Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 June 11

= June 11 =

Removal of shoes in religion
Where in the Bible does it say that you must remove shoes before entering a place of worship? I heard it somewhere and it was a reference to Moses. Also, second questions does any other religion require shoe removal besides Islam and the Ethiopian Church?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is the example of Moses being told to remove his shoes at the burning bush, because it was Holy ground. I think that the removal of shoes is related to circumcision, in that an unclean part is removed as part of a ritualistic practice. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ritualistic practices such as these, are not usualy done in the Christian religion, as they have been fulfilled through the work and sacrifice of Jesus. It is the same reason why we don't make burnt offerings. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Christianity has plenty of equivalent practices. Fish on Fridays. Gentlemen removing hats. Ladies wearing them. Sunday best. Shaking the preacher's hand and/or having a brief chat with him at the door of the church at the end of the service. Etc. I don't think the Bible mentions any of those. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not ritual, but cultural tradition. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. (I assume that was meant to be a joke.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How could hat be joke? Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, Mosaic Law was never binding on gentiles anyway, but I digest... Evanh2008 (talk 05:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That depends on your definition of "gentile". Whether newly converted Christians had to follow Mosaic laws (and Jewish customs) was a very major debate in the early churches. Paul's position came out on top in the end, but that was in no way trivial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite true, of course. All I meant was that the laws of the Torah quite explicitly exclude gentiles (i.e., anyone who is not a Jew) from observing the Sinai-specific commandments. So in a sense the question was either "who is a Jew?" or "are gentile Christians to be considered converts to Judaism?" rather than "does halakha apply to gentile Christians?". The identity of the original recipients of the Law was never in doubt, but the continuing "gentile" status of converts to Christianity was. Evanh2008 (talk 07:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mkay, just had a bit of a deepthink and realized that my last reply may not have been too clear. Let me summarize -- It's a common exegetical mistake Christians make to believe that the only thing standing between all 7 billion people on this planet and the obligation to Mosaic Law faithfulness is Jesus and the cross. Regardless of how you feel about replacement theology and that sort of thing, there is nothing textually to indicate that anyone other than the "children of Israel" were bound to the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Pre-Jesus, post-Jesus, mid-Jesus, whatever. Following from Plasmic's premise that "only the Bible can interpret itself", it's foolish to assume that anyone other than the Jewish people was originally bound to the Mosaic Law at Mount Sinai. From there you can build whatever premises you like about supersessionism, the Noahide covenant, and the like, but don't go around acting like the Torah is, was, or was ever intended to be some kind of universal legal code for humanity. That's simply not the case. Evanh2008 (talk 08:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To you last premise: why not? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Um... because it's not. Just looking at it from a textual point of view, the 613 commandments were given to the children of Israel. Nowhere in the Bible is anyone else expected to follow them. If you can prove me wrong, I'd love to hear it, but we may getting off-topic a little here. If you feel the need, you can certainly use my talk page to continue the discussion. : ) Evanh2008 (talk 23:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) Perhaps you could say that for things like hats, but not for fish in fridays. Besides that, whether 'removing shoes' is a ritualistic practice or a cultural tradition isn't generally clear cut. (I take it the distinction you are using is a ritual is something done for a specific reason in a religion, a cultural tradition is just something done out of tradition that doesn't have any real meaning in the religion.) And there are a number of other ritualistic practices like those surrounding the Eucharist in many branches of Christianity. Baptism is another fairly universal one although only generally carried out once in a person's lifespan.(Whether or not these practices are suggested in the bible doesn't particularly matter to the point.) Sacrament would be a good start for the more cornerstone rituals in various parts of Christianity. Nil Einne (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that fish on Fridays is a Scripturally based ritual, then I'd be inclined to ask for a verse stating that. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Being extrascriptural doesn't make it non-religious. -- Jayron  32  03:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's right, I'm not argueing that. I'm just saying that it's non-Christian. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to define what it means to be a Christian.  Christianity is a diverse collection of faiths, and many hold beliefs that are different from what you believe.  See also No true Scotsman. -- Jayron  32  04:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't define what it means to be a Christian, the Bible does. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In part. But different Christians have interpreted the Bible in different ways, and come to different conclusions from each other.  There are also Christian practices in many Christian denominations that may not be Biblically based.  It doesn't make them non-Christian.  It makes them not you.  That isn't the same thing.  -- Jayron  32  04:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My response depends on what you mean by interpretation. Truthfully, the Bible can only be interpreted by itself. Answers are scattered throughout, which is why it is necessary to search for it. A ritual which is not Biblically based is always non-Christian, a tradition can be either Christian or not.
 * In any case, I was asking about fish on Friday as a ritual. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the billion or so Catholics who last I checked were all Christian. Lots of rituals that are not Bible-based with us. Mingmingla (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wasn't about eating fish per se. It was about NOT eating meat.  Anything non-carnal would be OK, and fish was a suitable substitute, for those who like fish.  It was also supposed to be about self-denial and fasting, so doing without your usual 5-course meat dinner only to replace it with a 5-course fish dinner was not exactly the point of the exercise.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Does "carnal" mean something different in Australia compared to what it means everywhere else? Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting but more particularly this great new dinner party idea. That must explain those funny looks I always get from my butcher when I enter his place of purveyance and announce "I have come here to slake my carnal lusts".  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Carnal means fleshly, self-serving, shortsighted opportunism... In modern times, it has been purely associated with sexuality. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never yet condescended to live in "modern times". I rather like the smell of burning leather as my heels are dragged from one time period to the next, with me kicking and screaming in horror every inch of the way.  :)  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  23:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In order to decide whether that act (let us call it an act for the sake of neutrality) is non-Christian, it is necessary to explore the intended purpose of self-denial and fasting, what is the religious objective. Does the objective supplant, oppose, or follow Scripture? It is quite imperitive to inspect the objective word for word. After all, the best way to poison someone, is to poison their food and drink rather than feed the poison directly. People are more likely to accept poisoned truth than absolute poison. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it is not the purpose of the Reference Desk. If you want to argue (and learn - concurrently) about Catholic practices, you should look for a proper forum. For example, the one of Catholic Answers. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Granted. However, if you trace the arguement to its source, then you'll see that I did not initiate it. I simply responded to another's arguement. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No my point is you dismissed not eating fish on Friday as a cultural tradition which is nonsense. In those parts of Christianity where it's practiced, it's done for clearly religious reasons. Whether or not those reasons are sufficiently 'scriptually based' for you purposes is largely irrelevent. The point is that these and other practices are done for religious reasons and therefore are no different as 'rituals' then those in other religion. The nature of any 'scriptures' or documentation surrounding religious practices vary significantly and it's not up to you to decide what documentation is sufficient. Besides that, anyone could just say the documentation surrounding removing shoes in whatever religion is not sufficient and therefore it becomes a 'cultural tradition' rather then a ritual and by your token is therefore okay and or at least not something to be condemned (and as I've said, in fact this is likely more true then the fish thing as sometimes they are more cultural traditions then rituals). It's a moot point anyway, for most branches of Christianity there are rituals they practice whether allegedly coming from the bible or whatever. Baptism is a very common example, and being a Seventh-day Adventist Church I take it all the rituals surrounding the Sabbath (including the day) are another you subscribe to in some fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly observe the Sabbath, but not because I'm SDA. I'm afraid that you'd have to specify what Sabbath rituals you are refering to. You seem to be mistaken, I did not dismiss it as a cultural tradition, I said that it is a ritual. I merely questioned whether it conforms to the values of Christianity (Christ) as laid out in Scripture. By definition, if it is not a Christian ritual, then it is a non-Christian ritual. The Bible instructs Christians to take that they do not involve themselves with the practices of the gentiles/chaldeans/etc. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hindu temple mentions removing shoes is the norm. I think it's fairly common in Buddhist temples as well although I don't know if there is any variance between the various kinds of Buddhism   . Note that in quite a few parts of the world, wearing shoes indoors (in homes) or at least the same shoes you wear outdoors is rare and may be seen as rude so the practice is not exactly that surprising. (Edit: Although sometimes removing shoes before entering the grounds is the norm. Edit2 a long time later: Just realised 'grounds' could be misintepreted here. I meant in some cases, it appears the norm to remove shoes before entering the temple grounds rather then just any buildings. I mentioned this as it may seem to be distinct from the practice at homes, although I think it's also somewhat of a reflection of the way the grounds are seen.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Removal of footwear is also a component of worship in Latter-day Saint (Mormon) Temples.  Kingsfold  (Quack quack!)  18:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the example of the bush, the shoes were removed while outside. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ethiopian Christianity practice this. And what is the exact verse that speaks about Moses and his shoes?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Exodus 3:5 - Then He said, "...Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground." Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My experience travelling through Asia, is that shoes are removed in both Hindu and Buddhist temples. This is the case in Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Japan, Singapore and China. However, there seems to be some inconsistencies: in temple ruins, such as in Ayutthaya or Sukhothai shoes are generally kept on. In Thailand people also remove their shoes before entering shrines, such as the sala lak mueang. On occasions there might also be outdoor shrines (e.g. putting a Buddha image outside during a festival), and worshippers will remove their shoes when offering their respects to the Buddha image. (Usually, there will some covering on the ground, e.g. rugs or some linoleum sheeting.)
 * British disrespect for Burmese culture, and academics, including Wikipedia, usually emphasise the British refusal to remove shoes when entering Buddhist temples, was one of the things that the Burmese resented the most about British rule: Burma.
 * As Nil Einne mentions: In addition to removing shoes when entering these shrines, Asian cultures, especially Sout-East Asian cultures, tend to emphasise removing shoes when going 'inside' (especially people's homes). Most will even remove their shoes when sitting on blankets outside. V85 (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

[unindent] To answer the first of the original questions, I can only find three biblical passages in which someone is told to take off his shoes — the Moses passage already referenced, Isaiah 20.2, and Acts 7.33. Isaiah is a specific command to the prophet (he's told to walk around naked and barefoot for a while), and the Acts chunk is quoting the Moses passage. Neither my search nor my memory as a lifelong Bible reader brings anything else to mind; I'd thus expect that all Jewish or Christian ideas about removing shoes at a place of worship are (1) exegeted from these passages, (2) exegeted from other passages, or (3) derived from sources other than the Bible. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Bible reference for men not wearing hats in church and ladies wearing them is Saint Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11, verses 4 to 7; "(4) Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. (5) But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. (6) For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. (7) A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man."


 * As for fish on Fridays (which was considered a fast day because of Good Friday), it started in imitation of Christ who recommended fasting as a religious act in [The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, chapter 6, verses 16 to 18; "When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. (17) But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, (18) so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." The fishy bit comes about because of a compromise in the early church. It was soon realised that going without food altogether wasn't very practical, so luxuries including meat were to be avoided instead. Fish wasn't regarded as being meat, so it became acceptable for fast days. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The funny thing is of course that nowadays (obviously depending on country and type), fish is often a more expensive food then other types of meat. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a distinction to be made between "Church doctrine" and "Biblical doctrine". As noted, the fish-on-Fridays thing was just something the Catholic church did, vaguely like the Jewish tradition of keeping kosher, to "remind yourself" of your faith. Church doctrine can change. What the church sees as Biblical doctrine (e.g. only men can be priests) is not something they can change on a whim. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Removal of shoes makes total sense as a matter of custom, as it's based on the assumption that shoes are very dirty, and you want to be "clean" before God. Y'all might also recall the incident in which an Iraqi threw shoes at Bush. That was much more than a simple assault - it was highly insulting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nikita Khrushchev had a go with a shoe at the UN in 1960. Or maybe he didn't.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As K. was an atheist, not sure that counts. In certain parts of Italy, the bottom of the shoe is considered extremely dirty and it is rude, when someone is sitting next to you, to place one leg on the other so the bottom is pointing at the other person.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Germanic people hair and eye colours
Which hair colours are common among the German people? Which hair colours are common among Dutch people? Which hair colours are common among Danish people? Which hair colours are common among Swedish people? Which hair colours are common among Norwegian people? Which hair colours are common among English of United Kingdom? Which hair colours are common among Icelandic people? Which eye colours are common among German people? Which eye colours are common Dutch people? Which eye colours are common Danish people? Which eye colours Which eye colours are common Swedish people? Which eye colours are common Norwegian people? Which eye colours are common among Icelandic people? Which eye colours are common among English people? Please answer each question. Each question. Thank you. I know that there was a question like this but it wasn't helpful and neither your articles about these ethnic groups help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.206 (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You can start your research at the articles Human hair color and Eye color. The latter even has a map.  -- Jayron  32  03:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The common hair colours are black, brown, red, blond, grey and white. The common eye colours are black, brown, green, grey and blue. Same in all the countries you list. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually true black hair (as opposed to dark brown) is less common in some northern European countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerk182 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Any info on life of Bernard G Marshall, writer?
I've searched everything I can access for information on the life of Bernard Gay Marshall, born in 1875. I know he wrote "Cedrid the Forrester" which won a Newbery Honor award in 1922. That's why I want to get his bio on WP, most of them are here already. I've found info about his books and one short story, "The Prize Winner: THE TRIALS AND TRIUMPHS OF RAYMOND JONES, CHICKEN FANCIER". But the only thing I can find about his life is the year he was born. If you can supply any more info at all, with refs, I'll be forever grateful! Thanks so much. Tlqk56 (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are some details about him I got by combining cut-and-pastes from Who Was Who in America (1963) and Who's Who Among North American Authors (1935):
 * You can find snippet views of both works at Google Books.  --Antiquary (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much. This didn't show up for me for some reason, (I'm still new at this), but I was able to use the info you gave here to find it and a little more. I really appreciate your taking the time! Have a great day. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Life imitating Science Fiction
I have interested in your personal experience of "Life imitating Science Fiction". Can you describe a point in your own life where you thought "Damn! I must be in a science fiction novel. I can't believe that this is actually happening." And by personal, I meant that it has happened to you. 220.239.37.244 (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you asked! Even though I'm not mentally unstable in the least, and like to think that I have a healthy psyche, I am virtually convinced that I've entered parallel universes at least twice. 1.) On a certain DVD player I formerly owned, for the first several years it was in my possession, the "power off" indicator light was always blue. After quite sometime, I happened to notice that it was now always, persistently, red. The "power on" color (green) remained the same; only the "power off" color changed. It remained in that state until I got rid of the player (it was outdated anyway). 2.) This story is actually probably not best explained by parallel universes, but potentially by some kind of hammerspace-type deal. I don't drink Kool-Aid myself, but I prepare it often enough to know that a gallon is just a tad under 4 liters. When the contents of two 1.5-liter jugs will not fit into a single 1-gallon jug, either the laws of mathematics have reversed themselves or (and this is the explanation I like better) I'm probably in a science fiction novel. : ) Evanh2008 (talk 09:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In my own parallel universe where I'm from, nearly everything is the same, but Germany is north of Poland, Moscow is definitely on the east coast of Russia, and the fat guy on Monty Python's The Meaning of Life who explodes in the restaurant is called Mr Crufofolus, not Mr. Creosote. To this day, I have no idea where I got it from, but I've checked your Youtube videos, and in your universe, it is definitely Mr Creosote. I can still hear my friends' voices in my head, imitating the sketch perfectly, except that I can't place Creosote anywhere. Interesting question, if a little off topic. What happened to stimulate it? IBE (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In my world, the Philippines are north-east of New Guinea. Always have been, always will be.  All those maps that would have us believe they're north-west are just so wrong, it's pitiful.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  12:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually thought they're north-east of NG too until I just checked right now... 92.80.58.8 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a suitable question for the reference desk (you've explicitly said you want personal anecdotes, not references). Please take it to one of the thousands of forums that fill the internet. --Tango (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have the ability to predict the future. Unfortunately, the things I predict are absolutely useless.  For example, I predicted my brother would come into the room and ask where the ketchup was. StuRat (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So sorta like Cassandra, except more useless... -- Jayron  32  15:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this time to mention the anecdote about the spiritual medium and clairvoyant whose business had to close down due to unforeseen circumstances? --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Much of this sounds like the parallel universe in which Krakatoa is east of Java, and where the sun sets in the east for the Green Berets in Vietnam. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My mate and I both have our own parallel universes. We were discussing a trip to the Aegean Sea, which he believed was the sea between the former Yugoslavia and Italy, whilst I insisted (correctly) it was the sea east of Greece (having been there). I, in turn, insisted that there can be no sea between the former Yugoslavia and Italy, as Greece is between them both. We both turned to a map, whilst he was laughing at my lack of geography knowledge, until it turned out he'd meant the Adriatic Sea, which he'd never heard of.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  18:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I find it faintly amusing how many people here seems to earnestly believe that the fact that you haven't noticed something or remember it differently or interpreted it different from someone else implies occupation of literal other universes, rather than the far simpler explanation that one or both of your human brains are fallible or confused. I suppose it is a more fun explanation even if it is a very silly one. In any case, just to show that I too can have silly notions, I was once fairly convinced that there was a good likelihood I was dreaming when I was in fact awake. (They were very odd and specific circumstances—one of my standard lucid dream trigger events actually occurred, even though it was very specific and very rare. It made me feel positively strange in a way I'd never felt before. I was not under the influence of anything at the time.) I decided that since it was ambiguous, I ought to play it out like I was awake, and it became clear after awhile that this was so. Not quite science fiction, but close enough to some of its standard themes. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the OP was looking for harder sci-fi, like video phones or police drones. Wnt (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Liberian presidential doctorates
Liberian newspapers up to 1971 frequently refer to President Tubman as "Dr. Tubman", 1971-1980 refer to President Tolbert as "Dr. Tolbert", and 1980-1990 refer to M/Sgt and then President Doe as "Dr. Doe". I know that Doe "influenced" UL to give him an honorary doctorate (I've found newspapers from the late 1980s talking about him graduating from college, years after "Dr. Doe" starts appearing!), but what about the other two? Were they earned doctorates (and if so, in what?), or were they honorary? I've found this, but it's my guess (but only a guess, as I've not been looking at pre-1961 newspapers lately) that he was using "Dr." before that time, and all of my Google searches about Tolbert and doctorates are either links to this page or are telling me how to contact a "William Tolbert, M.D." in California. Nyttend (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find detailed information in biography books entirely or partly on the presidents. Check the two links below. http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=su%3ATubman%2C+William+V.+S.%2C+1895-1971.&qt=hot_subject http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=su%3Atolbert+william&dblist=638&fq=fm%3Abio&qt=facet_fm%3A_content

They are lists of biography books on the presidents in WorldCat.org Catalog. It is a catalog of World’s libraries. If you click on the book that interests you and scroll down a bit, you can enter your zip code and see which libraries near you have the material. Even if the book may not be available in your local library, you can still get the material through inter-library loan, usually for free. Just make a request at your public library (or college or university library, if you are a student).

You can also search in Google books for the book that interests you if there is free preview. A search in google books gave me the following. You might want to see if there is a free preview of a material you want. https://www.google.com/search?q=tubman%2C+william&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=jpbbT4q8JefS2AXsxsiDBg&ved=0CBUQBSgA&q=tolbert,+william+liberian+president&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e20801190495338e&biw=1252&bih=524 http://www.google.com/search?q=tubman%2C+william&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1

I looked at some biography articles on the President William Tubman and President William Tolbert. They don’t seem to have the information you are looking for, but you might want to double check them in case I missed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tubman http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/William_Vacanarat_Shadrach_Tubman.aspx http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0849623.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Tolbert,_Jr. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0848972.html

My other suggestion is to go to your library’s website (public or college/university library) and look for online databases. Look for reference databases or biography databases and search for articles on them. You may search in more general databases like Academic Search Complete, biography or encyclopedia databases. Databases require subscription, but you can access them for free through your library. Many libraries have online chat or email reference service if you need help locating/searching your library’s databases. You can also contact us at http://www.asknowtexas.org (a virtual library reference service). Reference Librarian--Meskeremg (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Union Flag and Scottish Independence
How will the flag of the hypothetical United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland look if Scotland secedes? Will they just remove the Scottish saltire whilst displaying a full St. Patrick's cross? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See union flag without scotland.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (EC) Since this is hypothetical, anything we answer can necessarily only be an opinion. I tried to find some opinions for you out in internet land, but they seem to be few and far between. The question just doesn't seem to have been asked yet. (There is a Prospect Magazine article, but you need to register to see it.) My guess is that for the Scottish it just doesn't matter, whilst for the others, to start discussing a new flag would be a tacit acceptance of the possibility of independence, something they don't want to do. My own opinion, for what it's worth, is that if the flag is to change the Welsh would probably like to get in on the act, and possibly request the addition of a dragon, or some sort of green colouring, to the new flag. The other thing to think about is that changing the flag might cause a lot of heartache in other countries; imagine if Australia and New Zealand were forced to change their flag because of some decision halfway round the world that didn't involve them. That alone might be a very strong reason for not changing the flag. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh. The High Court of Australia, in Sue v Hill (1999), definitively determined that the UK is a foreign power as far as Australia is concerned, but that has so far had zero impact on the inclusion of the UK's flag on our flag.  The UK could completely break up, Yugo-style, into separate sovereign states, and I'm sure the inertia attending our flag would still obtain, at least for a while.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Sorry, I was a little unclear in my wording there. What I should have said is that Australia and New Zealand would, of course, not be forced at all to change their flags if the UK was to disintegrate. Their flags are their own, and nothing we do will change them. However, the flags in those nations (and some other Commonwealth countries) can be the source of some arguments, with some of the arguments tied in to republicanism. If the Union Flag was to change, such that the image in the canton of the Australian flag became (even more) anachronistic, there would be another point to argue over.
 * Basically, the whole issue is a can of worms whichever way you look at it, so I reckon that the bods in charge are keeping the lid screwed down for as long as possible. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There could be some interesting disputes about the exact definitions of the various flags which include the Union Flag in them. If their definitions say "the Union Flag", rather than explicitly describing it, then arguably it automatically updates when the Union Flag changes. Those could get very heated... --Tango (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The specifications of the Australian National Flag are set out in the Flags Act 1953. It refers to the "Union Jack", but nowhere that I can see does it define exactly what it means by the "Union Jack".  The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 is often helpful in sorting out terminology that applies across a range of legislation, but it doesn't address this particular expression.  Maybe it's defined in UK legislation, but I believe it's technically called the Union Flag, so there could be a mismatch of terminology that might keep the lawyers occupied for years.


 * Since the Union Jack/Flag is not something within the control of Australia, I suppose its design could change and our law seems to say our flag would have to change accordingly. Another argument might be that Union Jack in the Flags Act context can only mean the design that was current when the Flags Act was passed in 1953.  I wouldn't like to hazard a (completely unqualified) guess as to which way we'd go in the event of any change to the Union Jack.  What if it ceased to be the UK flag entirely and was replaced by something that did not contain reference to any of the individual home countries?  Would the Aussie flag suddenly lose its upper left quarter completely?   A very vexing question, vexillologically speaking.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  03:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd suggest that the Australia Act indicates that the Australian constitution is supreme in Australia. This would mean that the Union Jack would be defined by British law as inherited by Australia, but subsequent emendations by the Westminster parliament would not apply, as a specifically Australian act would be required to amend the inherited British Act as operative in Australia :).  This is almost as amusing as what [would/will] happen when the Westminster parliament declares a republic prior to the Australian constitution changing. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The canton in the flags of Australia and New Zealand represents their British history, one would think, and that history won't lose its Scottish element. —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the flag would look exactly the same as it does today. The English love preserving traditions and ritual and hate change. Hence the Queen's speech in parliament is always preceded by the House of Commons shutting the door in the face of the Black Rod. After which, the MPs wander across to the House of Lords which is filled with people wearing wigs and giant red capes.
 * The current Union Flag works well, gets the job done and is a strong brand. Even if the UK downsizes, that doesn't mean it has to rebrand. V85 (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've heard that Slovakia is/was officially peeved that Czecho kept the old flag, whose three colors represent Česky, Moravia and Slovakia. — I sometimes wonder what was done with the US flag in the alternate timelines where the secessions of 1861 succeeded (and the rump Union survived); perhaps it kept the old stars and added one for every two new states until the numbers matched. —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The larger party after a seperation keeping an old flag after seperation is often regarded as irredentism or imperialism (see the Slovak example above). One example particularly close to the (Scottish) home would be the Flag of Ireland where the inclusion of the Orange is seen by some Unionists as expressing a wish to subsume the Protestant majority areas of Northern Ireland. Ths Sun has a "revelation", but no official sources that there will be a red and white flag. The Guardian and the Mail also agree, but again no sources, JASpencer (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a complete list of biblical quotes regarding salvation
I'm wondering if anyone knows where I can find a complete list of all biblical quotes regarding salvation. I mean, ideally, quotes that relate to the issue, not just quotes used to support one or another side of the debate. So the list would certainly include John 3:16, and the parable of the sheep and the goats. I've tried googling, but all I can find are silly polemics, and a few partial lists, more or less in support of a particular viewpoint. If you don't know of anything that even aims for completeness, I would still be interested in lists that are complete (or as comprehensive as possible) in support of one side, such as eg. the conservative Christian view. Thanks in advance, IBE (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A complete list would be very long, and obviously what verses are about salvation and what aren't is disputed. I don't think a 'complete' list of quotes would be very useful, because you have to read everything in context. Why not just read the whole bible? - Lindert (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for a comprehensive list of anything in the bible, you need to find a good Concordance. Some bibles have a short concordance at the end of the bible.  I have also seen multi-volume concordances, with commentary, which were (somewhat paradoxically) longer than the actual bible itself.  Go to any decent library and you should find a selection of what you are looking for.  -- Jayron  32  21:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not paradoxically — a concordance will generally give the context for a word (perhaps aside from the most common ones), so if your concordance is sufficiently comprehensive, you're going to have just about every verse in the Bible printed multiple times. Strong's Concordance is a particularly good example of this — Strong wanted to list every reference for every word, so he even spends a bunch of pages with a list of all the verses in which "a" and "the" appear.  Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To find verses about salvation, you would want a topical concordance, rather than an ordinary lexical concordance... AnonMoos (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple mathematics tells us a concordance will always have more text than the work(s) to which it relates. A sentence that has N different words will appear N times, once under the entry for each word.  But it appeared only once in the original work. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  01:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would think there might be an online concordance somewhere (likely more than one). One site that keeps turning up is this one, which has variations in wording across many translations, and also has some cross-references to subject matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BibleGateway.com (link) is a good resource; they have a wide range of translations, and the search tool can be used for text searching, topic searching, and passage searching. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A concordance isn't really the right tool, because it only lists words, rather than topics. I know there are online sites like Biblegateway, but they don't give me what I want. It isn't possible for a computer to do the whole thing, and search for references to a particular topic - it needs a human. I know it's a long shot, but if anyone knows of any such references, I would appreciate the help. IBE (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what a topical concordance is for; see       for one turned up in a quick search... AnonMoos (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Superb, just what I was looking for. I didn't know such things existed, so I know for future reference. IBE (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)