Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 17

= December 17 =

today the Fed cut its interest rate to practically 0 -- is a NEGATIVE rate possible?
if institutions STILL don't want to borrow ANY money (exposing themselves to debt), could the Fed lower interest rates further, to slightly below zero, ie paying institutions to finally expose themselves to some debt by taking loans, and being paid to do so?

or is this not possible for some reason I'm not seeing...

source:
 * "Fed Cuts Benchmark Rate to Near Zero" (the top headline in today's new york times) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.213.98 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be an arbitrage situation, and anyone who can access the federal fund rate would, rationally, immediately borrow infinite amounts of money, creating a run on the reserve (since you get money for borrowing, so the more you borrow the more income you get) and collapse the economic system. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that repayment is necessary, a deflationary environment would strongly discourage borrowing, even at mildly negative interest rates. After all, who wants to repay a debt with money that is more valuable than before? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DOR, I might be late to the party, but I believe I see a flaw in your reasoning: nobody wants to repay debt with money that is more valuable before IF THEY DONT GET ANYTHING FOR IT -- but if they are paid to do so, they can borrow the money, do NOTHING with it (keep it in the envelope) and then it doesn't matter if the value appreciates,depreciates, etc. They still HAVE the original moneryr.  That's why it would be an arbitrage situation -- wouldn't you accept $10,000 now in exchange for not opening an envelope for a year that has a $1 billion dollar bill in it -- ie you have to return the $1 billion dollar in a year.  It doesn't matter if by that time it is worth a trillion in current dollars because of insane deflation.  You still have the money.  You chose not to spend it, because you were doing arbitrage on the payment you get for taking it and returning it later (keeping it safe).  Obviously the only way to do this risk-free is not to turn the dollars into goods/services/anything else, hoping to be able to turn them back into dollars.  Just keep it in dollars you are safe.  So, under those conditions, everyone WOULD borrow infinite money (or as much as they can) and, suspecting deflation, not spend it... 79.122.88.197 (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * True. I should amend the above by inserting "real" after negative. Clearly a nominal negative rate is no different from a marginally positive nominal rate. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Any imposition of negative real interest rates would need to include an imposed "cost of holding real money balances (bills)." Some suggestions have included putting expiration dates on banknotes, and letting people (mostly through banks, who would deal with the central bank directly) redeem them for a discounted number of new 'fresh' bills every year or two.


 * It's been suggested that banks could respond to a system like this by suspending the one-to-one ratio between a chequing account balance and cash. Early in a redemption period, the ratio would be nearly one-to-one, but as the first expiration date approaches, the ratio would slowly fall to (let's say the discounted value of fresh bills you got was .95 of your original amount) .95:1.  Once redeemed with the central bank, the ratio would go back to 1:1.


 * Administrative costs for a program like this would be large. There would be "menu costs" as merchants would have to post different prices when payments are made in cash then when they are made by cheque/card.  The Fed and Big Banks would have to hire people just to administer and audit the program.  There would also be a "sub-optimal allocation opportunity cost" as certain, otherwise "positive Net Present Value, free market" transactions that could have taken place using cash may not take place if bank deposits or credit wasn't available.  That opportunity cost would only exist if accessing bank deposits wasn't exactly as easy as accessing cash.  In this day in age, I think there is an argument that this cost would be small because we almost always have a bank or credit card on hand.  This program may actually improve efficiency be making black market transactions (wealth that has to either saved in cash or be converted to hard assets to paper trail) less profitable!  It's long been argued that a nice high inflation rate acted as a tax on crime!


 * There has been some serious discussion lately about a program like this being put in place (for just a few years, then back to normal). However, it's my feeling that the Fed has chosen it's aggressive cutting strategy (when there is some doubt before an FOMC announcement about what the cut will be, the actual cut has been bigger than what is suggested by the CBOT Fed Futures contract throughout this cutting campaign) with the knowledge that they are using up the last of their interest rate "ammo".  I don't think they want to try a program like this.  It might be unfairly compared to Nixonesque price controls or Depression era protectionism; a risky ride into uncharted territory.  It would be politically dangerous.  Remember, though!  Short term interest rates can be thought of as the time-price of short-term money!  If the problem is that the Fed Funds rate cuts aren't translating into cuts in real rates, the Fed's strategy of injecting money via asset purchases and guaranteeing loans will effectively increase that money supply, forcing down that price.  The Fed has other policy options available! NByz (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Back to real world examples. Due to the need to reduce interest rates so as to protect the currency board exchange rate peg, Hong Kong some time back (1998?) imposed negative interest rates on large (HK$1 million+, about US$128,000) bank deposits. A fee was charged against the account, but the effect was a negative interest rate. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Nationalism in Pakistan
Is there such thing as Sindhi Nationalism, Baloch Nationalism, Pashtun Nationalism, Punjabi Nationalism, Hindko Nationalism and Saraiki Nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know for sure that there are/were nationalist movements in all those case, except Hindko. I never heard of any Hindko nationalist movement, but perhaps there is. As per Punjabi nationalism, there was definately Punjabi separatism in India, but I suppose your query related to Pakistan. I don't know of any movement to separate Punjab from Pakistan. --Soman (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Khalistan
Does this sound controversy?: I am a Bangladeshi Muslim and I believe that Indian Punjab should be called Khalistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But what is your question? Xn4  ( talk ) 07:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If your question is, "does it sound controversial if I refer to the Indian state of Punjab as Khalistan," I'd say that it probably sounds controversial to some. The Khalistan movement aims to create an independent, theocratic, Sikh state; the article says that secession is not permitted by the Indian constitution.  I don't know anything about Indian politics, but I see at least some parallel to the issue of separation/sovereignty for Québec sounding controversial to some Canadians.  --- OtherDave (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Nationalism in India
Is there, in India, such thing as Marathi Nationalism, Gujarati Nationalism, Oriya Nationalism, Bengali Nationalism, Kashmiri Nationalism, Punjabi Nationalism, Tamil Nationalism, Telugu Nationalism, Malayalam Nationalism and Kannada Nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But why does your question stop there? India is an ancient sub-continent, made up of a huge number of potential 'nationalisms'. There are great stresses and strains. Xn4  ( talk ) 07:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you by nationalism mean the wish to establish a separate national state, then there is Kashmiri, Punjab (Khalistani) and Tamil nationalisms. If you define nationalism more broadly, for example the wish to have a linguistic state inside India, then there is a wider scope. --Soman (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Amra Bangalee is a Bengali nationalist movement in India. --Soman (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In both India and China, many provinces have populations and areas comparable to major European countries -- and India is less unified by language than China is. I certainly know that Tamil nationalism exists, since it keeps intruding itself in a rather annoying way into a linguistics-related article that I have on my watchlist... AnonMoos (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Kurds in Syria
I notice that the Kurds didn't do the same thing as their Iraqi counterparts did in order to independent from Syria. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because there are proportionately fewer Kurds in Syria (about nine per cent) they are not perceived as a threat to the central state in the way that they are in Iraq and Turkey. See Demographics of Syria. Xn4  ( talk ) 07:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are also some geopolitical reasons, Syria supported the Kurdish movement in Turkey to get leverage against Turkey. It also had good relations with the KRG during the Saddam period. After the occupation of Iraq this has changed somewhat, and political life in Syrian Kurdistan is gradually developing more along the lines of Iraq. --Soman (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon and Syria
Aren't Lebanon and Syria the same? They Sunni, Shi'a, Maronite and Druze population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Other factors made for differences. Whether before or since Lebanon was torn apart by war, I'm not aware that anyone has ever called Syria "the Switzerland of the Middle East". Xn4  ( talk ) 07:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party certainly considers Lebanon and Syria as part of the same nation. Historically, the division between the two states was made by the colonial power for political reasons, culturally and linguistically Lebanon and western Syria used to be one region. --Soman (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In the nineteenth century, there were few commonly-perceived "national" distinctions (in the modern sense of the word) among the inhabitants of the middle east, and the word "Syria" was very often used to refer to the whole Levant region. Many of the residents of Mount Lebanon (a much smaller area than the whole territory of modern Lebanon) certainly had distinctive localist feelings, but real nationalism was mainly due to European influences very late in the century. Faisal of the Hashemites certainly was ambitious for the Arab state promised to him by the British to include the area of both modern Lebanon and modern Syria (among others). It wasn't until 1936 when the French definitively separated Lebanon from Syria, by leaving Lebanon out of the union of the other French Syrian mandate territories (Damascus, Aleppo, Latakia, Jebel-Druze). Unfortunately, the French created a "Greater Lebanon", which expanded from the Maronite-Druze core Mount Lebanon area to include areas predominantly inhabited by Shi`ites and Sunnis. The political history of Lebanon from 1958 on would probably have been much more stable if the French hadn't expanded the definition of Lebanon in this way...

In any case, I'm not sure that Syria and Lebanon have the same overall religious mix -- I would guess that there is a greater proportion of Maronites in Lebanon, and a greater proportion of Alawites in Syria. AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Eating humans
The passengers of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 crashed and were stranded without food for more than two months. They cannabalised other dead passengers which prevented them freezing or starving to death. Is this the only such disaster situation in recorded history where people are known to have resorted to cannabalism (I do not mean eating strangers passing through the village for fun or to please the Gods) ~ R . T . G  02:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a case in the 19th century involving sailors in a lifeboat, I'll have a hunt around as I am sure we have an article. DuncanHill (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Found it, it was R. v. Dudley and Stephens, and there are more at Category:Incidents of cannibalism. DuncanHill (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Great Duncan, it is related to debating some content flavour so the category will be useful as well. I am trying to establish how unusual the event was. Thanks. ~ R . T . G  02:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are plenty more not included in the category, particularly sieges and poorly planned expeditions. The first-hand account by Josephus of the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD is harrowing in the extreme (curiously our article does not mention the cannibalism reported by Josephus).  A very fine new article that just appeared on the main page, Coppermine Expedition of 1819–1822, discusses the "Man Who Ate his Boots" (and evidently a few other things).  I think I'll spend my winters in southern California, thanks.  Antandrus  (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Donner Party is arguably the most famous example of this in the USA. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hardly uncommon. See Custom of the Sea. There appears to have been quite a bit of cannibalism during the Siege of Leningrad, and, more recently, there were some survivors of the Bay of Pigs Invasion who apparently resorted to cannibalism while stuck in a small boat en route back to the US. There are several more instances mentioned at Cannibalism. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a famous (well, to me) case of cannibalism during the First Crusade...it's mentioned in the cannibalism article but that source is unreliable. In the re-featured-article-ization of the First Crusade article, I'm almost up to that part, so hopefully it will be fixed everywhere soon. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to get a real (ahem) flavor for what it's like to arrive at this extremity, I highly recommend the historical fiction novel The Ungodly: A Novel of the Donner Party, by Pulitzer-winning historian Richard Rhodes. --Sean 15:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems now that the Category:Incidents of cannibalism isn't often used and maybe the whole Category:Cannibalism is not used all the time. ~ R . T . G  04:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Categories don't seem to be a labor of love for most editors, and are often overlooked. Somebody may have created Category:Incidents of cannibalism, populated it with all the articles they could think of, and then never looked at it again. So by all means, if you're researching cannibalism, add the articles you come across to the category! The only way to get anything done around here is to do it yourself. ;) --Fullobeans (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ismaili Ethnic Groups
I have heard of Khoja, but what about Mumani, Shahi, Punjabi, and Kasmiri? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What particular branch of Ismailism did you mean? AnonMoos (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean the Nizaris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.233 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Latino Muslims
Why women were the only Latinos to convert to Islam according to your article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Our article doesn't say that the only Latinos to convert are women. It says a majority of converts are women. The source provided for this is audio and I can't listen to it right now. But I'd guess (WP:OR warning) it has something to do with women generally being more religious than men.  Dismas |(talk) 04:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps that is due to the fact that woman tend to adapt more to their partners than men. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The one who received most media coverage in recent years was actually Jose Padilla... AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Adam Walsh/Ottis Toole
There's something that I'm missing from all the articles that I've read thus far about the recent closing of the murder of Adam Walsh case. If the blood/DNA samples have been lost, how can Ottis Toole be ruled as the murderer? I realize that he admitted to it on his death bed but he had admitted to the murder before only to recant his story. So why believe him on his deathbed? I just don't see how this case can be closed and Toole singled out as the culprit.

Also, a minor question about the whole thing. From what I've read, his niece heard his deathbed confession. Yet our article says that Toole was buried in the prison cemetery because nobody claimed his body. Can a family member, his niece in this example, refuse to claim the body of an inmate? Do they have to cite financial reasons or some other reason when doing so? Dismas |(talk) 04:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to answer: "You must claim your relative's body from prison. If you don't, they'll leave it on your porch." :-) StuRat (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Believe it or not, people did sometimes get correctly convicted of murder before the advent of DNA evidence.  Merely because the DNA evidence does not exist does not automatically mean that there is reasonable doubt as to his involvement in the murder.  I have no specific information on this particular case, but don't assume that the non-existence DNA evidence is in any way exculpatory... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize that but, from everything that I've read, nothing changed between last week and this week. Why now? Maybe I worded my original question poorly. I wasn't saying that DNA evidence was needed. Dismas |(talk) 05:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As to the second question, a niece has no obligation to bury her uncle. She doesn't have to specify any reason for not doing so. - Nunh-huh 05:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks. Dismas |(talk) 05:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just about everywhere I know, the police like to close cases. I expect we should, too, if we were the police. Too many unsolved murders can look bad. Xn4  ( talk ) 06:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It also looks pretty bad when they can't close a case for decades, and then all they can do is pin it on a dead guy. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * According to this article, there was no additional evidence. It sounds like a new police administration was just clearing the decks.  --Sean 15:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "How very conveeenient," as the character The Church Lady often said on Saturday Night Live. These fine crime solvers had previously lost bloody carpet from Toole's car, rendering modern DNA testing impossible. Edison (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they lost the whole car! --Sean 18:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It did turn up again in 2015, but now we have to wait six years to access the evidence. --Fullobeans (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interest rate and Treasury bonds
If the Treasury bonds' interest rate is higher than the Fed's interest rate, do banks borrow money at 0.25% and buy Treasury bonds? That would, of course, spoil the whole idea of reactivating the economy. Is there any mechanism to avoid this? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Short term treasury bonds aren't higher - 3 month bond yields are currently 0.03%, essentially nothing. It's only long term bonds that are higher and that involves tying up your money for longer (or risking selling the bonds on the secondary market for a loss), so banks can't necessarily do that. The price of treasury bonds is determined by market forces, so if banks could borrow at 0.25% and buy treasury bonds with a higher yield, they would do so and that would push the yields down until they stopped doing it. --Tango (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember that governent bonds (in addition to having a coupon) will sell at a discount or premium to their redemption value. By adding the effect of the discount or premium to the coupon, you get the effective "yield to maturity" the real rate of return on the investment.  If short-term money is cheap (the fed funds rate is low), banks will use it to bid up the price of the bond, reducing it's yield to maturity (or effective interest rate) without changing the actual coupon rate.  Government "bills" (any bond with a maturity of one year or less) don't even have a coupon.  They are pure discount.  Your intuition is right.  Except a lower fed funds rate will actually reduce government debt yields.  Since government debt represents the "risk free rate of return" a lower yield will mean that investors (businesses, banks and otherwise) will demand equivalently lower yields on other, riskier projects.  This encourages real investment in the economy, improving employment and GDP growth.  NByz (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, you're right that a lot of this newly injected money (the only way to reduce short-term interest rates is to increase - or be willing to increase - the supply of money) is just flowing straight to goverment debt. Normally this doesn't happen.  It's representative of widening "risk spreads" being demanded by investors.  That is to say, investors are demanding higher and higher rates of return on risky projects or investments, even as the risk-free rate is dropping.  This is unusual, but simply represents fear.  The fed is trying to reduce this demanded risk premium by guaranteeing interbank loans and using government money to introduce price floors for risky assets.  They are also capitalizing the banks.  These tools are, in theory, working.  Hank Paulson was talking to Maria Bartiromo last night, and his underlying message was: "Imagine how bad it would be if we weren't doing any of this."  I agree.  NByz (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Punching people
Do you ever want to punch people you don't know, right in the face, for superficial reasons (the way they grin, their clothes, their voice,etc)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. --- Q Chris (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes.--droptone (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I really wanted to punch some idiot for wearing tons of 9/11 "truth" paraphernalia (t-shit, hat, buttons, etc.).  But thankfully, I didn't.  I did however confront him verbally and he babbled some nonsense about the towers falling at freefall speed (as if gravity should behave any other way).  216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether that can be called a superficial reason (although punching them would still not be acceptable) Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tempting, though! --Tango (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I want to punch people in the face for no reason at all. SN0WKITT3N  13:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This hardly seems like a valid reference desk question. It appears to be an opinion poll or request to start a discussion. When people post silly questions like this, it makes me want to...well, you know. 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it make you want to stab them in the face over the internet? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's actually not a difficult device to invent. The hard part will be getting people to install it. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disposed to punching people in any circumstances, but if I were, my first victims would be the shop attendants who, instead of asking "Have you been served yet?" or "How may I help you?", say "Are you right?" or "Are you right, there?". I usually retort with "I'm sure you're aware that the customer is always right; and no, I haven't been served yet" (or "but I'm being served, thank you"). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * @JackofOz: I think "Are you right?" is strictly an expression from your part of the world. I've only ever heard it in Australia and from travelling Aussies. "Are you right?" here would likely mean "Are you correct?", and not "Are you all right on your own or would you like some assistance)?" On the good side of service, I will buy things I don't want and don't need from any service person who says "May I help you?" or "How may I assist you?". ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, Bielle? What a shocking thing for Aussies to have to accept ownership of.  If I were Prime Minister, I would introduce a law making it an offence punishable by lengthy imprisonment to utter this revolting phrase.  And if I were a shop owner/manager, the very first thing I'd teach my staff would be how to address customers.  I'm not completely hardline about it, though.  It's less unacceptable when a customer's browsing and the attendant comes over to see if they need any help.  That's the "Are you all right on your own or would you like some assistance?" context.  Even if they merely ask "Are you right?", at least they've made an effort to help me, which mitigates it some degree.  But where I'm standing at a counter, obviously waiting to be served, and I'm asked by the person on the other side of the counter "Are you right?", it comes across as "I'm busy here and you're an unwelcome interruption but if you can be quick about it I'll see if I can squeeze you in so that I can get rid of you and get back to my much more important work".  And as for "Are you right, there?", that's completely out of the question under any circumstances.  They may as well shout "You!  You there!  What do you want?".  I wouldn't want to create the impression that we're an unhelpful or uncourteous people, and it's by no means all shop assistants who say this, but there are some things (and people) that really could do with a kick up the arse.  I must stop now otherwise I'm liable to punch the first person who walks into my study.  Luckily for him, I'm home alone at the moment.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack, I agree with Bielle. On my first visit (to Melbourne) I had a hard time figuring out ways to order coffee ("flat white," was it?) and how to respond to "are you right?"  It was easier to ask direct questions about the coffee; in context (and with lots of opportunity) I figured "are you right?"  I haven't heard the latter in the U.S., Canada, England, or Scotland (which is not to say people don't say it in those places).  --- OtherDave (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here in the UK it is quite common to hear people, usually younger people, say what sounds like "are you right" but in fact they are saying "are you alright". It is a generic greeting or enquiry depending on the context. 86.4.182.202 (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't just order "a coffee" here. You'll be asked what variety you want - flat white, cappuccino, latte, large mug or small, .....  Same with "a ham salad sandwich" - they'll want to know whether it's white or wholemeal bread, margarine or butter, all the salads or not, onion or not, beetroot or not, salt and pepper or not, mayonnaise or not .... --  JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Flat white"? DuncanHill (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Flat white.--droptone (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Truly, we have articles on everything. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's basically a cappuccino without the froth, hence "flat". I always assumed it was a term used all over, so that's something useful I've learned today.  Thanks.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would ask what the difference is between a flat white and a latte, but I'm too busy being horrified by that sandwich. Fortunately, our ham salad article deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject, so I'm not picturing the sandwich too vividly. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A bowl of ham salad would contain chopped up bits of chunky-ish ham and salad vegetables. A ham salad sandwich = a "ham and salad sandwich".  It has a couple of sandwich-size slices of ham, topped with the veges that usually go in a ham salad.  Sliced tomato, sliced cucumber, grated carrot and lettuce are the core ingredients. Some people don't like some or all of onion rings, beetroot, mayonnaise, or salt and pepper, so they ask for these to be excluded; otherwise, they'd usually be there as well.  You need a plate to eat it, because some of the filling often falls out unless you grab it with both hands and squeeze it flat, which gentlepersons naturally never do.  There is an alternative version, though.  Some places make up their own "ham salad spread", which is thin matchstick-size julienne strips of ham mixed in a creamy, tangy, herby sauce of a dubious grey-green colour, which is spread thickly on the bread.  That probably sounds ghastly, but it's ok once in a while. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I have never been tempted to, if there is some superficial reason that bothers you so much, that would mean you should talk to a doctor about it, which would render this not only a science desk question, but a science desk question that can't be answered becuase we can't give medical advice. :-)209.244.187.155 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly not a medical question. "Ham salad sandwich phobia" was nowhere to be found in the DSM IV; it skipped right from "halvah mania" to "Haribo rumination disorder." But now I'm actually wondering: what's the difference between a flat white and a latte?--Fullobeans (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer, believe it or not, is at Latte: "Outside Italy, a latte is typically prepared with approximately one third espresso and two-thirds steamed milk, with a layer of foamed milk approximately 5 mm (¼ inch) thick on the top. The drink is similar to a cappuccino, the difference being that a cappuccino has half the amount of milk. Lattes also typically have a far lower amount of foam than a cappuccino. A variant on the latte is the flat white, which is a serving fill of about one-third espresso, with steamed milk then added, while holding no froth at the top".
 * For most practical purposes, as far as I can tell, if you poured flat white into a latte glass, added a bit of foam, and served it up as a latte, nobody would ever know the difference. The main distinction seems to be the smaller glass cups in which lattes are served vs. the mugs in which flat whites are served.  Unless it's takeaway, that is, in which case they both come in a paper/plastic cup/mug.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Jack – as barista deceptions go, the joke is, it's the little glass and napkin makes the difference. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

President George W. Bush
Despite his unpopularity, has President George W. Bush done anything notable while in office? I mean anything that would positively impact USA or the world presently and in the future? Not a fan of him but just to be the devil's advocate..... --Emyn ned (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, you are assuming that ANY President does anything. It is easy to argue that all the decisions and actions come from others behind the scenes.  Assuming President Bush is responsible for anything during his Presidency, there are arguable positive things.  For example, OPEC announced a couple months ago that it was going to quickly limit production of oil to increase prices.  Iraq didn't comply.  So, Iran didn't comply.  So, there is no real reduction of supply.  So, there is no sudden increase in oil price.  Why didn't Iraq comply?  Could it possibly have anything to do with a new government that is leaning more towards the U.S. than OPEC?  Then, there is terrorism.  Is it real?  Have there been terrorist attacks in other countries since 9/11?  Have there been any inside the U.S?  Does the lack of U.S. attacks have anything to do with the Patriot Act or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  You can lighten up the mood a lot by discussing other things.  He made people realize how dangerous a pretzel could be.  How about late-night TV?  Do you think they'll survive with 4 years of Obama to make fun of?  And, we almost got a few of the Baldwins to move to Canada.  That can't be bad. --  k a i n a w &trade; 20:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do presidents do anything?!? They are the friendly face and PR campaign that gets their cabinet and ideology past the masses and into the white house!  That's doing something. NByz (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was certainly a time in the 19th century when the Presidency was viewed as a sort of a "do nothing" job, but during the 20th century, largely due to the Presidency of FDR, the President has become essentially the CEO of an enormous bureaucracy. Insofar as any CEO could be said to "do" anything, the President is actually a very busy person.  Presidents shape policy greatly by affecting the implementation of legislation via their control over the huge regulatory apparatus that is the executive branch of the U.S. government.  That the President holds a certain political viewpoint means that he will appoint people who share that viewpoint to various positions in his administration, that he will direct those people to institute regulations in line with his viewpoint, etc. etc.  In that regard, the President is quite powerful.


 * I'd say that Bush perhaps is somewhat less so than other Presidents (due in large part to the rise of the Éminence grise role of the V.P. in this administration), but he has certainly done a lot during his time in office. The Bush Doctrine represents a huge foreign policy change from earlier administrations.  The No Child Left Behind act, championed by Bush himself as the cornerstone of his education policy, has as a single policy made greater changes to the U.S. Education System than almost any single act has done in some 50 years.  Bush has profoundly changed the role of the executive branch of the U.S. government compared to earlier administrations, by strengthening its control over legislation through somewhat liberal use of the signing statement and the executive order.  His sponsorship of the Annapolis Conference has probably been a strong move towards resolving the Palestinian question (though whether it will be more important than its predecessor conferences at Dayton or Camp David will remain to be seen).  Whether history views any of these actions as positive or negative is probably yet to be seen.  Remember that Harry Truman was as hated as Bush when he left office, and yet history tends to view Truman as a pretty good president!  It is completely inaccurate to say that Bush hasn't "done anything" while in office; the actions of him and his administration have had profound impacts on the U.S. and on the world... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well certainly he's done many notable things, it's just that most of them haven't turned out well (depending on your politics, of course). The first things that comes to mind for me are his significant increase in AIDS funding (PEPFAR), and that he didn't join the worst elements of his party in anti-Muslim demagoguery after 9/11.  --Sean 21:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The other problem is that every program will have things people disagree about. Let's use PEPFAR, Bush's plan to help Africa with the AIDS problem, as an example.  A "good thing," right?  Some are unhappy with it because of the strings attached (abstinence education, for one), others are unhappy because they feel that it's not an appropriate use of US taxpayer money, others are unhappy with it because domestic spending on AIDS isn't adequate.  It's hard to identify anything where someone will not have a perfectly logical reason to find it a "bad thing."  SDY (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as a problem; undoubtedly some people picked nits with obvious triumphs like the Apollo program and ending slavery in the US. As for the strings attached to PEPFAR, so what?  At my alma mater a wealthy donor asked that all undergraduates be taught how to swim; not too high a burden for a Brazilian dollars.  Also, spending millions on trying to get humans to abandon their million-year pastime of fucking like howler monkeys is high comedy, in my book!  --76.182.94.172 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying I agree with any of those objections in particular (I do, but that doesn't really matter). The point is that people make them and they're not crazy or stupid to object, they just value different things.  SDY (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

On June 15, 2006 Bush created the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. This amazing act on his part is a complete mystery to me--I was shocked at the time, unable to believe this destroyer of the environment created such a huge reserve. This is the only good thing he ever did as a president, as far as I know.--Eriastrum (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So in other words, our leaders are complex people with complex personalities and motivations, and aren't the monolithic and single-minded characatures that we're made to believe they are? I am not defending Bush in any way; but I don't doubt he is not the source of pure evil that people make him out to be... A certain measure of Hanlon's razor is probably the best way to understand his Presidency! --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Unfortunately, people will cling to their conspiracy theories. TresÁrboles (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Notable" does not always mean "good" or "praise-worthy." Bush launched the Global War on Terror, thereby furthering the aims of the Project for the New American Century. Civil liberties in the U.S. were limited, oil prices went up, and the economy went into a deep recession, due at least in part to his economic policies. All these results were quite notable and are expected to have long lasting implications. On the positive side, some think his educational reforms were a step in the right direction, although modification is expected in the Obama administration. Edison (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

ironic tale of lovers trying to please each other
I believe there's a parable or short story about a pair of lovers, each of whom made sacrifices to please the other, but ironically the gifts canceled out. On the one hand, the woman cut off her beautiful hair to sell and buy something for the man; but he had bought her a silver comb for her hair. Don't recall the other part. Anybody know the source? Thanks. --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No. But in cartoon form: http://xkcd.com/506/ --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Gift of the Magi by O. Henry. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a naughty parody of the story in, i think, National Lampoon thirty-some years ago. —Tamfang (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * She sold her hair to buy him a watch chain, he sold his watch to buy her combs. O, cruel irony. O, Henry. --Fullobeans (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * She was dis-tressed only for a time, and treasured the "beautiful combs, pure tortoise shell, with jewelled rims" always. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, after turtles became extinct she was able to sell the comb for a fortune and buy not only a wig but also a watch.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, surely her hair grew again? so why would she buy a wig. Hmm? Ah well back to the real world. 86.4.182.202 (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Phenomenological life
I'm an engineer by trade and not much into philosophy. Is the 3.7 year old article - Phenomenological life - a genuine article full of technical jargon or is it actually a load of gibberish mixed with bad English? I incline towards the latter, but worry that it might truly have meaning to somebody somewhere. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article seems to have been written by someone whose first language is French or who translated very literally from French. My main clue is the use of the definite article before the generic noun in "the life", where a native speaker would write simply "life".  A better title for the article might have been "The phenomenological conception of life", but I question whether such a topic merits an encyclopedia article. It probably has meaning to somebody somewhere, but then so do university students' term papers, but most of those do not belong in an encyclopedia.  Marco polo (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the article author, User:Philippe Audinos "I have written a quite complete article on the phenomenology of life from the philosopher Michel Henry in the French version of Wikipedia, and I have translated it in English." Reference to Michel Henry suggests it is a serious proposition, albeit with lost-in-translation issues right now. Go on, SGBailey. Make it your life's work :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and also article asserts philosophical views as fact. Instead of saying "Michel Henry says this life is..." it says "This life is...". Terms such as "A feeling for example can never be seen from the exterior..." is probably jargon and terms such as "subjective experience" and "philosophical method" are certainly technical. ~ R . T . G  03:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a direct answer to your question, but you might be interested in reading about the Sokal Hoax. --noosph e re 07:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So Mary and Joseph had to go all the way to Bethlehem because of a dude that died a millennia earlier?
Something I've been curious about for a while now: supposedly, Mary and Joseph had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem to participate in a census because Joseph was of the "house of David". But according to the bible, King David lived around 1000 BC, right? That's a thousand years between them! How could you possibly be forced to register for a census because one of your ancestors lived in a certain place a thousand years ago? That would be like forcing English people to register for a census at the place where their ancestors from the Doomsday book lived. It seems like a terrible policy for a census to me, isn't the point to find out where people are living now, for tax purposes? Arethere records left from the Romans detailing their policy for counting people during censuses?

And really, even if that were true, by that time King David must've had tens of thousands, if not even millions, of direct descendants. Were they all forced to register at Bethlehem? And how the hell did people keep track? How did Joseph know he was of the house of David? Over a thousand years, that's roughly 50 generations of people to keep straight. Even today there's exceedingly few people who can trace their lineage that far back, how did a poor carpenter in the first century do it?

I realize that it's a fools errand to ask for logical consistency in the Bible, but I'm curious about whether Christians have some response to this objection? It seems to me to be a pretty obvious hole in the story. Belisarius (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm no christian, but as the Romans were the occupying power, maybe they were just being dicks?82.22.4.63 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps better phrased - is there evidence of a Roman or Roman-Judaean administrative policy of counting people by their ancestral places of residence?
 * I know that in East Asian countries, one's "origin" as displayed on one's identity card (etc) could be 3, 4, perhaps many generations out of date. In those countries that still retain the family register system, one's registered address can similarly be decades out of date, sometimes even deliberately ficitious because of inheritance implications.
 * Where the government was "being dicks", this could result in strange situations, such as people who were born and raised in one place being "repatriated" to their registered place of origin - which is where their 3rd or 4th generation ancestor was born - such as quite frequently happened in the early People's Republic of China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a journey of about 80 miles. I'd guess that it's more likely that migrants were being sent back to their place of birth. But good question: I hope we get a better answer than this one :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard something similar of Switzerland: canton citizenship is hereditary, and it's not hard to change but many people don't bother, so they vote not in their actual home canton but in the ancestral one. —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Honest Christians aver that the story about the census was inserted into the Bible to emphasize Jesus's purported Davidic lineage rather than as a reflection of actual events. There's no historical record of such a census, and the Bible's chronology is demonstrably and unsalvagably wrong (since it has Jesus being born in or after 6 C.E, when Quirinius became legate of Syria (because Herod had died), but also has him alive before King Herod dies in 4. B.C.E.) For some of the past efforts trying to explain away the difficulties, you might want to take a look at Serious Problems with Luke's Census.  - Nunh-huh


 * There appears to be an apologetic christian site which offers a couple of explanations here under the question "Q: In Lk 2:1-5, why would Caesar Augustus allegedly cause chaos by allegedly making everyone return to their hometown?". just testing my google-fu --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's how I understand it, and this is just from memory, so I won't be able to provide sources to back it up. A) Jewish people back then tended to know their lineage better than we do now. Especially when it came to relation to royalty or significant patriarchal figures. Even today, semitic cultures for the most part are more aware of their genealogy than westerners. B) I've heard that it wasn't Caesar's idea to send everyone to the city of his birth, but the more local government. Caesar, as I understand it, didn't care how the numbers were gathered so long as they were gathered. C) The issue isn't that the trip was long. Bethlehem is just outside of Jerusalem. All Jews at the time traveled to Jerusalem regularly. The issue is that Mary was pregnant. Distance really wasn't the thing that set the trip apart. Wrad (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But Nazareth is much farther away (I forget exactly how far, but more than a few hours of walking, anyway). Of course, Nazareth apparently didn't even exist then. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't "much farther away" at all. Bethlehem is right next to Jerusalem. Nothing is "much farther away" from Jerusalem than from Bethlehem. Nothing at all. And Nazareth did exist. You have to admit that much at least, lets be reasonable here. Wrad (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Bethlehem, I said Nazareth, which is not next to Jerusalem at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Joseph would have been arrested if not found to be living in Bethlehem as was his highest possible status. Perhaps Joseph was in Nazereth to avoid arrest or taxes for some reason and felt the best thing to say was that he got counted in this little Bethlehem place somewhere in the middle of nowhere. In a land where you got stoned to death for being cheeky (buried up to the neck and beat with stones until stopping movements and sound) you would go where your father was told to go and not question it so much for as long as it took. Imagine needing told what to do by anyone except your closest friends. You would get slapped a lot. ~ R . T . G  03:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrad, for the debate on the existence or status of Nazareth during the times of the New Testament, see Nazareth. This isn't a religious hate-war. There is no need to be overly sensitive. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not being. That article contradicts itself anyway. At one point it states that scholars don't think Nazareth existed in Christ's day at all. At another it states that Christ was probably born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem. Seems to me scholars don't really know enough to make a call either way. Also, the fact remains that Bethlehem was very close to Jerusalem, and all jews made frequent trips to Jerusalem, so what was an extra few miles to Bethlehem? Not much at all. The length of the trip wasn't a big deal, the pregnancy was. Therefore, the questioner exagerrates the journey a bit. Wrad (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The story I heard was that at the time of Jesus, there were two Jewish nations, Israel and Judea. Both wanted to claim Jesus as there own, so the Biblical authors made up some stories to show he was partially associated with both Bethlehem, in Judea, and Nazareth, in Israel.  StuRat (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the connection to Nazareth is explained fairly well; Matthew clearly states that after Herod's death, the southern area (Judea) came to be ruled by Archelaus, who was a bit of a prick. So Joseph, when Jesus was still a boy, picked up his family and moved them to Nazareth in Galilee.  Plus, Matthew plays a little double entendre when he says Jesus "dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, for he should be called a Nazarene."  The term Nazarene was supposed to indicate a dispised half-breed, much like Samaritan.  Think of the term "redneck" in modern parlance; it was an indication that Jesus being an outcast had been specifically predicted by the OT writers, such as Isaiah 49:7 "This is what the LORD says to the despised one, to the one scorned by the nation, to the slave of rulers: Kings will see [you] and stand. Princes will see [you] and bow. The LORD is faithful. The Holy One of Israel has chosen you."  As the people from the northen parts of the Kingdom (Galilee, outside of Judea proper) were despised, by calling Jesus a "Nazarene", Matthew was using both meanings; that he was actually from Nazareth, and that he was an outcast.
 * To respond to StuRat, the Jewish province at the time of Christ was actually pretty decentralized. The "two state" Jewish nation existed after King Solomon divided the nation between his sons, about 800-900 years before Christ.  The Northern State (Isreal), AKA the Ten Lost Tribes, was much shorter lived, lasting about 200 years, before being wiped out by the Assyrians in the 700's BC.  The southern Kingdom of Judah (from whence the name "Jews" and "Judaism" actually comes), lasted another 200 years, until the 500's BC, from which point the Jewish lands ceased to be self-ruled, except for some brief periods under the Hasmoneans prior to the Romans taking over.  Even under Roman rule, the local monarchy was left in place, and local administration was left up to the Jews themselves.
 * After King Herod the Great dies, the land was divided up among his sons and grandsons into four "tetrarchies", each ruled essentially independently. There was also, outside of the rule of the Herodians, the Decapolis, an independent league of ten cities which was generally outside of the jurisdiction of the monarchy directly.  At the time, the lands of Judea proper (the territory of the former Kingdom of Judah), roughly centered on Jerusalem, was thought to be where the "pure" Jews lived, while the people other territories were viewed as something of a "half-breed", i.e. not full members of "God's Chosen People".  Jesus's connection to Bethlehem, firmly in Jewish lands, and city of David, the founder of the Jewish State, establishes him as a True Jew, while his having grown up in Galilee in the north establishes his position as an outcast.--Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this entire discussion rest on the false assumption (or at least not demonstrably true assumption) that Joseph's family had not lived in Bethlehem since 1000 BC/BCE? I am relying on memory here, but it seems to me that the Gospel accounts give no indication of where Joseph's father had lived...or for that matter, where Joseph himself was born. Surely it's entirely possible that Joseph really was returning to his hometown for registration? Yes, I know, if it was his birthplace, the Gospel writers could have said so, but as has already been mentioned, the symbolic power of Jesus being from the house of David is important, and this is an easy time to mention it. Joseph's not just a Bethlehemian (Bethlehemite?), he's descended from THE Bethlehemian. As for the veracity of the whole story, I can see a few editors ready to pounce on the assertions in Luke's tale, but surely an "honest Christian" can allow that Luke, being human, may have had the governor's name wrong, or may have assumed a census of Palestine was part of a worldwide census which did not occur...and that this does not automatically mean that he fabricated the entire story out of whole cloth. If I tell the story of my first day of school, and later comparisons with other printed authorities demonstrate that it was not, in fact, raining on that day, and that my father had not yet shaved his beard, I would hope that the people listening to me would not assume that I had invented my educational history. But I'm drifting now into an argument I don't really want to enter--my apologies. My original point stands, however--if we grant that some sort of census took place, and that people were required to register in their birth cities, no records exist which preclude us from assuming that Joseph did this very thing. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.35.226 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A note to Luke's doubters, though...until 1960, one of the strikes people had against the Gospels was that one of the central figures of the narrative was an alleged Roman official named Pontius Pilate, but that no physical evidence existed that a man of that name ruled the land. I remember reading books that seriously contended that he was a fiction.  You can read his article now, though, and see that physical evidence (accepted by secular and religious scholars alike) now very convincingly establishes his existence.  One of the things we have to remember about the ancient world is how little survives.  If we have only the New Testament's word that an event took place, it may, admittedly, mean that the event is invented.  It may also mean that it's an event that, like thousands of other events in the ancient world, is preserved in only one document.  If Luke was merely a Greek-speaking chronicler of events in a minor Roman province, we wouldn't subject him to the scrutiny that is often aimed at him because his works served a religious purpose.  This is not say that anyone is compelled to believe in the accuracy of the Gospels, or to take from an argument in favor of their historical accuracy any obligation that the reader must assent to any creed or faith.  It's just to say that history's more complicated and less documented than we wish it was.  User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.35.226 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you remember which books argued Pilate had never governed Judaea? Similar statements have been added to the Pontius Pilate article in the past, but never with references. EALacey (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh. I'd thought it might have been G. A. Wells, but he's writing too late for that.  It seems that Christian web sites are content to repeat rumors without giving any indication of who the critics might have been...as the suggestion that Pilate was fictional is now untenable, even if it was perpetuated once by skeptics, it's certainly not a feature of any anti-Christianity web sites out there now.  I may, of course, be misremembering, but I'll keep looking around -- I think the book is still among the thousands lying around my too-cluttered apartment, and will add the information (with citation) if I can verifiably do so.  Thanks for keeping me honest...and for being on the lookout for a way to improve the Pilate article!  71.112.35.226 (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In any case, Pilate is mentioned multiple times in Josephus... AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)