Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 14

= December 14 =

Defining slavery
In the US states where slavery was legal, were there laws which defined who could or could not be a slave? Were there laws which prevented white people or Native Americans from being enslaved? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In short, No. See also Indentured servant. Moonraker (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Slave codes. In short, some states did choose to define who is a slave, but only well after the practice began. Furthermore, the laws tended to dictate who may be considered a slave, rather than who could not be. I wonder if at the time, the slave codes were interpreted such that the exception proves the rule; i.e. that by saying negroes can be slaves, it is implied that whites cannot be slaves. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But indentured servants were volunteers, not kidnapped and taken to a different place. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For one thing, lots of slaves in the USA (the majority? Not sure) weren't kidnapped or taken to a different place: they were born into slavery.  For another thing, the process of getting into slavery doesn't affect whether you're a slave or not.  Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, except that indentured servitude was of fixed, predetermined term. It doesn't make sense to equate a period of agreed upon labor, fixed in terms, which expires when a debt has been repaid, to indefinite servitude determined by accident of birth or by outright kidnapping.  The two concepts do no overlap significantly.  -- Jayron  32  03:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, indentured servitude was not a particularly desirable state but it's clearly different from chattel slavery. Chattel slavery of whites did exist, though, albeit not on anything like the scale as it did among blacks.  Not sure where best to point the questioner. --Trovatore (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This also depends on how "white" was defined. On Monticello, Sally Hemings was a quadroon noted for "looking mighty white", and her children where octoroons, with Jefferson's redish hair and pale complexion. Most of them passed for white after Jefferson's death, and one of Hemings' grandsons eventually became a Colonel in the Union army. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it doesn't really. I mean, the numbers depend on that, of course.  But my understanding is that there were chattel slaves whose entire recent ancestry was European. --Trovatore (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

216.93.234.23 -- In the 1850's, many anti-slavery advocates claimed that the aggressive Slave Power was planning slavery of whites as its ultimate expansionistic goal (following the Kansas-Nebraska act, the Dred Scott decision, etc.), and pointed to cases of people who had a very small proportion of black ancestry being enslaved or threatened with slavery. Others didn't believe that there was such an intentional conspiracy, but did believe that slavery of whites was the logical culmination of many of the arguments offered by pro-slavery defenders. No prominent Southern leader came out publicly in favor of white slavery, but Senator Hammond's infamous "mudsill" speech was interpreted by many northerners as amounting to pretty much the same thing, and author George Fitzhugh was a strong proponent of white slavery. AnonMoos (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In the US slave states, a slave could be a white person in appearance. This is not to say that a plantation owner could just seize some passing white person and declare him or her to be his slave, legally.Someone selling a white person as a slave, or capturing a white person and claiming he was a runaway slave, would likely need some paperwork, real or forged, with a description of the runaway (red hair, fair skin, scar on right cheek, about 180 pounds and 5 feet ten in height, trained as a blacksmith). A slave who was described as an "octaroon," meaning the African ancestry was limited to one great grandparent, could typically pass as "white," with no indication of African ancestry detectable in the skin color, features, or hair texture. "Quadroons." the term applied to those with one African grandparent, might "pass" by attributing their appearance to  Spanish or Native American ancestry. There were many, many such slaves who could "pass."   Nineteenth century American writers acknowledged that if slavery continued for many generations more, the only determinant of slave status would be  "previous condition of enslavement of the parents."  If it had continued to the 21st century, genetics could have been used to help identify the slaves through their particular genetic sequences which originated relatively recently in Africa. Edison (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Moshavim reform conservative orthodox
Which moshavs are reform jew settlements, which are conservative jew settlements and which are orthodox settlements? -- 01:14, 14 December 2012‎ Donmust90


 * I think that you've been told several times that Reform and Conservative Judaism as these are understood in the United States have had very little institutional presence in Israel until quite recently. AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A search on Google for _"Conservative movement" moshav_ refers only to Shorashim as being affiliated with the U.S. Conservative movement. If you require definitive answers, go to the website of each movement (which you can find here in the English-language Wikpedia) and send your inquiry to them, or to the librarians of Jewish universities in Israel or the U.S. --  Deborahjay (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Bloating or concussion?
A few days ago, I caught a mouse in a sticky trap, so like the previous three mice that I caught, I took it outside and dropped a concrete block on it to kill it quickly; since I live in the woods, I just left it in hopes that something would come along and eat it. Two days later, I noticed that the block had landed only on the head, which was flattened by the impact (except for the eyes, which were protruding somewhat), but the rest of the body was substantially larger than it had been. I live at 39°N, so everything was covered with frost. Given winter weather, is bloat possible, or is it more likely that the sudden blow from the concrete somehow forced blood and other parts into the rest of the body, making it swell? Reading the page that I linked in the previous sentence, I'm questioning whether bloat can happen in the winter, since so much of the process depends on gasses and fluids that behave differently in temperatures below 0°C. I've since disposed of it (put mouse and trap together into a zip-lock bag and threw them away in a public trash can), so I can only answer questions based on my memory. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, what was I thinking...this isn't the Science Desk. I'll copy my question there; if you have an answer, please respond over there.  Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If nobody has yet responded, I'd feel free to delete a Q I posted to the wrong Desk, and repost it on the correct Desk. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Luxury homes in slums ?
There are plenty of former middle class homes which are now located in slums, but are there any former luxury homes now located in slums ? StuRat (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * All over the place. In my experience, see the Dayton Street Historic District in Cincinnati's West End or some of the houses on the northern end of the adjacent Over-the-Rhine neighborhood, and if you go up the hill a couple of miles, the Mount Auburn Historic District is rather slummy (example), including the area right around the William Howard Taft National Historic Site.  Elsewhere, the Wilbur Wynant House was just recently destroyed; it was a Frank Lloyd Wright design in the middle of Gary, Indiana.  What remains of Millionaire's Row in Cleveland is slummy, although it's getting marginally better under the influence of the Cleveland Clinic.  You'll occasionally see drug deals on the porches of once-luxury houses on the east side of New Castle, Pennsylvania.  Nyttend (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * London's Notting Hill was built for the wealthy, then became a notorious slum and has now been fully gentrified again. Various other neighbourhoods in London have gone through the same process. They were usually upper middle class areas developed in Victorian times, not for the aristocracy. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that Notting Hill (and Notting Hill Gate) has been through this cycle more than once over several centuries. I think that's also true of some districts of New York City and even San Francisco. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. How do luxury areas get to be slums ?  Presumably the people who lived there had the resources to prevent it, such as hiring enough police to keep drugs and prostitution out of the area. StuRat (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The poshos were already gone, moved out to new outer suburbs and dormitory towns that grew up around new rail links. That's the case for some London areas anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Rich people moved to the suburbs: they sold their large houses, which became Houses in Multiple Occupancy for poorer people, mainly recent immigrants and students, and these landlords allowed the houses to fall into disrepair in order to maxmise profit. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tammy, that explains it. If they remained single-family homes, presumably the poor wouldn't have been able to afford to move in, and thus the homes would have remained, at the least, middle-class homes. StuRat (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A Rudyard Kipling short story about a policeman during the Weimar Republic : title ?
Hello Learned Ones ! I'm looking for the title of that short story, set in the '20 Germany, about a former Reischwehr officer, then policeman chief of the Weimar republic, who tries to enforce law in the social turmoil of those years & (I think), is killed ...Thanks beforehand for your help. T;y. Arapaima (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You already asked this question before recently. AnonMoos (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I did have a quite thorough search through the bowels of Google for it, but failed miserably. That's not to say that it doesn't exist, just that I can't find it. Alansplodge (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I did find two Kipling short stories featuring Germans; Reingelder And The German Flag vich hass ze vorst German accent you haff ever read (unless you were a fan of The Victor (comic) in the 1960s), also "Swept And Garnished" from January 1915, which is the story of an elderly German housewife who is visited by the ghosts of some Belgian children that had been done-in by the beastly Hun. Fascinating stuff. The search continues. Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Postwar Kipling short story implies Debits and Credits or Limits and Renewals, his only two postwar prose collections. The story doesn't ring a bell for me as being in either of those, but it might help narrow it down... Andrew Gray (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Debits and Credits by Rudyard Kipling and Limits and Renewals, by Rudyard Kipling. Not there as far as I can see. Alansplodge (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So the Ref Desk old war-horses pricked up their ears ! Thanks a lot Alan & Andrew ! BTW, in "Mary Postgate" (1915) a hun fallen from his taube while raiding Albion mutters "Laty, laty...Cassée, che me rends. Le médecin ! Toctor !" and the lady watches his agony, revolver in hand...Who said Kipling was old-fashioned ? Thanks again, happy new year, best wishes & thanks also to all those who answer me all year long ! Arapaima (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Property and Responsibility Question
I think Jayron mentioned something about this in another question of mine. Have there ever been any cases where a gun dealer was successfully prosecuted, held responsible, and/or forced to pay compensation to the family of a shooting victim after someone else who legally bought his/her gun shot this victim? Also, were there ever any cases, of, say, someone getting prosecuted for something similar, such as legally selling or giving a car to someone and then having this other individual run someone else over in a car accident? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In another area, there's Dramshop liability... AnonMoos (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In those cases, the drunk people were unable to think rationally (due to being drunk) and the alcohol that they sold did not directly kill anyone. Futurist110 (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry no reference, but I do remember a parent getting sued (not prosecuted) for lending a car to a son who was a licensed driver aged 18+ (who ended up killing someone in an accident), on the grounds that they should have known that he was an irresponsible driver. Can't remember how it came out. In this regard, I've sometimes wondered whether adult children with an elderly parent who is obviously a danger on the roads could be sued after an accident for not having reporting the parent to the driver license authorities. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between getting sued and prosecuted? Futurist110 (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A prosecution is an action in criminal law, usually taken by the state, and it may result in conviction and punishment. Suing means taking a action in civil law against another party, and may result in damages or other forms of restitution. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A French couple were convicted after they "let" (tried hard to dissuade) their visitors drive home drunk. They were told they should have reported them. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer the more general question, here is a series of references and case studies dealing with the legal responsibility of bars and pubs regarding selling alcohol to someone and then being held responsible for their actions following. It applies primarily to Canada, but this google search turns up plenty of other legal cases from around the world, a lot from the U.S. (which I presume the OP is from based on prior comments).  -- Jayron  32  17:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Back to the OP's original gun question, there is a recent civil case that alleges a website facilitated an illegal purchase of a firearm, and the post (which is from a sight written largely by law professors) discusses some of the background law on firearms purchases in the U.S. here. I quickly found at least one example of what you're talking about, although it's just a basic newsblurb, no real in depth discussion . I suspect those prosecutions do happen, usually for straw purchases where they can prove the dealer should have known the transaction was a straw purchase.
 * That was an illegal purchase, whereas I'm talking about legal ones. What do you mean by "straw purchase"? Futurist110 (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's actually an article on that, Straw purchase. Basically someone buys a gun for someone who legally couldn't buy it themselves.Tobyc75 (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as prosecutions for homicide or something similar, I didn't find any examples offhand, but it wouldn't be unheard of. There have been lots of civil cases based on various theories of liability, and in some cases I would imagine some prosecutors might go after sellers if they had reason to know that a purchaser might use the weapon in an illegal way. But this is hardly unique to weapons. There's a long established line of jurisprudence about the liability of a seller of an otherwise legal transaction, to a criminal. That would be the line of cases you'd want to start with. Shadowjams (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily talking about the buyer being a criminal at the time of the purchase, only later on. The buyer might have had a clean record at the time of the purchase. Also, there is always a risk that someone who you'd legally sell a gun to would later use it to commit a shooting. The risk might be very small in many cases, but the risk would always still be there and gun dealers would generally always be aware that such a risk exists. Futurist110 (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Dram Shop act and such stuff as that are carryovers from the Prohibition era. To prosecute someone for legally selling a gun to someone who then used it for something illegal, there would have to be a law paralleling the dram shop act. I very much doubt such a law exists, as the NRA would be all over it as a constitutional violation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How exactly would it be a constitutional violation? Futurist110 (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be an infringement of the second amendment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How? I'm not a legal scholar, but the second amendment doesn't talk about responsibility for shootings anywhere. Futurist110 (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely the point. A gun dealer being held accountable for someone doing something illegal later would compel all gun dealers to stop selling guns, because they would have no way to predict who's going to do something illegal or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a couple gun owners would man up, accept the risk, and continue selling guns and if a shooting occurs they would man up, take responsibility, and pay financial support to the family/relatives of the shooting victim(s). Futurist110 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We're straying into speculation again. Without actually seeing such a law, it's impossible to say. However, a criminal prosecution of someone who made a legal sale, where the purchaser went on to commit a crime, would be... unique. Then again, novel interpretations of Constitutional law aren't unheard of. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't really that novel of an interpretation. The gun dealer was aware that there was a risk of a shooting whenever he/she legally sold guns, and therefore when a shooting occurs one can make an argument that the gun owner now has a responsibility and obligation to pay financial support to the family/relatives of the shooting victim(s). There's already a legal precedent for holding people responsible for the willing decisions of others in forcing unwilling men to pay child support (since it was purely the woman's decisions whether or not to create a new person). Therefore, a law holding gun dealers responsible for the shootings of their customers would simply build on this legal precedent. Futurist110 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So a guy buys a car and runs someone over. Then they come after the car dealer because he should have known that the buyer was unstable and liable to run someone over. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily that the car dealer should have known that the buyer was unstable--only that the car dealer knew that there was a risk/possibility that the buyer was unstable or will become unstable in the future and run someone over. The buyer would also get held responsible and possibly prosecuted/sued if he'd still be alive after the event (the buyer could commit suicide right after the event, especially in the event of a gun shooting). Futurist110 (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ...(since it was purely the woman's decisions whether or not to create a new person)
 * I... have no words. This is far from reality, but it's wayyy off topic, so I'll just leave it at that. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I said was accurate if one accepts the pro-choice view that personhood begins at birth/viability/sentience/another point in the pregnancy, rather than at fertilization. Since abortion is legal (at least here in the U.S.), the decision whether or not to continue the pregnancy, create a new person, and give birth is solely the woman's. Futurist110 (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You say that as if it's universally accepted that the creation of a new person occurs some time after fertilisation. Here isn't the place to the debate that matter, but there is a different viewpoint.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm aware that pro-lifers (and maybe a small number of pro-choicers) think otherwise, but so far the law generally agrees with the mainstream pro-choice point of view. Of course, if a woman gets killed along with her prenatal offspring/fetus, then the killer could get charged with double-homicide, but even that is a relatively new law and this is pretty much the only instance where fetuses (and maybe embryos) are considered persons right now, at least in the United States. For the record, I'm not taking a solid position on the personhood issue one way or the other, especially not here. Futurist110 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

North Korean rocket launches
There's something I don't understand about the West's reaction to North Korea's successful rocket launch. Yes I know that North Korea is better off using the $1.3 billion (1.7 trillion won) in feeding their starving populace than launching a weather satellite, but why is the West always so suspicious of North Korea's activities? I know North Korea has military tendencies and could launch a war if it wanted to, but if they say it's for peaceful purposes, why doesn't anyone believe them? The United States is a world superpower, with perhaps the best army in the world, and yet it has peaceful, civilian space flights all the time. On the other hand, Israel has been launching rockets since 1988; the program is quite secretive, but no one seems to blink. So why are countries suspicious of North Korea's rocket launches? Do Western countries even have evidence or intelligence reports that NoKor's space program is a cover-up for developing ballistic missiles? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you were Japan, you might be concerned about North Korea constantly testing rockets over your territory without permission... AnonMoos (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with Space rockets is that once you have them, you can use them to shoot intercontinental missiles. If you can reach space, you could use the rocket to reach the other side of the planet. It is OK for Israel and Europe to have such rockets, because they both have a close alliances with the US, and so we know they are not going to fire these on each other. It isn't OK for some rogue state that has a recent record of bombing an island controlled by its neighbour. Russia also has had such rockets for a very long time, and that was a very serious worry during the cold war. Less now because both sides understand that using them would mean mutual annihilation. But North Korea may not quite understand this, they are very "unpredictable" --Lgriot (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that both Project Mercury and Project Gemini American space programmes were launched using modified ICBM rockets, Atlas and Titan respectively. Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not very enlightening to say that the West treats its allies better than its enemies. Welcome to the world. As for Israel, they've had the bomb — and the means to use it — for over 40 years, and haven't blown anyone up yet, so that's something in their favor. Back when they were still in the "not quite there yet" phase of things, though, the U.S. did in fact try to discourage them from developing nuclear weapons. (It is a misconception that the U.S. likes a nuclear-armed Israel; if they had their way, nobody would nuclear-armed except the U.S., even allies. It was France who helped Israel get the bomb, not the U.S. After a nuclear-armed Israel became an unavoidable thing, the U.S. accepted it, but only then.)
 * The problem with North Korea is that nobody really trusts North Korea — not even their "allies" — and for pretty good reasons. They're a tottering Stalinist state known for mass enslavement and belligerence. The United States has been trying to get them dial down their nuclear ambitions on the idea that the North Koreans are not really responsible enough to deal with the bomb sanely. Now, one might doubt that assessment — indeed, appearing crazy enough to nuke may just be a tactic for getting what they want — but there's also an element of truth to the fact that the North Korean ideology is a spooky one. As for the space/missile connection, it's dual-use technology — they parade these things around (even fakes) on mobile rocket launchers. You don't use mobile rocket launchers for satellites, you don't put purely peaceful missiles into military parades. All of the research into these missiles is being done by the military over there. It's not rocket science (ha) to see that this is meant to be interpreted as a military program. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "just be a tactic" worked for the paranoid owners of a secondhand store in the town where I grew up; they had a sign on the window saying the metal grille behind the glass was electrified, and nobody dared rob the place just in case it turned out to be true. Maybe televising huge parades showing off sinister looking missiles, the occasional large subterranean explosion, and trying to launch something into space, works for North Korea.  You wouldn't actually want to invade them, just in case it all turned out to be true.  Astronaut (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * How paradoxical it may sound, even Stalinism can be seen as somewhat benign in comparison to the Juche ideology of North Korea. This ideology, which basically has constructed a divinity cult around the (highly disfunctional) Kim Il-sung family, seems to function on its own quite unpredictable premises, and is quite uncomparable to any other known totalitarian regime in modern history. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, Pol Pot was a serious nut-job, too, and killed millions, but fortunately never had nukes. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * One possibility is that North Korea could be preparing to invade South Korea. They are still technically in a state of war, and the US troops stationed in SK are insufficient to stop them.  At one point, the threat of a massive US response (bombing NK) was a credible enough deterrent to dissuade them.  However, once they have the capability to nuke the US West Coast, then a US counter-strike is no longer a credible deterrent.  I think the only way for SK to remain safe will be for them to develop their own nukes.


 * Japan could also be at risk, although an NK invasion there could likely be stopped by US forces. However, an NK nuke or two might get through.  StuRat (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What the hell are you talking about, StuRat? The US has more than enough firepower, both nuclear and conventional, to completely overwhelm North Korea.  Considering the US response to 9/11, I'm very sure that nuking the US West Coast would be suicidal for NK.  --140.180.249.194 (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If NK invaded SK, and the only way for the US to stop it was to nuke it, knowing full well that NK would then nuke the US West Coast, do you really think the US would ? Of course not.  Thus, NK could invade SK with impunity. StuRat (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that is partly why we still have soldiers in South Korea to this day. It ensures that NK can't invade SK without invoking a US response. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, pre-emptively nuking the US West Coast would be suicidal... but, judging by their government's behavior, they might just be crazy enough to do it. That's the core of the problem. Starving the majority your population to support military advancement, while enshrining the leader as a god, doesn't exactly bring the word "stable" to mind. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "launching a weather satellite"? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You would probably believe that if the US claimed it for one of its launches? How about France? Turkey? India? China? The problem is that we don't actually know what NK launched, and many are making judgements based on what they think of NK. That's fine, but don't pretend it's factual. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's a weather satellite. And it's predicting nuclear winter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe the 5000 nuclear nukes of US could make a best prediction of nuclear winter, don't you think? CubanEkoMember (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nuclear nukes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Brought to you by the Bureau of Redundancy Department. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Who is Arrocha familly?
In this site there is an escutcheon of Arrocha. what is it this name? and what it significance? Is it name of family from the Middle Ages? I would like to know more information about. Thank you 95.35.215.110 (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There definitely are a number of people with the surnames Arrocha  and Arocha . Ancestry.com says of Arocha: “Spanish (and Portuguese): possibly from the Basque occupational name Arotxa, Arotza, from arotz (arotx) ‘smith’, ‘carpenter’ + the article suffix -a, or alternatively a topographic from a rocha ‘the rock’ (with the Portuguese or Galician article). This name is chiefly associated with the Canary Islands.” 184.147.123.169 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, coats of arms are rarely associated with surnames in the sense that anyone bearing the surname automatically has a traditionally legitimate right to display the coat of arms... AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but I don't know who did this escutcheon, and from which is the time of this escutcheon, and who is carrying this escutcheon? 109.253.13.232 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic group
What is the ethnic group of people in this video? Thank you very much--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The indigenous people of Easter Island (Spanish: Isla de Pascua) are the Rapa Nui people who are Polynesians. There is a significant European and mixed-race population on the island though, see Easter Island. Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ivor T. Holth
Any information on Ivor T. Holth - Norway - Jewelry Designer71.232.155.152 (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently his name appears also, and more often, spelled Ivar, and you can also search him without the middle initial. Google being how it is, most of the top hits are commercial catalogues hawking silver jewelry and crafts. Bits of info: based in Oslo, mid-century... perhaps there's a Norwegian guild of silversmiths that would have more information. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Wikipedia has no article in English, Bokmål or Nynorsk, nor does it match various other spellings "Ivar" and "Holt". A google search reveals several thousand mentions, most trying to sell something.  The most promising I found (at least saying a little about him) is this site.  A more thorough search than I have time for, could reveal more.  Astronaut (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In google books an address comes up in a listing: WESTERN EUROPE Major Wholesalers, p. 208. It says (as far as I can guess - very small print): "Ivar. T. Holth AS, Grønsøveien 51, Oslo Oslo 0601 Norway, Phone 2 219 15 00". Says the company was founded 1943, has more than 100 employees, and makes jewellery, silver, home furnishings. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A search at Brønnøysund Register Centre shows that the company "Ivar T Holth AS" was dissolved in 2007, after a merger with Panorama AS , which is the largest wholesale supplier of jewelry to Norwegian jewelry shops. The address in the Google books search above should be "Grenseveien 51", which currently houses Oslo Scientology Church, and is owned by the Holth family . I have not been able to locate any information about the person Ivar T Holth. --NorwegianBluetalk 15:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

16 billion people killed in the Deluge?
Out of a bit of perverted curiosity, I just visited the website of the Westboro Baptist Church and found it about as cogently logical and convincing as I would have expected. There's one thing on the site that makes me wonder, though - they have a "Numbers" section in the lower left of the main page, with such gems as "X - people whom God has cast into hell since you loaded this page" etc. The thing that made me wonder is the entry "16,000,000,000 - people that God killed in the flood". Now, I'm well aware that the WBC has a rather...unique interpretation of the Bible in general, and their website is certainly not the place I'd visit for any kind of scholarly insight into, well, anything, but I'm wondering where exactly that number comes from. Is there actually any kind of widespread belief among young earth creationists (or any other group) that the world's population at the time of the great flood was more than double its current population? Is that belief based in any way on a reading of the Bible, no matter how creative or unique? Or is that number just made up out of thin air? -- Ferkelparade &pi; 23:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, to be able to tell me how many people their god has cast into hell since I loaded the page, they must have a direct line to him, and he must have told them about the flood numbers. I'm amused by the way they capitalise god, but not America. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The 16 billion figure seems unique to the Westboro Baptist "Church," though they probably arrived at that figure through similar "reasoning" as these believably-human (though still extreme IMO) literalists. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A back-of-an-envelope calculation suggests that if you take the Masoretic text's figure for time from the creation to the flood, and assume a generation-period of 25 years (as marketers often do, rather than 33 for genealogists), an average family size of about 3.5 children would yield a population of 16 billion. The site's still bollocks, though. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Is that assuming that nobody dies before they have children ? StuRat (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry - should have clarified. The figure of 3.5 is for children surviving to reproduce themselves. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In case anyone doesn't recognize it, this is the infamous "God hates fags" church, if a hate group like that can be called a church. StuRat (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The only reference I found find was which says: "I've given some consideration to the origin of this number which no other Christian or Jewish authority comes close to as an estimate of deaths in the mythical great flood. 16 billion is a number that came straight out of Fred Phelp's anus - along with the rest of his theology." Fred Phelps is the head of the Westboro Baptist Church. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

We're skating the edge of WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK here, folks. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought that's what the Westboro Baptist Church did. I'm sorry, but we do identify hate groups. The discussion has involved a quest for and use of sources. The adjectives used for the WBC and its leader may seem extreme, but so are they. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion is they should be jailed (in the general population) for what they do at funerals. That doesn't mean I can't approve of applying our standards in how we talk about them at the Wikipedia Reference Desk.  In any case, "we" do not "identify hate groups".  We write neutral articles in an encyclopedic tone based on reliable sources. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * One interpretation of BLP would not even permit you to express your opinion that they should be jailed. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to be one step more meta, Jack. Identifying something as my personal opinion in the context of expressing how I support policy regardless of it is not necessarily problematic if done in good faith and reasonably.  Simply quoting unnotable people's opinion about John Doe's anus outside a policy discussion is problematic in this context. Unless perhaps the OP was asking for all quotes available regarding Joh Doe's anus.  But that would still border on violating WP:ATTACK.  This can be discussed further at talk if anybody wants to. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As I say, that would be one interpretation. Nothing to do with insufficient metaness on my part.  (But my paternal grandmother's first name was Meta - does that help? :)  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For 16 billion people to be killed by the deluge they must have been alive. Since more than 15 billion people died before the deluge, they could not have been killed by the deluge. I suspect Westboro Baptist Church got 16 billion mixed up with 16 million people killed by the deluge. Sleigh (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sound like the one about a dam being opened. "I am very happy to celebrate the opening of this great dam which will hold 400 million gallons of water" says the speaker, "400 thousand million" whispers the chief engineer, "Aw what's a thousand in so many million" says the speaker. Dmcq (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Or the one about Warsaw Airlines, when a plane crashed into a cemetery, and local news reported that so far they had found over a thousand bodies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of the screencap from a TV news program, where the subtitle claimed that the Space Shuttle (emphasis mine) "exceeded the speed of light" as it re-entered the atmosphere. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Accidentally confusing million with billion would be a possible explanation if the numbers were written in words, but they're not. The web page explicitly says "16,000,000,000". It does not say 16 billion. Accidentally adding three zeroes would seem unlikely. HiLo48 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That organisation has a history of saying things that are not supported by anything rational or credible. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  00:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya think? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)