Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 May 21

Humanities desk
< May 20	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 22 >

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

May 21

Kansas Real Estate Commission - Statutory Authority History

Please provide history - detailed (with legislative intent if available) for history of the Kansas Real Estate Commission.

74-4201 currently shows:

74-4201: Kansas real estate commission; membership. (a) The Kansas real estate commission shall consist of five members appointed by the governor. Subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 75-4315c, one member shall be appointed from each congressional district and the remainder from the state at large. Each member shall have been, for a period of five years immediately preceding the member's appointment, a citizen and a resident of Kansas. Not less than three members shall have been real estate brokers for five years and not less than one member shall have never engaged in business as real estate brokers and shall not be so engaged while serving on the commission. (b) At the expiration of the term of any member of the commission, the governor shall appoint a successor for a term of four years and until a successor is appointed and qualifies. In the event of a vacancy in the membership of the commission, the governor shall appoint a member to serve for the unexpired portion of the vacated term and until a successor is appointed and qualifies. Each member of the commission shall, before entering upon the member's duties, take and file with the commission an oath to faithfully perform the duties of the office.

History: L. 1947, ch. 411, § 6; L. 1959, ch. 260, § 5; L. 1961, ch. 391, § 1; L. 1978, ch. 308, § 66; L. 1980, ch. 164, § 41; L. 1981, ch. 304, § 9; L. 1992, ch. 262, § 12; July 1.

I am looking for records as far back as possible. I want to see the changes - or find someone who has access to scan me copies of the changes of the laws of the KREC over the full history of the state agency.

I am specifically interested in the powers granted to the agency - but more especially with this specific statute 74-4201 which outlines the construct of the KREC members.

What is a member: From what I read - there are 5. Since there are now 4 congressional districts - the 5th member must never have been a licensed broker and not work as a broker while serving on the commission.

My desire is to answer the following:

1) Can the 5th "public" "member" be a licensed sales person. What is the specific intent of having a member of the "public"? There are Sales Agents and Brokers - 2 types of licenses in Kansas.

2) For the other 4 district appointees - I read that there must be at least 3 that "have been" brokers for 5 years - but does this mean that the original intent is to only appoint currently licensed which have held their KS Broker license for at least 5 years - or can it include a now unlicensed person, perhaps a retired professional, who held a broker license for at least 5 years in Kansas and is also a resident for the required time?

3) Also - can one of the 4 district appointees be a sales-person or a unlicensed person who was formerly licensed?

The intent is to find and document the legislative history and intent behind the formation and selection of commissioners of the Kansas Real Estate Commission so that I can provide some more detail to the governor's office of appointments to aide in their selection of members. The KREC has many - many problems and needs to be cleaned up from the inside. Making sure the governor's office has useful information in this selection process might allow a wider range of applicants to consider. Their current statement to me is that the intent of the law was for 4 active licensed brokers to be appointed 1 from each district - then one member of the public who was never in the real estate industry - as a "lay person"... I do not believe the intent was so strict but I can not prove it yet. GoZippy (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)GoZippy

Sorry to inform you but this is a global reference desk and even if you had someone very skilled in Kansas legislative history this may also violate the ban on "legal advice" even in a non-suit manner. Since you seem to be in contact with the governors office and are displaying some very deep knowledge of Kansas law, have you attempted to research this at the Capital or state libraries? Given my experience in these matters not only do local governments assist you in finding these resources but several have specific employees whose only job it is to facilitate such citizen and organizational inquiries. If these statutes are as problematic as you say searching news references for their legislative history may help, for example many Florida media outlets have done stories on that state's "all-party" recording law's history. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The kind of information the OP seeks requires someone with detailed knowledge of Kansas law and legislative history. The best thing to do might be to contact a reference librarian at either the State Library of Kansas or perhaps the Kansas Supreme Court Law Library, and ask them to assist in digging up the answers. Textorus (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The folk explanations of the cause of Kennedy tragedies?

In the Chinese article I saw some news reference[1] gives some possible folk explanation of Kennedy tragedies, but I didn't see any of these in the English article. So are there actually equivalents of these ideas in the English world, or is the news article just talking nonsense?

Explanation 1: This one is popular in South United States in the 1970s, says that Joseph P. Kennedy II(Or Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr? Otherwise it will not explain the earlier events happened) sold his soul to the devil in exchange of power and wealth.

Explanation 2: American writer and media worker Klein(not sure if it is the right name) once wrote that Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. had been the ambassador to Great Britain. in 1937, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. had a Jewish priest who has just escaped from the nazis on the same ship with him. Kennedy complained to the shipmaster to ban the priest from doing his prayer, so the Jewish priest cursed the Kennedy family.

Explanation 3: When Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. was the ambassador in Britain, he refused to give visas to 500 Jews for not getting United States involved in Europe. Rabbi Gutnick (?) of Australian Hebrew Association says: "This the curse of the Jews. This is a retribution."

--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You'll want to read John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Lots of this stuff is mostly batshit crazy, and for that reason doesn't bear mentioning in the main articles on the assassinations themselves. Some of it, though batshit crazy, is widely reported and thus has its own Wikipedia article, separate from the main article where it doesn't really belong. --Jayron32 03:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the assasinations? I just wondered whether those explanation actually exist in English media, or if they are just hearsay and creations of the Chinese media.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Americans generally don't believe in the power of curses. Very few really believe that it is possible to literally sell your soul to the devil either, although there are many stories of such things. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

i.e. Faust. Though I think that story is German... --Jayron32 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of The Devil and Daniel Webster, plus all the stories of Blues musicians selling their souls to the devil. Looie496 (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There really is a book about Kennedy Curse with the author named Klein...[2]--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Aside from what non-Jews may imagine, believe, and promulgate about a so-called "Jew's curse" - there is actually a limited stock of curses within the religion Judaism and primarily applied to other Jews: see Pulsa diNura; the Herem is a form of excommunication or shunning. The strongest curse against a non-Jew would be Yimakh shemo, "May his name and memory be obliterated." Within Jewish folklore, notably in the Yiddish language, the verbal act of cursing is expressive rather than magically or spiritually effectual. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

By "expressive rather than magically effectual", do you mean it's the rough equivalent of "God damn it!" or "go fuck yourself", in contexts where the speaker doesn't literally mean either? --Bowlhover (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be said as an imprecation expressing ill-wishes towards the person who incurred disfavor. No supernatural powers are invoked. It did not commonly include profanity. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To the OP: nothing in mainstream Christianity allows one to curse another person and have the curse be effective. No major Christian denomination, as far as I know, holds such a belief. In fact, the Bible makes it quite clear that only a select people (Jesus, apostles, prophets, some priests) have supernatural powers, and even those powers are granted to them by God. In most Western countries the second largest religious affiliation is "non-religious", and the non-religious are unlikely to believe in the magical power of cursing. I think most Americans and Canadians would associate cursing with voodoo dolls and voodoo practices, but very few actually believe in their efficacy.

So, it's highly unlikely that those "folk explanations" were common amongst the American public at any time. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Back to the topic. Are there any publications related to these ideas on Kennedy tragedies (or some other theories, though I would better ask in another question) at least? The first one is obviously a common fantasy so I was quite doubtful; I've just find a title of book related to the second one. The third one---I guess there should be documents about whether Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr did anything related to Jews(e.g. the visa event)? And also did any Jew commented on that?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, Joe Kennedy's relationship with Jewish people was complex. See Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.#Evidence of anti-Semitism. Broadly speaking, it seems that while he had friends and political allies who were Jewish, but on the other side there were accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies, especially during his time as Ambassador to the U.K. I don't see any specific evidence that he obstructed immigration of any Jewish people directly, however. And any talk of a "curse" cast on his family is, of course, bullshit. But it does not appear, from what is written in the article, that he had the healthiest attitude towards Judaism. --Jayron32 12:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Whenever outsiders to the religion think about allegations of "Jewish" curses, conspiracies, plots and the like, what they forget is that even two similarly religious Jews from the same place and with similar levels of education will disagree on even the most trivial of matters. Never mind the evil undertones, any idea of global coordination and uniform agreement on anything at all is frankly laughable.

There are plenty of jokes along these lines, but here's an apparently true story about Alexander Altmann:

"Rabbi Altmann and his secretary were sitting in a coffeehouse in Berlin in 1935. “Herr Altmann,” said his secretary, “I notice you’re reading Der Stürmer! I can’t understand why. A Nazi libel sheet! Are you some kind of masochist, or, God forbid, a self-hating Jew?” “On the contrary, Frau Epstein. When I used to read the Jewish papers, all I learned about were pogroms, riots in Palestine, and assimilation in America. But now that I read Der Stürmer, I see so much more: that the Jews control all the banks, that we dominate in the arts, and that we’re on the verge of taking over the entire world. You know – it makes me feel a whole lot better!”"[(http://www.mywesternwall.net/2013/04/07/the-jew-reading-der-sturmer.html)] --Dweller (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Found the Weekly World News magazine source related to the 500 Jews theory and Rabbi Gutnick[3]. Significant or not? Whatever.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't wipe my ass with Weekly World News for fear of losing IQ points; reading it would be far to hazardous to one's health. The first line in the Wikipedia article "The Weekly World News was a largely fictional news tabloid published in the United States from 1979 to 2007, renowned for its outlandish cover stories often based on supernatural or paranormal themes and an approach to news that verged on the satirical." (bold mine). It was basically The Onion meets Poe's Law, as in it was clearly all made up, but it was impossible to tell if they were being serious. I wouldn't use it as a source for anything at all. Pay anything it says no mind at all. --Jayron32 02:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And also those who quoted from these news? Seem a nice way to conclude on the hearsay in Chinese articles. Thanks.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend

In Chinese article it is said that the claim "Booth ran from a theatre to a warehouse; Oswald ran from a warehouse to a theatre." is not true, but English article has not mentioned whether it was true or not. So is this supported by any records?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a footnote in the Chinese article citing the source of this information? It's appropriate to post your query on the Talk page of that article. You can also look at the edit history of the article and post the query on the Talk page of the editor who added that information - and possibly a private email (if the editor is accessible that way) to alert the editor to your query. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

From my memory of a History Channel special on JWB he actually "ran" several places for 50~100 miles and crossed a very wide part of the Potomac southeast of D.C. close to the Chesapeake into Virginia and kept "running" (including to poor Dr. Mudd's place). I found this interesting website here that demystifies some of this, it seems that the original scribe was not JWB and LHO "ran" but were "caught" in a theater/warehouse, given that every school child in the U.S. knows JWB was caught in a Virginia barn and as the story goes was burned down with it it seems that the urban legend has twisted the 19th century semantics some. Basically referring to the School Book Depository and Tobacco Shed as "places that store things" equaling what one might refer to as a "warehouse" in some sense. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Snopes has a page mentioning it here. It calls the coincidence "inaccurate and superficial". Hut 8.5 07:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In some cases it is just kind of vague definition.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot of these "coincidences" (which have been talked about ever since 11/11/63) require some vagueness to work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Snopes.com critiques the entire list of these coincidences, showing some to be true, some not. Textorus (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, maybe J Edgar and his cronies were discussing the matter from 11 November, but the rest of the world only became aware of the assassination of JFK when it happened on 22 November. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. That would be 11/22/63. Or, in some circles, 22/11/63. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, Snopes.com is normally a great source. This particle article, however, is the most glaring exception that I've encountered. It labels the list "false" (not "mixed", "partially true" or "mostly true") then goes on to confirm that the first 7 items on the list are correct before finding the 8th item only partially correct. It then goes on to confirm that the next 7 items are correct, before finding the next item to be partially correct. The final item on the list (not counting the joke about Marilyn Monroe) is confirmed to be correct. Granted my math and counting skills are probably off, but roughly 15/17 items are confirmed to be correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the key to Snopes' viewpoint is in the heading, of these being "amazing" coincidences. Snopes argues that they are trivial and random, not "amazing" - a product of cherry-picking a few facts while leaving out other stuff. More amusing than amazing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There were two assassinations between Lincoln's and Kennedy's, and another factoid that started to gain popularity was the "year 0" coincidence of presidents dying in office, a streak snapped by Reagan when he survived an assassination attempt. I wonder if Lincoln was kind of on people's minds because JFK's murder came 3 day after the 100th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, which was being discussed to some degree, as part of the Civil War centennial period. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I recall that mass production coin dealers (Littleton Coin Co. of New Hampshire as I recall) used to sell 1963 Lincoln cents mounted on a card which had a whole bunch of Lincoln/Kennedy coincidences. Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy; Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln, both men succeeded by men named Johnson, that sort of thing. I vaguely recall the warehouse myth was on there. Doubtless there are images of these on the web but I can't be troubled to look.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

obscure term

When I was a kid, KPIX-TV sometimes included the word "nightcast" after "eyewitness news". This was during the late local news. Has "nightcast" become an obscure term for several late local news programs?142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've heard it used to refer to the late news broadcast as opposed to the early evening broadcast. Many stations broadcast the news at around 6pm and then again at 10 or 11pm. The former is often called the "evening news" and the latter is then the nightly news or "nightcast". Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The English language is very flexible in creating words like this, called portmanteaus, and it is very easy to understand, from context and from the definitions of the separate bits put together, exactly what they mean. Native English speakers, hearing the word "nightcast" for the first time in their lives, but hearing it while watching the late night news, would recognize instantly the portmanteau between "night" and "broadcast". This sort of construction happens all the time, and with little confusion for native English speakers. It annoys the pedants who believe that the language should not have changed since Anglo-Saxon times, but most people understand that language is fluid and evolves. --Jayron32 14:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just the suffix "-cast" has a lot of these: broadcast, telecast, webcast, podcast, etc. I wonder if those pedants you refer to are essentially "language creationists". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Like ever since the Watergate scandal, many scandals have been tagged as something-gate, despite making no etymological sense, nor any sense to anyone who never heard of the Watergate scandal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The word broadcast itself has an odd story; it basically means "To throw seed around" and comes from the practice of farmers seeding a field by carrying seed in a big bag and throwing it in all directions (i.e. casting broadly), as opposed to planting in well-planned furrows. It seems a rather poetic way to describe the use of radio waves to transmit information... --Jayron32 17:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Or, ironically enough, "disseminate" information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Significantly, there are a lot of wankers in the media. Like Onan O'Brien, for example.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hit-man services on the dark web - real?

When I visit The Hidden Wiki, I see links to supposed "hit-man" services. In many western countries, the conviction rate for murder is (I believe) pretty high. (The police in my jurisdiction, Australia, claim a 94% conviction rate). Given that, have any cases actually surfaced of murderers killing someone after advertising on the net, and having an anonymous "client" pay them to kill a total stranger? I assume if such "services" were real, surely some of the killers would (given the law of averages and high conviction rates) have been caught, and the motive ("online hiring") publicly revealed? (I've never read of such a case coming to light). I'm asking specifically about anonymous online hiring - I know guns-for-hire ("rent-a-kill" contracts) have long been available in the criminal underworld for the murder of criminal rivals. Also, my question is specifically in regards to jurisdictions where murder conviction rates are high - not those such as Mexico, El Salvador, or South Africa, where unsolved murder by strangers is an everyday occurrence.

(To state the bleeding obvious, I have absolutely no plans to hire a contract killer, online or otherwise. And even if I was, I wouldn't be stupid enough to believe in honour-amongst-espoused-murderers, and would insist on an escrow service. I'm simply curious if such services, are, in fact, real). 203.45.95.236 (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would assume that most of these "hit men" services are bogus... and some of them may actually be law enforcement sting operations, looking to stop murder conspiracies before they start. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

While I would mostly agree with Blueboar, I would note you've provided no sources for you claims. [4] suggests about 12% of homicides remain unsolved in Australia and suggests the clearance rate is going down in the US. This [5] more recent article suggest 46 out of 510 or about 9% of homicides in 2008-2010 were unsolved at the time of publication, this year. The first source uses the definition were the alleged offender has been charged or when it is believed to be a murder suicide, the second also includes all other cases where it's cleared such as the alleged offender having died although I wonder if the first also included these it was just not clear enough. Of course a homicide is not necessarily a murder although it will often be difficult to be sure it is manslaughter or otherwise not a murder if it is unsolved (of course sometimes it is highly likely it is a murder). The police are sometimes accused of massaging statistics but even so, presuming your memory is correct the more likely explanation is the police do accurately claim a 94% conviction rate but by this they mean 94% of cases where an offender is charged (which is what the claim would mean to me anyway) which highlights an important point namely that the figures would be lower then the 9-12% since it is unlikely all people charged are convicted. In other words while the success rate in Australia may be high, it's most probably not that high. Of course if someone is charged in a case of a contract killer and the case actually goes to court, it's likely there will be some evidence surrounding the contract otherwise the case is probably going to be fairly weak. But anyway, the other point is the second source supports the widely held view that most homicides are committed by people who know the offender, and the first source seems to confirm what seems rather likely, that homicides committed by strangers are more difficult to solved. In the case of a contract killing, the person who took out the contract must know the offender and will likely also be guilty of the homicide in most jurisdictions. While I didn't read the either source that carefully but I think the first, and probably the second confirm that most killers are fairly incompetent and have little or planning which helps ensure they are caught. And one of the reasons why a decent contract killer is going to be reluctant to use such services is they themselves run the risk of either being set up or having a foolish client who may get them caught (beyond the other problems like how they actually establish a reputation for what's likely to be a very low volume business). The hirer also often has the problem of how they hide the payment without it being obvious that they at least have a bunch of money unaccounted for if the police get their financial records. Anyway back to the main point namely that all this highlights an important point namely that the solution rate whatever it is only tells us a little about the likelihood a contract killing is going to be solved. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(OP here - different computer). Sorry for not providing sources. Victoria Police (my jurisdiction) reported that in 2010 they achieved a 95% "solution rate". (See page 10). Admittedly, this may not be identical to the conviction rate. The 9-12% non-solution rate you mention sounds entirely plausible to me. Police often only solve "professional" killings where they can get someone to "sing".

On your other point, though - Why do you assume that the person who took out the contract must know the offender? The scenario I'm describing is where the "contract" takes place over the internet (via an anonymizing / I.P. address-hiding service such as Tor), with neither side knowing the other's true identity. Thus, there is no risk of the hirer divulging the identity of the killer, as they don't know it. (The risk of the killer being "set up" by police in a sting operation does remain. However, running a contract-killing sting operation of this sort would seem VERY risky, as the killer may just succeed). As to payment, I assume, like most such dark-web transactions, one would pay in bitcoin. (Admittedly, IF the police had a suspect hirer, they may possibly spot a large sum of money leaving his bank account into the ether). My question as such remains: Are such "services", to the best of our knowledge, likely to be real? Has such a case (an "internet hit-contract") ever been uncovered? 58.111.185.207 (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I meant the person who took out the contract/hirer must know the intended victim, as otherwise it is unlikely they will hire someone to kill them. (This means there's a fair chance the hirer will be a suspect.) My mistake here may have contributed to the confusionb but you seem to be missing the point that at some stage the killer does have to kill the victim. If at any stage before the killing, the hirer divulges (perhaps unintentionally) what they have done, there is a high risk to the killer. I do agree on the bitcoin, it was what I was thinking but I don't get the relevance. It doesn't negate the fact that unless you happen to have large reserves of bitcoin lying around which no one knows about, which is unlikely for most people, you will need to somehow get those bitcoin and anyone investigating who suspects the hirer and is able to get access to their financial records will likely uncover that the person who hirer has a large sum of money unaccounted for. This will cause strong suspicion to fall on the hirer who may then reveal what they did. While tracking down the killer via the contacts they left online may be difficult or impossible, there is a fair risk the killer even if highly competent may have screwed up somehow and knowing about the contract (like when it was made, what the killer told the hirer etc), makes any screw ups (like being caught on CCTV) easier do detect. (It gets even worse if the killer develops an identity which they likely will if they do this multiple times.) For all these reasons and more, it is unlikely someone competent involved in a high risk job as a contract killer is going to want to accept random job from people they don't know if they can trust. They are only likely to accept a job from someone who they know is not that likely to be caught themselves since the hirer being caught significantly increases the risk to them, even more so if the hirer cannot be trust to squeal the moment they're bought in for questioning. Unless perhaps they are a fairly incompetent one themselves. (Presuming that the hirer is even real.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'll point out that the sting operation by police described above is not to catch possible assassins, but to catch the purchaser of said services. In this scenario, the police would pretend to be the assassin, not the client. Sort of like a honeypot. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Entailment law England in first half of 19th century

If a landholder died leaving a pregnant widow, would the estate pass to the next in the entail, or would there have been a waiting period to see if the expected child was male? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.183.185 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In the succession of noble titles (not exactly the same, but related), a posthumous child who is eligible to inherit definitely does inherit the title... AnonMoos (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See posthumous birth. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The legal term for this (I think) was en ventre sa mere, and yes, there would have been a waiting period. If the child was female, the property would be deemed to have belonged to the entailed heir all along. This was an instance of a 'wait and see' approach being taken at a time when in other contexts (eg the Rule against perpetuities it was not. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Dam Busters, The Great Escape and suchlike

Full disclosure: I'm German, so do by all means mention the war. That said, I haven't seen many if any of these peculiarly British WW2-Movies like "The Great Escape", but even so I picked up the notion somewhere that the genre conventions demand that there be exactly one "Jock", one "Taffy" and one "Paddy" amongst the valiant Tommies in every squad, POW camp, warship etc.; so that any such unit comes to allegorically represent the United Kingdom. I intended to include this into my (German) articles on Jock, Paddy and Taffy, but when I started googling I could not locate any actual movie where this is in fact the case, only this parody by Geoff Dyer. Suggestions welcome... --Janneman (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the German Wikipedia has the same rules, but adding this to English-language Wikipedia articles would be considered original research unless you can cite a source that has made the same observation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't say that it is a movie convention, but there is definitely a school of joke that starts "There was an Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman...". Are you including that? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this anything like the placeholder names Tom, Dick and Harry, but with more nationalistic overtones? In movies, it is common in an "ensemble cast" film to include people of different backgrounds, or which fit certain character "tropes". This is not just restricted to WWII films, but rather applies to any film with a large, ensemble cast. --Jayron32 15:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Token. --Onorem♠Dil 15:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

um, I don't mean just any stock characters or placeholder names, I mean specifically Jock, Paddy, Taffy & Tommy as the Scottish, Irish, Welsh & English soldier, whether in the flesh or as a type, a very British thing, and not just a movie cliche, but a very real thing in the British Army since WWI (says the BBC: The origins of Jock go back hundreds of years...but it was the 20th Century and World War I which cemented it into the British psyche, along with Tommy and Taff. or this memoir by a WW2 veteran: I cannot remember the names of the other two lads; only Paddy the Irishman sticks out, not that Paddy was his real name, but all Irishmen were called Paddy. Just as anyone Welsh was Taffy, Scotsmen were Jock... I'm just looking for some prominent/iconic cultural representations of the thing, WW2 movies seemed a good place to start searching, I just wouldn't want to sit through all of them... --Janneman (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Janneman -- in old Hollywood movies about U.S. units fighting in WW2, it seemed quasi-obligatory to include one man from Brooklyn, one from the southern U.S., etc. Don't know about British movies, but in Shakespeare's play "Henry V" there's a comic Welshman, Scotsman, and Irishman... AnonMoos (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

yes, there seems to be some standardized Hollywood formula for composing a "representative" U.S. Army unit, but I'm not sure if the "Guy from Brooklyn" is a type in quite the same way; but then for non-Americans it's not that evident how he'd differ from a "Guy from Boston", say, though Bubba from "Forrest Gump" comes to mind, that stereotype is recognizable enough. --Janneman (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Great Escape is an american movie based on a book by an australian author; I'm not sure it can be reasonably described as 'peculiarly British'. It does have an international cast including some fairly stereotypical representations of Scots and English characters (not to mention an equally stereotypical American) character, but there doesn't seem to be anybody obviously Welsh or Irish.78.245.228.100 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly and curiously, Janneman happened to choose 2 movies that were both based on novels by that Australian author. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, "Tommy" became a placeholder name for an Englishman, more especially an English soldier, after the Government issued instructions for completing the forms for enlisting in the British Army with the name "Thomas Atkins" as the example. I'll see if I can find anything more. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Aha! While perusing the "Tommy Atkins" article, I see that we have Alternative names for English, Alternative names for Scottish, Alternative names for Welsh under the Alternative names for the British article. Why aren't these links going to the articles? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the final link for you, Tammmy. That article covers all the names, if you scroll down. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not an exact match, but the British comic Jet in the early 1970s included a strip called "Sergeants Four", a WWII strip in which the four sergeants in question were Alf Higgs (English), Taffy Jones (Welsh), Jock McGill (Scottish) and Paddy O'Boyle (Irish). This page includes a scanned issue. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The only explicit example I know is in the 1944 film of Henry V (Henry V (1944 film)). The scene (Act Three, Scene Three) is of course already in the play. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The name of the strop is probably a lift from Kipling's "Soldiers Three". Those three (Learoyd, Mulvaney and Ortheris) were themselves a deliberately stereotyped Yorkshireman, Irishman and Cockney. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

At least Kipling put a bit more effort into the names. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It was common practice in 1950s and 60s war films to include a "Canadian" who was usually a minor US star, so as to give the film some appeal on the other side of Atlantic. I'll have to look for a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Civil unions and equal marriage

What is the full list of countries and jurisdictions that:

1. Have both equal mariage for same-sex couples and civil partnerships/unions?
2. Used to have civil partnerships/unions but replaced them outright with equal marriage? (Give or take provisions for couples already in a civil union.)

Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

By one are you including jurisdictions which lack civil unions for opposite sex couples or only ones that have it? Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Marriage equality#Current status, Status of same-sex marriage, and Same-sex union legislation, LGBT rights by country or territory are good places to start. There's a map in all of these, and a chart in the last one, but the map and chart don't get more granular than the national level, but remember that many, if not most, nations in the world are unitary states where laws like this only exist on the national level. Federations like Canada, Russia, the U.S. and Australia, where subnational units make these sort of laws instead of the national government, are less common. However, Wikipedia's articles are fairly detailed, many of the federal states that leave these laws to lower geographic units have separate articles which cover those, such as LGBT rights in the United States and you should be able to construct whatever you're looking for out of those three articles. --Jayron32 14:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Breaking news! Since 1961, marriage has been controlled by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. It was a state matter prior to that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there you go. I was using Australia as an example of a Federation with split sovereignty, in the sense that the subnational units do pass their own distinct laws. Most countries in the world don't work that way. I frankly didn't know one way or the other if marriage specifically was a Federal or a State matter in Australia, but as most countries are NOT federations, most countries wouldn't make a distinction at all. Thanks, though, for providing the specific Australian perspective. Much obliged! --Jayron32 22:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My very great pleasure. Stay tuned for an amendment to the act that will allow same-sex marriages in Australia and recognise same-sex marriages contracted overseas. Momentum for the change is inexorably building; it's just a question of time now. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Marriage in Canada has also been under the exclusive authority of the federal Parliament since Confederation in 1867, according to our article on that subject. Textorus (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Jayron, thanks for the links but I don't find them easy to navigate. Part of the problem is that there's been very little attention to the status of pre-existing civil union laws once equal marriage has been introduced and the articles tend not to cover this detail, and so it's hard to tell if the table means that some form of relationship recognition has existed since a particular date or a particular form of non-marriage has stayed in existence since then. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

US-USSR Parliamentarian Conference, 1978

Has anyone heard of this event, and if so, where it was located? I'm running into several different versions of the name in a printed document, such as "Parliamentarian", "Parliamentary", "Interparliamentary", etc., plus the variances in "USA", "Soviet Union", "United States", "USSR", etc. I've tried several combinations on Google, but I didn't find anything. It looks like it was a bilateral summit, not some kind of Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting with lots of other countries. 2001:18E8:2:1020:D0F5:2B06:C8A5:CCDB (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Aspen Conference on the World Economy, 1989

Same question as above: do you know where the Aspen Conference on the World Economy was held? Aspen, Colorado perhaps? I probably have the wrong name, since Google finds exactly one hit, and it's someone's resume mentioning a conference ten years later. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B9F4:C1DD:38B4:E9B3 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know but I presume this institute [6] found with a simple search for 'aspen conference world economy' does know. BTW, our article on the place mentions the institute. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

2nd, 3rd and 4th largest democracies

India is world's largest democracy and Pakistan is world's fifth largest democracy. Who is 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest democracies in order?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

I'm guessing from this list List_of_countries_by_population it is the U.S., Indonesia and Brazil. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Elections take place in Pakistan, but it's oversimplifying things quite a bit to call it a "democracy" plain and simple. That would be like the late 19th-century international politics textbook which dealt with Austria-Hungary and Sweden-Norway together because they were both "dual monarchies"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

How can Pakistan be possibly a democracy? The first democratically elected government of Pakistan to complete its five year term is only the PPP government which completed it a few days ago!!! Added it is a Islamic Government with no freedom of Religion. Surely such a country is not democracy!!! Solomon7968 (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why Freedom of Religion is a requirement for a democracy. If the people decide that specific practices or belief systems are illegal and their elected representatives enact that law then that's democracy in action to me. If the population is mostly islamic, one might expect a democratically elected government to be Islamic, still a democracy. The fact that it hasn't successfully had real transitions of power in the past is a legitimate reason to take it to be not a democracy, but how long must a country have democratic elections for it to stick? The US didn't really have a democratic election just before the Civil War (Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in many states), does that mean it stopped being a democracy then, or once you are a democracy you can't go back? Chris M. (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not know why you have chosen to defend that Pakistan is a democracy and chosen to compare USA with Pakistan. And why it is only a particular feature of Islamic countries to have Islamic democracy. There is nothing like Buddhist democracy or Hindu democracy. So the overall conclusion is Pakistan is not a democracy. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris Mason -- Don't really understand why you single out the 1860 election, when most historians consider the Jacksonian democracy of the 1830s to be the turning point, when a very close approximation to "universal white manhood suffrage" was achieved (except in Rhode Island, which had to wait for the aftermath of the Dorr Rebellion). The U.S. had some problems by modern standards, but was still the most democratic non-geographically-tiny nation in the world for the great majority of the 19th century (possibly until 1893, when New Zealand gave women the right to vote). AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are guys arguing about Pakistan? Please, answer the question. Thank you. --Donmust90 (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Why are you claiming that Pakistan is a democracy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly because our (inadequately sourced) article Government of Pakistan claims it is a "parliamentary democratic republic". --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs -- Donmust90 (and in his anonymous IP incarnations before he got an account) seems to be exceedingly fond of arranging things in abstract tables with neatly-labelled rows and columns, regardless of whether such a symmetrical structure of intersecting rows and columns corresponds to much of anything in the real world... AnonMoos (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

India, United States, Indonesia, Brazil and Japan as of 2012. References can be found at Democracy#Countries. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It is good to point here that Indonesia is a muslim majority country but it is a democracy (not Islamic Democracy). So Chris M. is wrong to claim that "If the population is mostly islamic, one might expect a democratically elected government to be Islamic, still a democracy". And a country where the son of Ex-Prime Minister is kidnapped is bound not to be a democracy. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's hardly the only thing wrong with Pakistan. Before 2013, Pakistan had not seen a single democratic transition of power following parliamentary elections. Not even one. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Democracy" is one of those words, common in the political sphere, which has more than one definition; and the different definitions will give different answers. Arguing about which countries are democracies and which are not is a complete waste of effort unless you first define what you mean by a democracy for the purpose of the argument. And I cannot see any logical connection between any of the meanings and what was done to the son of an ex-Prime Minister. As well say that the US and Sweden can't be democracies because they have had premiers assassinated. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Elections take place in Pakistan (interspersed with military coups), but elections don't seem to have any effect on many of the prominent long-entrenched structural problems or persistent festering sores, such as the "feudal" oligarchy, the inability of the state to provide many basic services (such as education) to its citizens, out-of-control ISI, Baluchi autonomy, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam magnam. Many people who would have no difficulty with describing Pakistan as a democracy with an accompanying qualifying word ("limited democracy" or "flawed democracy" or whatever) would have problems in accepting a description of Pakistan as a "democracy" plain and simple (without any adjective). AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• The easiest definition of a democracy I can come up with is "a country which maximizes the ability of its citizens to participate in the machinery of the state". Of course, democracy is not a binary condition, but one of a continuum. No nation on earth is an ideal democracy; as in every nation there are real barriers to many people fully participating in the machinery of the state. The question one must ask is how countries do on the balance, and do countries hold democracy as an ideal, and do they actively work to promote that ideal. Holding elections is of secondary importance to matters such as access to education, a free and independent press, active enforcement of universal human rights, equal treatment before the law, access to voting and to holding public office, etc. Democracies should be adjudged not on the fact that they hold elections, but rather on whether or not the society as a whole enforces democratic values or not. In a perfect democracy, all citizens have equal ability to participate in the machinery of the state, in a perfect totalitarian state, the machinery of the state is tightly controlled by a ruling class whose membership is closed to all outsiders and which takes no input from any group outside of itself. Where a country fits on that scale should be how it is judged; again it isn't a binary "either or" proposition, but rather a continuum of conditions. So, is Pakistan a democracy under that definition? --Jayron32 05:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Totalitarianism is not the opposite of democracy; it's the opposite of libertarianism. A totalitarian democracy is quite possible in principle. It's unlikely in practice, because the majority of people have some regard for their individual liberty, even if most of them don't have anywhere near enough. --Trovatore (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi's Bangladesh visit as part of Satyagraha district

Is Noakhali the only district that has been visited by Mahatma Gandhi when he did his Satyagraha?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Gandhi did many Satyagrahas. If you're referring to his peace mission in response to the Noakhali genocide, I don't think that is usually called a Satyagraha. Looie496 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by Bangladesh visit. It was Bengal of then Undivided India. Bangladesh is a creation of 40 years only since 1971. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. now please someone please answer the question. Thank you. Besides Noakhali, which other districts of East Bengal did Mahatma Gandhi went?--Donmust90 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

You're getting a bit too pushy for your own good. No one gets paid here. No one reports to the OP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no East Bengal in 1946. The second partition of Bengal (glomming on to the eastern side the Sylhet district of Assam) did not occur until 1947.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

From Noakhali genocide "Gandhi started for Noakhali on 6 November and reached Chaumuhani the next day. After spending two nights at the residence of Jogendra Majumdar, he embarked on his tour of Noakhali, barefoot on 9 November. For the next seven weeks he covered 116 miles and visited 47 villages. He set up his base in a half burnt house in the village of Srirampur where he stayed put till 1 January." He left from Kolkata. I don't know if that helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Baby Jesus

Where in the English KJV of the New Testament Gospels does it speak specifically of "baby Jesus"?LordGorval (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean explicitly using the phrase "Baby Jesus?" Nowhere, but narratives involving Jesus as a young child can be found in Matthew 2 and Luke 2. You may also be interested in reading Infancy Gospels. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A keyword search of the KJV here returns 942 instances of "Jesus", 6 of "babe" and zero of both "baby" and "baby Jesus", so the answer would appear to be "nowhere". Did you have any particular reason to believe that the phrase would appear? - Karenjc 19:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to speak for the OP, but it would seem to be one of those "people refer to it like it's in the Bible but it actually isn't" kind of things. Sort of like "three wise men" or "money is the root of all evil." Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You can speak for me, as I do believe you hit the point that people refer to it like it's in the Bible but it actually isn't. I couldn't find it anyway! If people speak so much of the "baby Jesus", shouldn't it be in one of the 4 Gospels of the KJV. Where specifically (which verses)???--LordGorval (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, like Karenjc said, it definitely isn't in the KJV. A quick search here doesn't show results in any other major version either. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a slight difference, though: Jesus did start His life on earth as a baby. That's made totally clear from the Bible. So while the exact phrase "Baby Jesus" might not be in the Bible, it is totally correct to refer to Him as "Baby Jesus". But there's nothing in the Bible indicating there were exactly three wise men, or that what Adam ate was an apple, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To be fair, however, we're mincing words here. The bibles clearly speak directly of the birth of Jesus as well as his infancy. See Nativity of Jesus. The fact that the word "baby" doesn't appear next to the word "Jesus" doesn't mean there is no mention of the concept of Jesus as a baby. It seems like a rather odd thing to focus on, as though it means anything that in one particular English translation that specific phrase doesn't exist. --Jayron32 20:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not. One of the points raised by the folks who doubt the historicity of Jesus is that the story presented in the Bible is simply the Jewish version of the dying-and-rising god. IIRC, in The Jesus Mysteries, it's asserted that the bits and pieces we've come to know as the story of Jesus were actually created more or less in reverse: first the reborn god adapted from many of the neighbouring cultures, then the miracles and so forth, back to the story of the birth. So, nailing down the terminology used might be of interest to someone exploring those issues. Matt Deres (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That kind of theory is rather beside the point. The Bible says what it says. Whether it's historical fact or not is not the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It is to someone doing textual criticism to get a better understanding of where different passages came from. Probably the best known piece for that is the understanding that there are two creation stories in Genesis. Or two sources of one thing, depending on your POV. Matt Deres (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the two contradictory creation stories. Your complaint is on the order of if someone asks you whether Bogart's character in Casablanca really said "Play it again, Sam", you would answer, "No, he never said it, because he's fictional." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What complaint are you referring to? Jayron wanted to know why someone would ask this question. I'm not the OP, but I provided some suggestions based on linked references and a book I read. Matt Deres (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The question was about the wording used in the Bible, not about the historical authenticity of the Bible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that qualifies as me "complaining" but the point was that folks investigating the historicity of Jesus might be interested in the exact wording regarding his infancy because it might point to it being a late addition (or not), which would in turn support some theory or other (or not). Matt Deres (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Jayron said, "The Bibles clearly speak directly of the birth of Jesus as well as his infancy." Then you said, "Maybe not." Jayron is correct, in terms of what we commonly understand to be the Bible(s). The subject you bring up is interesting in itself, but it's not what the OP asked. I concur that maybe "complaint" is overstating it. Substitute "comment". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

But the KJV is just a translation based on a known vorlage. It wouldn't help you with textual criticism, nor any other aspect of the history of early Christianity. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, if you assume the OP knows such, which is hardly assumable. :) Alternately, textual criticism can also be used in the other direction: if the KJV says "x" and my book says "y" then it may be interesting to find out the reason behind it. But first I'd need to know if the KJV says "x" or not. Matt Deres (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)"If people speak so much of the "baby Jesus", shouldn't it be in one of the 4 Gospels of the KJV.": Why? Why should the KJV be the standard? And why should the specific term be used, when the text is clearly referring to a baby called Jesus? The closest I could find is in Luke 2:27, which most translations render "the child Jesus", but the Geneva Bible reads "the babe Jesus". - Lindert (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression that the OP is looking for the origin of the phrase "Baby Jesus". Given the influence of the KJV on the English language in general and particularly on our concepts of what the Bible says, it's reasonable to ask if the term appears in the KJV. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but its a natural linguistic construct. "The baby Jesus" just means "Jesus as an infant", and as noted, the Bible clearly discusses that concept. It doesn't take any advanced leaps cognition to go from the concept of an infant Jesus to the phrase "baby Jesus". --Jayron32 02:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, we do have an article on Baby Jesus. It also led me to Baby Jesus theft, which has nothing to do with the question at hand, but momentarily gave me the visual of someone stealing all the references to baby Jesus from the bible... Matt Deres (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. We have an article titled Child Jesus, for which the above is a redirect. It deals with the use of the child Jesus in art and iconography. --Jayron32 03:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the term (in the UK at any rate) comes from the Nativity play tradition, which just about every Briton that attended a state primary school in the last century has been subjected to. In school plays, the part of the Baby Jesus is usually taken by a doll; however in Sunday school productions, it's common for a member of the congregation to volunteer their real baby for the part. It adds some dramatic tension to the piece, as the audience waits to see if the seven year-old Virgin Mary is going to drop the Baby Jesus.

The phrase has become more popular in the last decade, since a sketch in an episode of Little Britain (Episode 4 of Series 2) in which Lou decides that he wants to go to church dressed as the Baby Jesus. I understand that it has since become the ultimate in bad taste fancy dress. Alansplodge (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ask Mauer. The 'baby' in 'baby Jesus' shouldn't be capitalized unless there's reason to suggest that the title includes Baby. Describing what happened to the baby Jesus, or the young adult Jesus, or the Jesus and Mary Chain...whatever. If the issue is over capitalization of Baby, I think it should not be capitalized. Describing a baby as a baby shouldn't require special sources. What is the 'specific' issue here? --Onorem (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The specific issue is the origin of the phrase "baby Jesus" (with or without capitals) - the OP thought came from the KJV but couldn't find it there. Please explain the Mauer joke, I've never heard of him. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The OED has one citation of the phrase "Baby Jesus", from before the KJV: "Ane el crammessy satyne to be [the] bawby Jhesus of the Senyis [= Sciennes] ane coit." from the Accounts of the Treasurer of Scotland (1526). I take this to mean "One ell of [some kind of] satin to be the baby Jesus of the Sciennes one [don't know]", which seems to suggest that the baby Jesus was a doll or puppet. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Jews in Israel: Practice and values

Is there an article or a website that shows a typical Traditional Jew family doing their daily lives according to Judaism. I am interested about their practice of Jewish life and daily lives. Note: when I mean Traditional Jew, I mean Likudniks. Thanks. --Donmust90 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

There are several links here that look promising. --Jayron32 20:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Jewish" family, not "Jew family". Oy! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Whats up Doc? You seem to be a distressed Wikier/Wikidan/Wikidor/Wikinaut today! Just waiting for someone to call my family "Ortho" :P. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Jew" is a noun, "Jewish" is an adjective. When "Jew" is used as an adjective, it's a putdown. (As if you didn't already know that.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, not rationalizing it just observing it, just couldn't let your use of "Oy!" go unappreciated! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comment about "Likudniks" makes no sense. See Likud - a political party, which includes members who are "Traditional ... doing their daily lives according to Judaism" and members who do not. In my considered opinion, the latter massively outnumber the former. --Dweller (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's intentionally anti-semitic, see the entirety of that "user's" posts here. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Have no fear. Donmust90 (talk · contribs) will push too far someday, and then he'll resemble an abandoned car in the inner city. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If only we all had the means to divine the intentions of other users! As someone who reads these pages often, though seldom contributes, I'm aware of Donmust90's posting history. S/he seems to have a particular (some might say a morbid) interest in issues of ethnicity, but I don't recall any obviously antisemitic comments, and skimming back through a random selection of his/her contributions, I find nothing either. I do note that s/he appears to read Hebrew - at least s/he has quoted information from Hebrew-langauge websites - and that his/her use of English would incline me to believe that English is not his/her first language. I'd suggest that his/her failure at the Jew/Jewish shibboleth - one that doesn't exist or doesn't have the same import in other languages - is more likely to be due to second-language English issues than anything else. But then I prefer to assume good faith rather than call a poster a bigot on the flimsiest of evidence. Valiantis (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In what way could an interest in ethnicity be "morbid"[7]? Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you included a link to the edit page when my comment is included above. Please see definition two of the word "morbid" on Wiktionary. [8]. Valiantis (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Donmust, you are aware that there are millions upon millions of Jews who do not live in Israel, and do not regard Likud (or Shas or any other Israeli political psrty) as emblematic of traditional anything, right? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Start now by reading everything you can about Srugim. Any terms that are unfamiliar, look them up in this Wikipedia and read all the External links for the page. If something on a page is inconsistent with what you've read elsewhere, write your query as a New section on the article's Talk page. You can also do Compare versions for the page's edit history and discover the User name and link for an editor toward whom you'd like to direct a particular question. That way you can study and learn at your own pace, choose what's relevant to your interests and concerns, and get specific answers in context. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, I am not doing any propaganda or doing anti-antisemitism. I just want to learn about the Mizrahi community and which sects of Judaism do they mostly belong to. According to Secularism in Israel, I read about Traditional Jews being the second largest group after Secular Jews. In that, it says they support Likud. That's why I mentioned Likudniks. I assume that Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews are Traditional Jews and not Conservative Jews like the ones in America and Europe. At least one person give me an answer by referring to a PDF article but I don't have time for that. Now, please someone answer the question. Thank you.--Donmust90 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

We are under no obligation to do your work for you. If someone gave you a source and you don't want to bother taking time to read it, why should anyone else? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)