Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 3

= December 3 =

Image of branches in Jewish monotheism.
Does anybody have a link to an image that shows Judaism with offshoots? I'd like to see one with major and minor branches. Compare:


 * [[Image:Christianity major branches.svg]]

Well, the main outline would be that in the Maccabean / early Roman period there were many "sects" (if you want to call them that), such as Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, Therapeutae, etc., but the only two that survived in the long run after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. were the Samaritans (already quite separate even before the Maccabean period) and Rabbinic Judaism. Those Jews who did not ultimately affiliate themselves with Rabbinic Judaism after 70 A.D. ended up converting to Christianity in large numbers (such as a significant part of the Jewish community of Alexandria). In the medieval period, the main division was between Jews who accepted the Talmud, Qaraites (who consciously rejected the Talmud), and certain remote Jewish communities (such that in Abyssinia) who were too isolated to be significantly influenced by the Talmud. In the early modern period, there was the division between Chasidim and Mitnagdim. The modern divisions between Orthodox, Reform, Conservative didn't really get established until the 19th century... AnonMoos (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've not seen an image, but Q: What's Jewish polytheism? --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Asherah and Ashtoreth, I guess... See Bible verse 1 Kings 11:5 etc. Ethnic Israelites/Judahites who rejected monotheism in the B.C. period would have been culturally absorbed into the surrounding population of Canaanites or Aramaic-speaking "Syrians" (depending on the period).  AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, but there's nothing "Jewish" about that. That's like saying that there's such a thing as Jewish sheepshearing if lots of Jews shear sheep. --Dweller (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Before the reign of Josiah of Judah, strict monotheism had only been strongly adopted and advocated by the government/monarchy of the southern kingdom of Judah somewhat sporadically, and it was generally in the opposition in the northern kingdom of Israel (where it was advocated by some prophets in the face of royal indifference or outright hostility). At various times, there were probably a fair number of genealogical Israelites or members of the tribe of Judah who didn't think that their practices of pagan worship made them any less Israelite or Judahite than the monotheistic reformers (see Bible verse Jeremiah 44:17 for comments to this effect).
 * However, those Israelites and Judahites who did not sooner or later accept the leadership of monotheistic scribes and priests ultimately lost their Israelite/Jewish cultural distinctiveness, and merged into the surrounding populations... AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was actually looking for a map showing the branches of Abrahamic faiths, all of which are based upon Judaism in part. There would be the three major branches, then smaller ones for divisions within the offshoots.  Has anybody even seen a diagram like the Christianity one?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Lawful reasons for termination of a job in united states of america
Repost from Misc

I'm not looking for legal advice, I'm just looking for a list that people have for why or why not a person can be fired. Examples are obviously race, religion, etc. Just looking for the legal document that states it or a WP list 66.216.163.92 (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the U.S., many people work in at-will employment situations, meaning the employer can fire them at will (unless there's a legal or contractual restriction). The article discusses some of the "why not" situations as well.  --- OtherDave (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You may want to clarify reasons someone may be terminated (fired) without the employer being required to pay compensation, (e.g., theft) often called "with cause" and other types of termination such as what might arise from a drop in business. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why did people vote for Ted Stevens?
I realize the elections were some weeks ago, but I was curious why so many people voted for this rascal? Any thoughts? Links to news articles with quotes from "ordinary" Alaska voters would be especially valuable in answering this question.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Incumbents tend to stay in office because humans tend to keep doing whatever it is they are currently doing. This mindset isn't only in politics.  It is throughout human behaviour.  For example, the point of having super sales in U.S. stores after Thanksgiving isn't to make a lot of money on that specific day.  It is to get people off their butt and in the store to do shopping.  If you get them to do it one week and then somehow get them back the next week, then they will be far more likely to come back again and again and again.  McDonalds has also noted this by showing that their Monopoly game increases sales right away, but the sales decline slowly when the Monopoly game is over because people got used to going there.  In the end, the longer someone keeps getting voted for, the longer they will continue to get voted for. --  k a i n a w &trade; 04:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, there was the feeling in Alaska that Stevens violated some obscure law, and saw his conviction as having little relevence to his abilities as a Senator. The theme was that he was tried in Washington, D.C., as a means to remove him from power, and the people of Alaska would be damned if some court 4000 miles away was going to tell THEM who to vote for.  As far as they were concerned, Stevens did for 40 years exactly what they sent him to Washington to do, which was bring back as much cash as possible.  And he certainly did that quite well, which is of course why they kept sending him back (or, almost did this last time.)  As a compounding issue, Stevens is somewhat of a local hero, having been a leading campaigner for Alaskan statehood during the 1950's.  He was widely considered to be very responsible for getting Alaska admitted to the union, and its really hard to unseat a hero like that; even harder than unseating a mere incumbant.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * to Kainaw: Well, I agree that people are often hesitant to change... though there are many exceptions, like the recent elections. You write though that In the end, the longer someone keeps getting voted for, the longer they will continue to get voted for. ... and here I disagree. That would suggest that the longer a party has reigned, the more terms of office a politician has run, the more likely they are to be reelected. All the anecdotal evidence I can think of speaks against it. At some point, people get dissatisfied with something and want a change... unless the politician has already felt the same and quit before. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Other factors to consider: the generally low turnout rates in most American elections, which mean that zealous supporters, regardless of their reason, have a disproportional influence. That in turn, if you ask me, explains the saying that we're governed by the people we couldn't stand in high school.  As for the benefits of incumbency, until very recently an incumbent member of Congress who chose to run was likelier to retain his seat than a member of the old Supreme Soviet.  From 1976 through 2006, the re-election rate for a member of the House fell to 88% only once; from 1996 through 2006, it averaged 96%.  Finally, many voters end up agreeing with the notion that "he may be a crook, but he's our crook."  --- OtherDave (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And additionally remember that if Stevens was elected and then forced to quit, that'd let a Republican governor pick the replacement (who would also be a Republican). If they voted for a Democrat, they'd end up with a Democrat, which for many was probably a worse pick than an old felon who'd be replaced in a heartbeat anyway. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, under Alaska law, they'd have to have a special election. (How to replace a senator who can't finish his or her term varies greatly from state to state.)  After Governor Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter to a vacant U.S. Senate seat in 2002, Alaskans passed a referendum to repeal the law that allowed him to do that.  What goes around, etc.  --- 23:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "He may be a scoundrel, but he's our scoundrel."  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  01:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, as always, for the eye-opening answers. I knew that Stevens had a reputation for bringing home the pork, but did not realise what a pivotal role Stevens played in Alaska's statehood.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Handicapped parking
Suppose you park in a handicapped spot in a private parking lot, without a handicapped permit. Could the police still write you a ticket, even though its a private lot? 97.118.238.4 (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite possibly this would depend on the local laws in the state, province, or country where the parking lot is located, and also on what you mean by "private". --Anonymous, 08:00 UTC, December 3, 2008.


 * In the UK, these matters are handled by private security firms hired by the property owner. The penalties are usually far higher than in public areas, where the tickets are usually handed out by local council officials.--Shantavira|feed me 09:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your IP address suggests that you are in Washington State. According to this site, whose reliability I cannot vouch for, handicapped parking restrictions are enforceable by the local police in Washington State, whether or not they are in a private parking lot, but only if the space is posted with a vertical sign.  That source suggests that police do not typically patrol private parking lots to ticket cars parked illegally in handicapped spaces, but it suggests that police will ticket in response to a complaint.  Based on my own experience of living in different U.S. states, I think that the situation is similar in most U.S. states.  Marco polo (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To add: in many places in the US, parking in a handicapped spot without the proper tags is beyond a traffic violation. It can be a misdemeanor. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside potential financial & legal penalties, depriving a disabled person of a designated space says volumes about the jackass doing so. Exxolon (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that there is usually a (state) law requiring private parking lots to have handicapped parking stalls. The law usually specifies which lots must have them, how many stalls they need, where they must be located, etc. - the stalls don't exist just as a convenience provided by the business owner. This should go part of the way to explaining how the local police department can enforce them. Note also that some signs explicitly reference the relevant state/local law. For example, this Arizona sign references "A.R.S. SEC. 28-884", presumably that section of the state law which regulates handicapped parking. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

handicpped people are always going on about how they want fair tretment and want to be viewed the same as every one else, so why do they get to park right next to the front? [EXPLETIVE DELETED]


 * They want the same access as everyone else, a level playing field, as it were. Obviously you have no experience with below-freezing temperatures, numb fingers and wheels that won't turn because you can't grip, or even how very much work it is when your whole method of locomotion depends upon your arms, or you would not begrudge an inch of distance closer to a goal. Your attitude speaks volumes about you and says nothing about those with handicaps. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to add - disability is more than just those who are wheelchair bound. The individual who made the rather disappointing comments raises the interesting debate around 'equality'. In extremely simplistic terms their proprosed solution of treating exactly the same is a type of 'equality'. That doesn't make it just/moral, but it does raise what i'd say is the conflict of logic that the pursuit for equality creates. I think it was John Rawls who said that inequality is ok provided that the inequality is used to improve the plight of the least advantaged (i'm paraphrasing as his was a discussion more around income inequality but it transfers well into most arguments of equality). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

@eff em, is that you George? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And to touch on the notion of "private" parking versus "public"... the handicapped parking you see in private lots is (often?/always?) dictated by some form of local government (municipal, regional, etc.); it doesn't exist at the whim of the store or shop. Disobeying the sign is not simply going against the wishes of Wal-Mart or whoever, it's going against the wishes of the government, which is what laws usually codify. In contrast, if you stuck a wheelchair sign on your driveway and parked there, I don't think anyone would care because no law forced you to put the sign up; it's decorative. A law (or more likely, by-law) forced the shopkeeper to designate those spaces. Matt Deres (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bishops' cathedrals
The article on the 1947 romantic comedy film The Bishop's Wife says of the Bishop and his wife that they are "clearly members of the Episcopal Church" although the denomination is never stated. He has a wife, so rule out Roman Catholic. Certainly Episcopal works,and seems likely, but might a Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian or other protestant denomination in the U.S. in the 1940's have had a Bishop who sought to build a new cathedral? United Methodists today apparently sometimes call any large church a "cathedral" without any bishop in residence, similar to the "Crystal Cathedral" of Reformed Church in America's Dr. Robert Schuller (who is also apparently not a bishop). Edison (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the United States (and therefore in Hollywood), "the Episcopal Church" always means this Episcopal Church, even though it is true that some other churches have bishops. Marco polo (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he means that the word "Episcopal" didn't actually occur in the movie, and he's wondering what other denominations in the U.S. in 1947 (if any) had married bishops and formally-designated cathedrals. (By the way, the "Crystal Cathedral" is just a grandiose name -- "does not mean it is a cathedral in the Roman Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran sense of the word" etc.) AnonMoos (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. Sorry that I didn't pay close attention.  While there are other Protestant churches in the United States with bishops, the Episcopal Church is the most widely known such church.  I haven't seen the movie, but there might be other clues that make it "clear" that the bishop belongs to the Episcopal Church, such as elaborate robes and other vestments, which other Protestant denominations do not use, or prayers using the Book of Common Prayer, or even very affluent congregations, since Episcopalians have long been associated with the wealthy elite in the United States.  Marco polo (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Encarta: quality? reference?
Who writes MSN Encarta? Is it considered a quality encyclopedia or not? Can you cite it in an academic paper? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: How do you properly cite their image descriptions? (I'm not interested in the image itself, just its description.) Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't cite any encyclopedia in an academic paper, assuming we're talking something higher than grammar school. Unless I was doing a paper on library science maybe....  Dismas |(talk) 08:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you work in a different field. In my field, I don't mind using high-quality encyclopedias or newspaper articles to make a point, clarify a definition, provide examples, etc. if little or no scientific research exists on a topic. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer the first part of your question, I wrote some of the articles for MS Encarta. (I probably shouldn't say which ones.)  My qualifications were a doctorate in a relevant field and a history of writing on topics related to the articles.  I had to submit copies of my sources.  So it is reasonably reliable.  Still, it is a distillation of secondary sources at best, and for an academic paper (at the university level), you should be citing primary and secondary sources directly if not doing original research.  Marco polo (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Presidential portraits
I have a couple questions about presidential portaits, so I'm just combining them... Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 09:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Our List of Presidents of the United States article has portraits for all the presidents except Bush and (pres-elect) Obama. So, are portraits traditionally not commisioned until after a president has left office?  Just looking at the file info for Clinton's (unveiled in '04, three years after leaving office) it would suggest that is the way it's done.
 * 2) If the answer to that is 'yes', why?
 * 3) What is behind and to Clinton's left in his portrait? link to image I have an idea but I'll hide it behind that link so as not to influence anyone else's guess.
 * 4) And finally, is it just my crappy monitor or does it look like his jacket is made of velvet?


 * Just guessing: Why would you publish a painting if you don't know what the the person looks like by the end of his office? Which makes me look forward to the first president who'll entirely change hair style and color while in office... ;o) Even more importantly, you don't really need a "loving memory" of the current president in the White House. And if a president should ever decide to post his own face to that wall, I'd suspect him to be an egomanic. And as for the delay: Even in times of digital photography, paintings tend to take a while. (And I wouldn't be too surprised if they even have to get the approval of the ex-president.) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For question 3 -- those are challenge coins given to him by US servicemembers. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Norman Rockwell's portrait of JFK was done while he was in office. --Moni3 (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For question 4: that image has a bad case of the JPEG artifacts. That's probably the reason for the velvety look of the jacket and the appearing-disappearing pattern on the tie. I couldn't find a better image online, though, so I'm not sure. -- BenRG (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

LexisNexis
I would like to get hold of some information that I suspect is only available on the law database LexisNexis, to which I do not have access. Is there any way of getting it through Wikipedia? If there's an editor here on the desks with access to it, for example, would they be prepared to do a search for me? I'm sure I remember seeing Category:Wikipedians with access to research tools somewhere around here in the past, and I thought maybe I could approach someone there, but the category seems to have vanished (if it ever existed). Many thanks. --Richardrj talkemail 09:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you provide a full citation at the Resource Request page, then someone will try to help you find the information you need.--droptone (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks like a great page. I've added my request to it. --Richardrj talkemail 14:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

third world war 2009
how likely do u guys think it is that there will b a 3rd world war soon?


 * Actually, I think chances are good it'll start soon. Resources are getting more and more limited. By now, even letters are so scarce that computer users in some countries can't afford any more the "yo-"s and "-e"s, let alone capital letters and signatures. My guess is that one day not far from now, users from these disadvantaged areas will invade the more advantaged countries, which in turn will try to defend their excess letters. Speakers of wordier languages will claim that they are entitled to more letters, speakers of concise languages with short words will want to profit through trading the letters they don't use... Dark times ahead. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But we did Deploy Vowels to Bosnia! -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tht md my dy, nnms. :)  (srry, bt ll th stndrd vwls wr tkn)  --  Jckfz

The Ref. Desk is not the appropriate place for wild speculation. Mr.K. (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

haha...i don't get it...i hope...like... i can still use all the words eventhough i don't even know what half mean and i have a very limited vocabulary....lolz...that would be totally sweet... ok...but for real...do you SERIOUSLY think that we are close 2 WW III?
 * What do you mean by that? The usual idea of a massive nuclear war? That is really unlikely. But the "war on terror" is kind of a world war, isn't it? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If a World War is a very large scale, extended and (nearly) unrestricted armed conflict among nearly all of the major powers, the odds of a World War in 2009 are closer to zero than to 1%. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Adam Bishop: The two examples of World Wars were started by one of the major powers, which declared war and invaded other countries (especially the smaller, less powerful ones--they're of course easier to invade) for some half-baked (if at all) reasons, but with an awesome propaganda to convince its people (for a while)... oh, and that country soon got support from other major powers (until they somehow didn't agree anymore)... - Are you sure that you you want to call the "war on terror" a World War? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC) PS: At least the two previous World Wars ended when the two rulers of that country were gone...
 * No, not in that sense, just that it takes place throughout the world. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Terrorist activities have taken place throughout the world "forever", just as have civil wars, rebellions, and marriages. Defining a handful of recent violent acts as one "war" is a political decision, which is open to discussion because it serves certain people's interests and doesn't serve others'. A second question is whether these acts are taking place "worldwide." The US wars on Afghanistan and Iraq can hardly qualify as such, but the US do have international allies. Is that enough? (Food for thought: If it is--what if those allies one by one decide to pull out? Can a World War become a private one?) This map of recent terrorist attacks shows a very limited number of countries being terrorist sites although it doesn't even distinguish between attacks on national and attacks on foreign targets. (It's like claiming that the German RAF was an international terror organization because they kidnapped an airplane in French air space and killed its pilot in Jemen, see Lufthansa Flight 181.) Enough for a "World War?" ... And against how many opponents is this "war" actually fought? More than one? Enough for a "World War"? ... Not to mention the extent, quantity and quality, of warfare etc, which may or may not have "global" proportions. In short, for me it all boils down to a definitional question. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Conscription
Did it exist in Communist Czechoslovakia? 203.188.92.71 (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. Sure was. See here. Fribbler (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What Communist states didn't have it? —Tamfang (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * China. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bringing medicine into the US
If a traveller is prescribed a medicine which is not available in the US (specifically lofepramine, if an example is needed), and then enters the US with that medicine, do US travel regulations forbid them to bring it in? The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a practical answer, not a legal one, and entirely WP:OR. My spouse travels with a lot of medication, some of which is tightly controlled. We also travel a lot. We have never, crossing any border anywhere, including into the U.S., had the medications get but the most cursory of glances, and the copies of prescriptions be waved off as we held them out for inspection. What the Canadian government tells you to do is keep your medications in your carry-on luggage, bring copies of all prescriptions, and keep the meds in their original containers, complete with labelling. If you originate in a country where prescriptions are not carefully controlled, however, YMMV. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Academic mention of Scientology's "admiration paticles"
In the Scientology and sex article, some concerns were raised about a few of the primary sources listed on the page. One such quotation is seen here:

Does anyone know of an academic interpretation of Scientology as it relates to sex, and in particular, these "admiration particles" of which Hubbard speaks? ← Spidern  →  17:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, there are no returns in either LexisNexis, Academic Search Premier, or Google Scholar for "admiration particles".--droptone (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If it were anyone else, I'd say he was obviously speaking in metaphor. —Tamfang (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If you break it you've bought it
It is not uncommon to see sign saying "If you break it you've bought it" in shops with lots of breakable items stacked on shelves. It is my understanding that there can't be a contract for sale without an intention to buy, and the most that the shop could have is a claim for damages if they could prove negligence - certainly they could not force you to pay up on the spot. Also, they could call the police if they felt it was intentional criminal damage. Is that correct, and what "on the spot powers" do the shop have? Also, what would typically happen if the person refused to pay? Is it just that the shops do not want to claim on their insurance (or do want to pay out for insurance in the first place) - or perhaps it is just to make people more careful, while knowing that they can't enforce it? Obviously laws differ between jurisdictions, and I am most interested in the position within the UK, but would also be interested in differences abroad. Thanks WAYB (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But there is an implicit intention to buy. Because you are not forced to enter the store, the sign says that, by entering, you agree to purchase that which you break. Wikiant (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We really are in "legal opinion" territory here. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to clarify that I am not asking for legal advice here, rather I am just interested in the legal dimension of this. How do I ask the question without it being classified as asking for legal advice? WAYB (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A legal opinion is legal advice set up as a view of how something in law might be interpreted. If there were a very specific piece of law or precedent on the matter, quoting it would be a feasible enswer to your question, given the constraints of the Ref Desk. Someone may be able to point you in that direction. However, as soon as we get into how the law can be interpreted to cover a set of circumstances, you are right back to advice/opinion again. It is not the "how" of your question, but the "what". Others may disagree. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, I think its perfectly acceptable to enquire as to what power shops actually have when it comes to "If you break it you've bought it". It seems like a question that can be answered here. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can answer the question without reference as to how a law might be interpreted, then, indeed, you can do so outside of the Ref Desk constraint on offering legal advice. I can't. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the shopkeeper prevents you from leaving without paying, in the U.S., he might be guilty of false imprisonment or kidnapping. If he restrains you by the use of high voltage electricity from a Taser, he might be guilty of battery. But if a policeman reaches the store before you leave, he might cite you for disorderly conduct. The shop owner should properly sue you in civil court for damages, rather than seizing money from your pocket by brute force or threats. If you accidentally or carelessly destroyed a cake in a bakery, it might be a Torte. (None of the above constitutes legal advice). Edison (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (Consider that I am smiling as I type this.) It does might, however, constitute a legal opinion, or, rather, several legal opinions, as to what could or might happen (interpretation) based on some unspecified laws, all in a tort-uous paragraph. On the other foot, perhaps "legal opinions" can only be given by lawyers, in which case, if you are not a lawyer, then this might jus be opinions on matters pertaining to laws. (Advice -not legal- to self: quit now.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (A question about the law falls into the same category as questions about anatomy - just because it is about a legal subject doesn't mean it is legal advice.) If the product is valued at over £5000, then the shopkeeper could make a citizen's (technically "any person") arrest for criminal damage (it would need to be intentional or reckless, though). If it's less than that, then the criminal damage is a "summary offence" which you can't make a citizen's arrest for, attempting to do so (or, in the above case, doing so if the damage wasn't intentional or reckless) would be false imprisonment - they would have to let you leave and just call the police. None of that depends on the presence of a sign. My "IANAL" guess would be that the sign isn't valid since there is no consideration in such a contract (I guess letting you shop there could be considered consideration, that's where you get into the realms of interpreting the law and I'm not qualified to do that). If the damage wasn't intentional or reckless, and the sign isn't valid, then the shopkeeper's only means of getting their money would be to sue in civil court for "breach of duty of care", for which they would need to prove negligence (again, that's a matter of interpretation and is beyond my (non-existent) expertise - my understanding it that it is a lesser requirement than proving recklessness, though). --Tango (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems a topic much debated online. There is surprisingly little consensus, other than that if you break something negligently you can be sued.  Some people suggest that under civil law if a tort existed the customer would normally be liable for the wholesale price (i.e. the price the shopkeeper paid) and this sign is an attempt to extract more money by making the customer pay the retail price. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Can the store impose a unilateral contract? Where is the meeting of the minds? One of my favorite signs was posted in a Manhattan store. It read "unruly children will be sold as slaves." I doubt if parents who bring their children into the store are consenting that the owner may, using his discretion as to unruly, sell the children as slaves. This is a contracts question, with some elements of tort law. Some law review publication must have addressed this scenariou, even as a prank. It involves more than posting a statute without interpretation. States vary also in their interpretation of common law contracts law and statutory provisions. 75Janice (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 75Janice
 * The example is irrelevant however considering that slavery is illegal in Manhattan, and indeed the grater US. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sometime during my extensive civil rights practice, including landmark cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, I figured out that slavery was now unconstitutional. The example is a hypothetical. In fact, most of these responses resemble answers on law school examinations. The only things that are missing are the cute and funny hypothetical names. 75Janice


 * I've always wondered about this too. Let me ask another question in addition to the original one. What happens if a storekeeper displays his/her goods so that they were very easy to knock over. Let's say that the storekeeper tried to squeeze too many creamic mugs onto a shelf and vibrations caused by a customer walking by caused the mugs to fall over? Surely the customer wouldn't have to pay for that damage? 203.214.41.228 (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Islam medicine
Is there a term used in Medieval Arabic for a physician/doctor? And a term used for a sort of association/society/community of such doctors? Medicine_in_medieval_Islam

--Sonjaaa (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Doctor is "hakim" (حكيم) (which has a long i, and is related to but is not the same word as hakim with a long a, حاكم, a governor). There is also "tabib" (طبيب) but I don't know if that was used in medieval Arabic. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was used, more than hakim which meant much more than a mere physician. Their community was جامعه الاطبا (jaameatol-atibbaa) in a period. And hospital was دارالشفا (dar-osh-shifaa) and دارالمرضی (dar-ol-marzaa). --Omidinist (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)