngest book? The youngest passage, because nearly every Biblical book had numerous authors separated by centuries? The last book in whatever order some Bible publisher decided to choose for the books?--140.180.254.209 (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bible is fiction" is rather presumptuous on your part. But in a similar vein, God spoke directly to Muhammad, hundreds of years after the Biblical era. (Feel free to call the Quran "fiction" also.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, it is fiction.

2. Even in Islamic theology, God didn't speak directly to Muhammad; the Quran was revealed through Gabriel.

3. Muhammad and most of his initial followers were illiterate. It wasn't until 2 decades after Muhammad's death that a man with a political agenda ordered his favorite version of the Quran to be written down, and all other versions to be destroyed.

4. None of this is related to the OP's question, so I don't know why you felt the need to comment --140.180.254.209 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's related in that the OP proposed thinking of the Bible as if it were fiction, while you asserted (with no evidence) that the Bible IS fiction. I just wondered if you had the guts to say that about the Quran too. And you do. So, kudos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were you trying to threaten me? Sorry, that doesn't work; better try it on a vulnerable child instead. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wondered if you were one of them guys that's quick to criticize Christianity but won't criticize Islam. Kudos for being consistent, if not necessarily correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking chronologically... in terms of the broad overall "story arc" of the OT .... not when the text itself was penned, or who by. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said, the OT has no broad "story arc". In fact, neither does the NT. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could Chronology of the Bible help? According to that it would be God speaking to Cyrus King of Persia per first verse of Ezra. (I think.) 184.147.116.201 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely not the latest. Several of the Minor Prophets (some of whom have uncertain dates) were active after the time of Cyrus, and all of them (like all the rest of the biblical prophets) are depicted as having God speaking to them; otherwise they wouldn't be counted as prophets. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting! So according to that article it could be Malachi, who is supposed to be contemporary with Ezra (480–440 BC); the article says the latest of the others were Haggai/Zechariah c. 520 BC. Were any of the non-minor prophets later than Ezra, or would he be the last? 184.147.116.201 (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Malachi is normally considered the last prophet in Judaism, and in Christianity he is known as the last prophet of the Old Testament period. The former view seems to correspond well with Jewish historian Josephus' assertion that books written after the time of Artaxerxes I of Persia (c. 465 to 424 BC) were not part of sacred scripture, because the succession of prophets had ceased in that time. - Lindert (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different versions of the Bible arrange the component books in different order. In the Hebrew Bible, the last time God speaks is in the Book of Job. I know this not because I'm particularly familiar with the Hebrew Bible, but because it is discussed in God: A Biography, which I think might be of interest to you. The book is not fiction, but it is a notable treatment of the Bible as literature and won the Pulitzer Prize for biography. John M Baker (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of reporter's privilege

Do we have any information on the history or origins of the tradition of Reporter's privilege in the US or protecting journalistic sources in the anglosphere? The article Shield laws in the United States mentions a 1972 Supreme Court case. Were there any instances of this in the 18th or 19th centuries? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this article. Seems that the issue of jailing reporters for not revealing sources starts in the 19th century. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before that time the "reporter's privilege" was to make stuff up, rather than using sources. Still, actually, too often. Looie496 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madonnina of the Streets by Roberto Ferruzzi (1854-1934)

An oil painting appeared recently that may be the original painting, but it has not been guaranteed by the agency possessing it.
The above info. was in Wik . article. Can someone tell me what agency is processing the painting?
Thank you.
Regards,
Gloria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloie31 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this refers to Madonnina (painting). Unfortunately, the two footnotes about the apparent reappearance are to a defunct website (BTW, I changed the layout of your question slightly, to improve its appearance. Hope you don't mind). Rojomoke (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well Known islamic universities in Pakistan and South Asia

Islamic University Bangladesh in Kushtia, Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia University in India are well known Islamic-themed public universities in South Asia. Is there any Islamic-themed Public university in Pakistan that is well-known in South Asia and is there any other Islamic-themed public university in South Asia regardless Pakistani, Indian or Bangladeshi that is well-known?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

List

Is there any article or list on books for those who are not really into reading? Pass a Method talk 18:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audiobook? Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the question is asking about good books to introduce people to the habit of reading? Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A person who is not into reading, but wants to be, and chooses to * read * something designed to help them get into it, seems to have already solved their own problem. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From a librarian, your best bet is to search for "reluctant readers" in Google or something. That's the term used in librarianship. Public and K12 librarians, especially, put a lot of emphasis on identifying books for such people (usually boys). If you're thinking specifically of adults, that may be a bit harder to come by, but there are surely some resources out there. Graphic novels are often thought of as good books for reluctant readers, but this isn't necessarily a good assumption. A comic book might be a good choice for a reluctant reader; Watchmen probably isn't. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is simplified material for ESL learners. Often they are both engaging and accessible for people with a poor vocabulary. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Seuss books are specifically designed to entertain young readers, versus the notorious Dick and Jane books. StuRat (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, if your goal is to learn the material in the book with minimal reading, there are condensed books and, specifically, CliffsNotes and Reader's Digest articles. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or wikipedia. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highest percentage of Orthodox Christians in the US

I was surprised to learn that 13% of Alaskans are Orthodox Christians, based on Demographics of Alaska#Religion (although the numbers there don't add up right). Browsing other articles on Orthodoxy in the US, it looks like numbers can be hard to come by given the diversity of Orthodox churches in the country. Does any other state have a higher percentage of Orthodox Christians? --BDD (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska was formerly owned by Russia. AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian America and Russian_colonization_of_the_Americas#Russian_Orthodox_Church explain the background. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlas of American Orthodox Churches has hard numbers per state - it wouldn't be labour-free, but you could work out the percentages from that. See page 27ff. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't crunch all of those numbers, but it looks like Alaska does have the highest percentage. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska was for a time not simply a colony of Russia, but (if I understand correctly) a part of Russia. The North American branch of the Russian Orthodox Church spread down the west coast from Alaska. After the Russian revolution of 1917, the bishops in North America refused to pledge allegiance to the Soviet government and the North American branch of the church was declared schismatic. In 1970 a rapprochement was reached in which the Patriarch of Moscow signed a tomos of autocephaly, and since then the Orthodox Church in America has been considered by itself and the Russian and other Slavic Orthodox Churches to be autocephalous. But the Greek Orthodox churches, despite the fact that they recognize that that church is part of the group of canonical Orthodox churches, refuses to recognize its autocephaly, and continues to regard it as part of the Russian church. Apparently there is a fear that it would claim authority over all Eastern Orthodox churches in North America, and that would deprive the Constantinopolitan church of revenue. The Orthodox Church in America reveres an 18th-century bishop, Saint Herman of Alaska, as a saint. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter the Aleut, an Alaska native said to be martyred by "Papists, is venerated as well. -- Vmenkov (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

has anyone seriously tried deflation?

whether as an experiment or simply centrally planned policy has there every been deflation for 5-10 years in an otherwise funcitoning economy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, deflation is a sign of an economy that is not working very well. But yes, there have been periods of deflation. The effect is usually that people don't spend their money, because stuff keeps getting cheaper, and credits keep getting more expensive in real terms. See Deflation#Historical_examples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself delaying purchases in areas where deflation is common, like consumer electronics. Why buy now when I can wait and buy something cheaper and better later ? StuRat (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because you want it, or because you need it, or because the use is worth more to you than the savings. But yes, in general the principle holds. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really deflation, that's supply-and-demand-driven reduction in unit cost for a particular item or type of item. During deflation, nobody has much money, so the prices of everything drop. As in the Great Depression. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

178.48.114.143 -- To those suffering under severe inflation, deflation can sound kind of restful, but deflation actually means that debts get harder to pay, and people continually defer purchases because they think that prices will come down in future. Theoretically, a period of brief mild controlled deflation could help to cool down an overheated economy, but a long period of sustained deflation isn't too compatible with healthy economic growth... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Side question, perhaps also an answer to the OP: Was the Whip inflation now program an attempt at deflation? Its goal was to reduce inflation, so I'm not sure if that is the same as a "deflation experiment". RudolfRed (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was an (extraordinarily lame) attempt at controlling inflation, not creating deflation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The gold standard caused deflation, the restriction on investment caused by the gold standard and its continuance of depression was a major reason for abandoning the standard. Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Deflation was a period when deflation was accompanied by rapid economic growth. Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Long depression, and Bland–Allison Act which was designed to counteract the deflation in the US. Dmcq (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taoist/Buddhist prayer?

I am wondering if Taoists and Buddhists do intercessory prayers. I am just asking out of curiosity, so I can pray for a Taoist/Buddhist classmate's good health after being on medications in the hospital for a month, out of school, gaining a few pounds while fasting, and going through marital issues/divorce, or in her words, "bad luck in the year of the Snake!" 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist prayers have nothing to do with begging for heavenly gods to obtain whatever. Try meditating for improving the Karma around her. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Meditating to improve the karma' is a practise latched onto by westerners and lay people and has nothing whatsoever to do with Buddhism, because it would be 'meditation to obtain something' (in this case, an improvement in the karma of the individual, which also makes no sense, as anything that is to happen in the future will be influenced by events that happened previous to it (past and present), and your meditating will not make any difference to her future. It would be better to cheer her up by doing something she would appreciate. I cannot help with Taoism, as I am not very familiar with it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you pay attention to the Taoist part? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How Find A Persons E-Mail Address

If I have 1 e-mail. Address from someone. How do I find all their other. E-mail accounts is there a way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.251.254 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried a People Search or White Pages? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the same thread at the computing reference desk. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deposed Monarchs in Britain

In what period I'm history did the UK had the most number of deposed (non-British) monarchs/consorts residing in the country.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1945 there was:- Zog of Albania, George II of Greece (not technically deposed, but awaiting a referendum on whether the Greeks wanted him back) and Peter II of Yugoslavia. Alansplodge (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed seems most likely that it would be sometime during the 20th century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would think that it would have been sometime near the turn of the 19th century, during the French Revolutionary Wars/Napoleonic Wars, there were scads of deposed European Monarchs, and nowhere for them to go. I'll have to do some checking, but I suspect that many of those deposed monarchs ended up in the UK. --Jayron32 01:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only deposed monarch I could find who spent time in the UK during the Napoleonic era was William V, Prince of Orange, and there's some contention as to whether the Stadholder of the Netherlands was a (de facto) monarchical or (de jure) republican position... --Jayron32 01:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the minor German princes? Did they all stay in Germany? Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those princes either allied with Napoleon and became part of the Confederation of the Rhine or high-tailed it to Austria or Switzerland, near as I can tell. I went through a whole bunch of them, and none that I can find went to the UK. --Jayron32 05:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Black Duke" of Brunswick briefly stayed in London as a guest of his uncle, George III in 1809, after an epic fighting retreat through Germany to the coast. He didn't stay long before heading off to the Peninsular War with his "Black Horde" to fight the French. Whether he counts as a monarch or not is questionable. Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William V, Prince of Orange took refuge in Britain twice during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, although he was the Stadtholder rather than the king. Alansplodge (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I already noted, the Stadtholder stradled a line between a monarchical and republican position. On the one hand, the United Provinces was a nominal republic, but on the other hand the Stadtholder position was essentially the heredity property of the Princes of Orange, and it functioned during this period like a federalized constitutional monarchy, with the individual territories (most of them hereditary principalities anyways) that made it up having a great degree of local autonomy and with the chief executive being essentially hereditary. --Jayron32 17:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I saw that just now - quick posts in lunch breaks rarely turn out well... Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, among other things he was trying to get his kid hitched to the Princess Charlotte. That didn't go as planned.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, two things 1) living royally in Britain was far more expensive than on the Continent and a princeling would be looking to economize if exiled and 2) if you go to Britain, you are telling Napoleon without any doubt you are not his friend.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly the "Napoleonic Era", but Napoleon III died in exile in Britain. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think WWII must be the answer. To those mentioned above we need to add Haakon VII of Norway and Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it would be rather unkind to call them "deposed" rather than "exiled". Wilhelmina had the use of a nice house in South Mimms. I'm not sure why Haakon chose Rotherhithe (it was a bit rough in those days), except that it has a Norwegian church and a hospital named after Saint Olave. Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that our articles are wrong - although Haakon was a regular worshipper in Rotherhithe and made radio broadcasts there, English Heritage say that he lived in up-market Kensington.[1] Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More details; Haakon lived at Buckingham Palace (June to September 1940), Bowdown House in Berkshire and Foliejon Park in Windsor Great Park.[2] His "official residence" was the Norwegian Legation in Kensington.[3] Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]