Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 19

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.

February 19

Is Wilson Jermaine Heredia is he ethnically of Afro-Dominican decent?

Is Wilson Jermaine Heredia is he ethnically of Afro-Dominican decent? Venustar84 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

IDF air strikes in Lebanon, Jan 1988

The book Israeli A-4 Skyhawk Units in Combat talks about IDF airstrikes on Palestinian groups in southern Lebanon on 2nd January 1988. I don't see anything like that mentioned in IDF military operations. What was that specific operation called? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I could only find New York Times - NEWS SUMMARY: MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1988; "Israeli air strikes in Lebanon killed 21 people and wounded 14, the Lebanese police said. The casualty toll was the highest since a similar attack by Israel four months ago." Alansplodge (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

History paper 5

Evaluate the contribution of internal and external factors on the decline of the rozvi state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.55.145 (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question to me. Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No you! Shadowjams (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You might find Rozwi Empire useful. Rojomoke (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Peng Dehuai's letter to Mao

Where can I find an English translation of the "letter of opinion" Peng Dehuai wrote to Mao Zedong at the Lushan Conference in 1959?--Wikimedes (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can't find a ready-made English translation, perhaps you could ask someone to translate the Chinese original? This article reproduces the full text in Chinese. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always good to have the original language as well.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

a verse of galatians

according to galatians 5:3(kjv)"For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." now, i am circumcised but i do not think that i or my father let my self be circumcised to follow the law. however, according to that verse of galatians, every man that is circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law. Am I required to keep the whole law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.145.100 (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Toughie. As with these kind of questions, context is important. Here is an interpretation: http://bible.org/question/what-does-it-mean-be-%E2%80%9Csevered-christ%E2%80%9D-gal-54 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the most natural interpretation of that verse is that it refers to people who put any trust in their own circumcision, or who see it as a religious requirement. He's basically saying that keeping only that part of the law is useless. Consider Paul's own statement in Romans 7:6: "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." Remember that Paul himself was circumcised, just like nearly all Jewish Christians at that time. Also consider the statement of Peter (himself circumcised) in Acts 15:10-11: " Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." (ESV). - Lindert (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got to have context here. Paul was talking to those early Christians who said that in order to be a true Christian you also had to be Jewish, and that meant that males had to be circumcised. Paul didn't believe that, and was saying that it was a retrograde step for a Christian to be circumcised: Jesus had already done what was necessary for salvation, all we needed to do was believe in him. So no, I would say you're not. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

He's also clearly speaking about covenant circumcision, and not other circumcision. That is, the circumcision Jews undergo is for religious reasons: as a sign of adherence to their terms of the covenant(contract) that God made with the Jewish people at the time of Abraham. Paul is speaking to the validity of the covenant itself, and not merely to the medical procedure. Interesting reading here would be the Circumcision controversy in early Christianity. In the early years of the Christian Church, there was some debate over whether or not circumcision was required of Christians. This fell into two camps: 1) those that believed that a person needed to be part of the first covenant to then be part of the second covenant (that is, you had to be a Jew first before being a Christian; salvation was available to all, but a person had to first become a Jew, and then a Christian to be saved) and 2) Those that believed that the Jesus, in bringing the terms of the new covenant, fulfilled the terms of the old. Thus, there is no need for any Christian to "sign on" to the old covenant since Jesus "completed" it, and thus the signs of the "new covenant" (i.e. Baptism) are all that are needed. Paul clearly belongs to the second camp, and is writing to a congregation that still follows the first camp. What he is saying is that people who consider themselves bound by the old covenant (of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc.) are still bound by its rules; while those that consider themselves bound by the new covenant of Jesus are no longer bound by those rules. However, the mere act of being circumcised doesn't make one a Jew anymore than the mere act of taking a bath makes one a baptized Christian. It isn't the act by itself that makes it valid, it's the purpose behind the act. --Jayron32 13:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A related question

OK... I know that one of the debates in the early Christian community was whether Christians were required to keep the Law or not (some saying yes, others saying no)... so, are there any modern Christian sects that require members to keep the Law? Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the whole law, including animal sacrifice? I don't see how that could work without the levitical priesthood and without a temple, both of which ceased to function/exist after Paul's lifetime. - Lindert (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

OK... what about the rest of it?... dietary restrictions, etc. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There are some Christian denominations that do that. "Messianic Judaism" is one of them. thx1138 (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sort of. Messianic Judaism kinda bridges the two faiths, as thx1138 points out. However, they're the exception to the rule. That's a modern movement that basically took Christian tenets and bolted Jewish practice & law onto it. See also Jews for Jesus. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

See Noahidism. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Blueboar -- in early Christianity, it was decided at the Council of Jerusalem reported in the book of Acts that non-Jewish converts to Christianity would not have to follow all the rules of Jewish law, but only an abbreviated list of essential requirements (somewhat similar to the Noahide laws mentioned by Deborahjay). Early Jewish Christians (Ebionites etc.) continued to follow most of the Jewish laws (as they were understood at that time), but such groups dissolved a thousand years ago or more. AnonMoos (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Old school report cards

How can I obtain copies of my old high school report cards? I'm living overseas so will have to do it via Internet. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What state, what timeframe. There's no national clearinghouse for this sorta thing in the U.S. Shadowjams (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Your first step would be to contact the school. If it still exists it should be easy to find a contact email address for them.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If the specific school doesn't exist anymore, the next step would be to contact the local school district office. Usually (but not always), those records are warehoused somewhere. If you graduated in the past 20-30 years, then your grades are probably kept electronically, which would make it easier for them to retrieve. If it is older than that, they may have to find a paper file somewhere. --Jayron32 13:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

rejection of other books from biblical compilation

why is it that the catholic bible is made up of greater number of books? what is the basis in belonging a book to the biblical compilation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.145.100 (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Basically, agreement by a select set of people at a critical time. There really never was a single canonical list, although the canon of the Western Church was solidified over time. We have several articles about it: Christian biblical canons, Development of the Christian biblical canon, Development of the Old Testament canon, Development of the New Testament canon. Luther removed some books from the Old Testament that he felt were doubtful. Those became the Apocrypha. He also had some doubts about 4 books from the New Testament, but in the end left them in. This is the major difference between the current Roman Catholic and Protestant canons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to say that Luther removed certain books from the canon that he felt were doubtful. These books had always been considered doubtful up until Luther's time and had been rejected by many, if not most, of the early church fathers. In fact, cardinal Thomas Cajetan, one of Luther's most prominent opponents and a legate of the Pope, held to the same canon as Luther did. It was not until the Council of Trent, over ten years after Luther's Bible translation, that the Catholic Church dogmatically defined the canon. - Lindert (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The standard Protestant Old Testament contains the same books as the Masoretic Text, the standard canon of the Hebrew Bible. The Apocrypha, included in Catholic Bibles, were books that were included in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, but no Hebrew original of them survives. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

True, although some Hebrew fragments of the Apocrypha have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. - Lindert (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised the Bible, in it's various forms, contains all the books that it does, resulting in many contradictory statements (such as old Testament Vs. New Testament). I'd expect that you'd need to prune it down to books by a single author, in order to get one consistent message. Unfortunately, the earliest books seem to each have had several authors, so even conflict with themselves. See Mosaic authorship. StuRat (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Had they known that the Bible would be read by the general public, maybe they would have taken more care with consistency issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

StuRat -- the Qur'an was composed by one man over several decades, and Muslims have traditionally said that the Qur'an is the direct word of God, and is "uncreated" and has existed since the beginning of time. However, that's not what the Bible is, nor what thoughtful Jews or Christians have claimed that it was. The Bible is considered to have been written by individuals who were divinely-inspired, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of what they wrote is the direct word of God. These individuals had various personal characteristics, and wrote at different times under varying circumstances, so when you think of the Bible, think "library", not one unified book. There's also the doctrine of "Progressive revelation"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but this conflicts with the idea that the Bible is a guide to how to live your life. They have so many contradictory statements in the Bible, you can pick and choose to reach just about any conclusion you want. For example, the Old Testament often suggests that enemies should be ruthlessly massacred, while the New Testament says "turn the other cheek" (so we should moon them, then ?). StuRat (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's sorta the entire point of the New Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus is the fulfillment of the "old covenant", and his life and death replace that old covenant with a "new covenant" that has a broader reach (all of humanity vs. the Hebrew people) and a different set of rules (see Sermon on the Mount, the Pauline Epistle to the Galatians; those rules are based on one's mindset and internal thought processes rather than outward actions (See Matthew 5 and Romans 13 8:10. Explicitly in several places in the New Testament are Christians told that they are not bound by the rules layed out in the Old TestamentGalatians 3:10-14, and other parts throughout Galatians. Later in Chapter 3, Paul explains that the law had a purpose, which was to give people a path to salvation before Christ; the coming of Christ, under Christianity, gave Christians a path to heaven by following Jesus instead of the old law. See especially Galatians 3:23-25 "Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." (bold mine for emphasis) According to the thinking, salvation under the Old Testament rules required that all of those rules be obeyed completely. Salvation under the New Testament rules requires only earnest faith in Jesus and obedience to his teachings. See above discussion about circumcision and links therein. --Jayron32 17:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's too simplistic to talk about the "point" of the New Testament, as if it was written by a single author with a single point of view. In early Christianity, there was a large controversy about whether Christians were obligated to keep Mosaic Law. See Christian views on the old covenant. The controversy somewhat paralleled a centuries-long controversy within Judaism itself, which started with Alexander's conquests of Judea and pitted orthodox Jews against Hellenistic Jews. As you point out, Paul clearly comes down on the anti-Judaizer and pro-antinomianism side, although the latter is an anachronism. In fact, Paul seems even more anti-Judaizer than the Christian consensus--at the Council of Jerusalem, which reached a very flexible conclusion regarding Gentile converts to Christianity, Paul was criticized for telling Jewish converts "to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs". Also, the incident at Antioch shows that apostle Peter didn't agree with Paul on his position.

I'm surprised that you linked to Matthew 5, because it explicitly takes a pro-Judaizer view, and in fact goes far beyond that. Verse 17 quotes Jesus as saying "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." I don't know about you, but heaven and earth haven't disappeared for me. The rest of the chapter is of the form "You have heard [from the Law] that you shouldn't do X. I say that not only should you refrain from X, you should go far beyond that." For example, "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Jesus does not say "You have heard that you shouldn't commit adultery. But I'm overthrowing the Law, so adultery is OK now." In addition, there's no evidence from Matthew that Jesus considered himself anything other than a faithful Jew, and plenty of evidence that he believed in the absolute authority of the Hebrew Bible. Mark 7:19, on the other hand, has Jesus abolishing the food laws--a verse that Matthew omits, because the author would have considered the notion inconceivable. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the point of Matthew 5 is later clarified: We are still required to follow the old covenant, but it is impossible to do so, thus the existence of the law itself dooms people to separation from God, since no human can possibly obey all of the parts of the covenant. Jesus isn't saying the old law is invalid he's saying it is both valid and impossible. Matthew 19:25-26 "When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, 'Who then can be saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'" In other words, yes, God still requires you to follow the law, which you cannot do. Jesus provides the means to overcome the fact that you cannot follow the law well enough to meet God's expectations. There is no contradiction between what Jesus espouses in the Matthew 5 and what Paul later explains in Galatians, because the law is still valid, however faith in and obedience to Jesus gives Christians freedom from the consequences of failing to live up to God's law. --Jayron32 02:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Orthodox Jews, including possibly Jesus himself, would be quite surprised to hear that following the Law is impossible. In any case, your claims run counter to the consensus of Biblical scholars, which is that Matthew was a Jewish Christian whose central theme was the importance of keeping Jewish tradition. According to our article:

"Theologically, Matthew's prime concern was that the Jewish tradition should not be lost in a church increasingly becoming gentile.[40] This concern lies behind the frequent citations of Jewish scripture, the evocation of Jesus and the new Moses along with other events from Jewish history, and the concern to present Jesus as fulfilling, not destroying, the Law.[41] The Jewish theme in the Gospel of Matthew is apparent in other ways as well. First, nearly every important person in the Gospel of Matthew is Jewish. For example, Jesus, the twelve apostles, and the crowds are Jewish. They never deny their Jewish faith in the gospel. Next, Israel is a common theme in the Gospel of Matthew. For instance, in Matthew 15:31, after a story of the healings of Jesus, the text reads that the crowds ‘praised the God of Israel.'"

Matthew 19 does not support your point at all. If you read the entire chapter instead of just one verse, you'd see that Jesus had just told a rich man that he should sell his possessions and give to the poor, which the rich man was reluctant to do. Jesus commented that it's hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, at which point the astonished disciplines ask who can be saved. Verse 26, which you quoted, follows. The entire section is about the improbability of the rich selling their possessions and giving to the poor, which isn't a part of the old covenant. It has nothing to do with whether one can keep the Law. In fact, in verse 17-18 Jesus tells the man to "keep the commandments", and the man replies that he has done so, implying that he did in fact keep the Law. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus did not say that it's hard for a rich man to enter heaven. For a camel to go through the eye of a needle is not hard, it's impossible. Jesus showed the rich man that even though he thought he kept the commandments, the opposite was true. The greatest commandments (which are the basis for all other commandments, and are certainly part of the old covenant) are to love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:36-40). By his response, the rich man showed that he did not love his neighbors enough to sell his possessions for them, and furthermore that he put his trust in his riches, rather than in God, and thus was an idolater, breaking the first commandment.

"nearly every important person in the Gospel of Matthew is Jewish": Wow, how remarkable! It's like a story set in Paris where most of the characters are French. "Israel is a common theme in the Gospel of Matthew": that's by no means unique to Matthew. "praised the God of Israel": The Gospel of Luke mentions Israel just as much as Matthew, e.g. Luke 1:68: "Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel". - Lindert (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Matthew 19 parallels Matthew 5 to the point where it is clear that Jesus speeches there are meant to recall the sermon on the mount. This time, you're the one cherry-picking verses to make your point. If you read the entire discourse in Matthew 17:24 through 20:16, which presents a complete sermon by Jesus and responses by his disciples and others, and not just the bit about the sewing camels, you see that Jesus is giving a very similarly formatted discourse as the Sermon on the Mount, but to a different audience. He's talking about many issues related to heaven and salvation. It's a distinct possibility here that the disciples astonishment, and Jesus's response, is to the entire discourse up to that point. They had just heard a large part of the discourse that essentially laid out God's expectations for their lives, and (understandably) found it quite impossible to live up to. Not just the rich man and camel bit, but the entirety of the discourse. Jesus is merely confirming that, and then reminding them that the way around that is total devotion to God. --Jayron32 19:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Qur'an was emphatically not composed by one man over several decades, no matter what reality-denying Muslims may claim. See history of the Quran. The Quran originated from "revelations" by an illiterate man, Muhammad, who recited it to his also-illiterate companions. It was recited by memory (Quran literally means "recitation") for decades, until after Muhammad's death, before Abu Bakr ordered a written compilation. One of the scribes himself (Zayd ibn Thabit) admitted the difficulty of getting a consistent compilation from a wide range of memorized verses and written scraps of evidence. In 650, 20 years after Muhammad's death, Uthman ibn Affan produced an "official" Quran and ordered every other copy to be destroyed. The apparent consistency of the Quran isn't because all those companions of Muhammad had miraculous memory or perfect accuracy--they were essentially playing broken telephone over decades. It's because Uthman presumably destroyed all evidence of inconsistency. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This is slightly exaggerated, and anyway it doesn't do anything to affect the contrast between the basic characteristics of the Bible vs. the Qur'an. AnonMoos (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Did Gikeiki mention the appearance of Minamoto no Yoshitsune?

Just noted one change in the Chinese article from "Gikeiki did not mention his appearance" to "Gikeiki said Yoshitsune is handsome like a girl."--Inspector (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I found User:BRPXQZME/Minamoto no Yoshitsune which says; "...in the highly influential Gikeiki, he is compared to the likes of Yang Guifei and Matsura Sayohime, portrayed as having a beautiful face like that of a woman". There doesn't seem to be a viewable online translation. Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

About the Italian army in WW2

Did some Italian surrender just because they couldn't open the box of ammunition?--Inspector (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. If you can't get to your ammunition and your opponents have guns, surrender is a sensible option. This is an odd question. Are you suggesting that this is a sign of incompetence? I bet Germans, Brits and Americans can be found who surrendered in similar circumstances. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You forgot the French, or was that so obvious as to be not worth mentioning? Shadowjams (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

So is the ammunition box so hard so that they cannot be opened by other methods? One version says the Italians surrendered because they don't have crowbars (does bayonet work?)to open the ammunition box.--Inspector (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

[Trains running on time joke] Shadowjams (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In some "historical" movie an early 20th or late 19th century British army force equipped with machine guns was overrun and slaughtered by African natives because the Brits were not issued an adequate supply of ammo in advance of the attack, and could not resupply in time.. I could not find what historical battle this was supposed to represent. Edison (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the Battle of Isandlwana -- see the section on British tactical failings. As the article says, though, there is some dispute about whether it really happened that way. Looie496 (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A problem with opening ammo cases was a purported cause of the British defeat at the Battle of Isandlwana in 1879. Secure packing cases had been designed for the ammunition for the Martini-Henry rifle, the lid of which was secured with a single screw; the story went that in the heat of battle, they couldn't be opened quickly enough, and the British line was overrun. Battlefield excavations in 2000 found the remains of many cases that had been broken open, probably with rifle butts, and the British line was found to be far outside the camp, suggesting that it was seriously over extended.[1] Alansplodge (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And the historical movie was Zulu (1964). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Or Zulu Dawn. Paul B (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Zulu" was about the Battle of Rorke's Drift, - "Zulu Dawn" was a prequel about Isandlwana. Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite so. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Back to the point - a thorough Google search has uncovered only one Italian ammunition box story. An unreferenced post on answers.com says "When the British attacked the Italians in Libya, one of the Italian generals surrendered. The British commander went to parley and asked why he was surrendering. The Italian general was surrounded by boxes of ammunition, but he put his boot on a box of ammo and said, 'As you can see, we are out of ammunition.' To this the British commander remarked, 'Never has so much been surrendered by so many to so few.'"[2] The latter quote was actually by the Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, about Operation Compass. I haven't been able to find any other support for this story. Alansplodge (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that many Italians weren't exactly keen on dying as cannon fodder for Mussolini, and especially not Hitler (the Italians having fought against Germany in WW1), so would look for any honorable excuse to surrender. While Mussolini was more popular with Italians than Hitler, initially, this didn't last: [3]. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

True, but if this were a true story, one would expect it to be better represented on the internet. Alansplodge (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In my travels I've come across the odd true thing on the internet, but most things are of a different character. Is this not also your experience? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Alansplodge (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of a joke from the 6-day Israel-Arab war in 1967: "As soon as Italy heard there was a war, they surrendered." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So how is ammunition prepared and delivered in battles those day? Must everyone open the ammunition box at the time of the battle?--Inspector (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably just an easier to open ammo box, as leaving them open makes it more likely the ammo will explode when hit. Having to unscrew it to get it open is absurd. Toolboxes generally have good closure mechanisms which prevent them from opening by themselves, but do allow a person to quickly open them, without tools, like this one: [4]. Such a mechanism would work on an ammo box, too. StuRat (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"...the Mark V ammunition box, which was a stout wooden thing, lined with tin, and held together with two copper bands. Obviously, such boxes were designed to take rough treatment on campaign - no point in them bursting open every time they were dropped - but access to the rounds was via a sliding wooden panel in the centre of the box. This was held in place by just one screw, and in an emergency it could be opened by the highly unorthodox method of giving the edge of the panel a hefty clout. This had the effect of splintering the wood around the screw." The Ammunition Boxes at iSandlwana. Wooden ammunition boxes thereafter had the sort of hasp arrangement that you might find on a toolbox, as StuRat says.[5] I believe that steel boxes were introduced during WWII,[6] and similar ones are in use today. They have the advantage that when empty, you can fill them with sand and make a bullet proof wall with them. Alansplodge (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

And finally... lest anyone should believe that the WWII Italian Army invariably gave up without a fight, let them read the WP account of the 185 Airborne Division Folgore. At the Second Battle of El Alamein they held off four Allied divisions, one of them armoured, for 10 days until their ammunition gave out. Our article does not mention that the same division had been heavily involved in the defeat of the 2nd New Zealand Division at the Battle of Alam Halfa a few weeks previously. On the Eastern Front, at the Battle of Nikolayevka, the Alpini Corps found itself encircled as the Axis line collapsed around it. They were able to effect a breakout by means of ferocious "human wave" attacks, supported by only three tanks. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it depends on when in the war you mean. Later on, the Italians were thoroughly demoralized, both by defeats and by their treatment by the Germans. StuRat (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well maybe; but both the examples that I quoted were two years after Operation Compass (referenced above) in which Commonwealth forces took 115,000 Italian prisoners for minimal loss. As so often in war, esprit de corps, leadership and logistic support are vital; both the formations that I linked were regarded as something of an elite. But I agree that by the time of the Allied invasion of Sicily, the bulk of the Italian forces had lost the will to continue. Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Back to the version of story I first saw: In Africa, about 500 Italians were guarding a field airport. They had concrete fortifications, sufficient ammunition, and even two 88 cannon from Germans. The British force only numbered about 400, and they did not hope to win this battle. But just after the battle begun the Italians surrendered. When asked the reason of surrender, the Italian commander said "we don't have crowbar to open these damned ammmunition box!". Still, I cannot find any specific information about the date and place of that likely urban legend. And even though, I think this is silly enough, because if the Italians are taking defense they should have plenty of time figuring out how to supply ammo, not to find out "uh oh, we cannot open the ammunition box" by the time of battle.--Inspector (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's rather a poor urban myth if I can't even find it on Google ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Moralistic therapeutic deism

This is an attempt to start a discussion, not an appropriate Ref Desk question. Looie496 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, according to Christian Smith, is the supposed dominant religion of the United States, then what are religious teenagers supposed to say to indicate that they are true adherents of the faith? Like this? "I recognize the suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross, the same sort of suffering in me and the way I treat others. My goal in life is not to make myself happy or improve myself (what's the use anyway when other people are less fortunate than I am?), but to serve others as much as I serve God. And by serving others and God, I achieve or attempt to achieve my goal. It does not matter whether my final destination is heaven or hell; only God knows, and I place my trust and faith in God." Christian Smith seems to be very critical of MTD. So, perhaps his criticisms indicate that the opposite of MTD is the actual religion, i.e. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem. Good people go to heaven when they die. How religion is supposed to work? Although God expects people to be good, people are not good and are prone to sin. The job is not to avoid sin, but to learn how to deal with it by honoring and loving God, obeying his commandments, and serving the world but also keeping in mind of God's grace. The central goal of life is to serve God. God needs to be particularly involved in one's life 24-7. God does not resolve problems. He's not a magic fixer-upper. I fix my problems myself, and owe my ability to reason and to work to God. I give the glory to God. Soli deo gloria. (Not sure how Catholics would say.) It is unknowable of the final destination of people. God's kingdom is not in heaven or hell, but on Earth. Recite the Lord's prayer. 140.254.226.230 (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC) It seems you have answered your own question. Were you hoping that someone would argue with you about it? Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Yeah. I think I answered my own question simply by brainstorming and asking myself questions. Who knew that I knew more than I knew? 140.254.226.230 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Paye & NIC

Are we in period 10 of paye year 2012 or 2013? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.231.204 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

For those as puzzled as me, these are UK taxes known as PAYE (Pay-as-you-earn tax) and NIC (National Insurance Contributions). Looie496 (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This page says "6 February to 5 March (month number) 11". This page says that we are in "the tax year 2012–13." Hope this helps, Alansplodge (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)