Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 31

= October 31 =

Mizrahi president of Israel
Is Moshe Katsav the only president of Israel to be from a Mizrahi background? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.143 (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article titled List of Presidents of Israel. There are only 9 in history, so it shouldn't take you too long to read each article and find out.  -- Jayron  32  00:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yitzhak Navon was born in Israel but came from a Sephardi/Mizrahi family. -- Jethro  B  03:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the WP entry, Yitzhak Navon's paternal ancestry is solidly Sephardic, having settled in Turkey after the Spanish Expulsion and arriving in Jerusalem in 1670 [!]. His maternal ancestors arrived in Jerusalem from Morocco in 1884; their earlier origins aren't indicated but certainly not among the Mizrachi of the mid/late 20th C. mass immigration waves from North Africa and the Arab Middle East. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

1912 franc
Was one franc worth a lot in 1912? Was it extremely rare for the non-French natives of the colonies? In this, it gives people from Tahiti donating 5 to half a franc to the French army. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the Stella_(United_States_coin) article, $4 = 20 francs before WW1, so it can't have been extremely valuable. Have no idea what it meant to an inhabitant of Tahiti at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"On the Reasons of Jewish Noxiousness"
Both the Polish and English Wikipedia entries on Stanisław Staszic list O przyczynach szkodliwości Żydów (1818) among his best-known works. Neither page provides any information on what this highly regarded philosopher, a "leading figure in the Polish Enlightenment" - albeit a Catholic priest - had to say on the subject, and how influential his position may have been in shaping the hearts and minds of his fellow Polish gentiles and perhaps public policy as well. I'd appreciate help in finding reputable content in English before I turn to Polish sources (and WP:PL editors). -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This book contains a description of his views on the Jews, which I would presume is taken from that work. Another (short) description here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure a Jew could write something "On the Reasons of Goy Noxiousness", but most of them are above that sort of thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Why were Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv so unpopular among the Sikhs?
Both assassinated by them. Iowafromiowa (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Both deserved their fate, they murdered thousand of Sikhs in the storming of the shrine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.162.64 (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty obnoxious response, but it basically answers the question. Looie496 (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One storming or two? They could hardly both be responsible for the same storming, as (iirc) Rajiv kept out of politics while Indira was alive. —Tamfang (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought Rajiv Gandhi was murdered by Tamils... AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the events immediately following Indira Gandhi's killing also affects Sikh feelings towards the Gandhis and the Congress Party. Riots broke out in many areas of northern India, where Sikhs were targeted. It is generally accepted that the Congress Party played a major role in these pogroms, and in difference to the storming of the Golden Temple these killings affected Sikhs regardless of political or religious affiliation. And AnonMoos is of course right, LTTE and not Sikhs killed Rajiv... --Soman (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Indifference even. StuRat (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For those not familiar with Indian politics, LTTE = Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Alansplodge (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Whilst, to my shame, I don't know much about either of the Gandhis, note that it only takes one person (or, at most, a small group) to carry out an assassination. Yitzhak Rabin was generally extremely popular with Israeli Jews, yet was killed by one. History is filled with other examples of people killed by extremist members of normally supportive groups. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Religious self defense is a central tenet of Sikhism. They are commanded to carry a ritual dagger (kirpan) with that as a possible use.  I once discussed the matter with a Sikh taxi-driver, being surprised her own guard had killed her.  He expressed the opinion that she should have expected it. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One thing I always wondered about is why Indira Gandhi continued to use Sikh bodyguards after attacking the Golden Temple. That would be a good time to put them on desk duty, in a distant location, IMHO. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only speculate that it was both a display of authority ("These Sikhs follow my orders,") and a demonstration she wasn't afraid of retaliation. If so, she was wrong on both counts... &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing is that Sikh-state relations were very complex at the time. Sikhs have consistently been overrepresented in the Indian army, since colonial times, and the notion that Sikhs as a collective were loyal to the Republic was very strong. The Sikh extremists on the other hand had remained an extremely marginal force. The storming of the temple disrupted balance of power in Sikh politics temporarily, and was probably difficult to predict its consequences. --Soman (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that she should have fired all the Sikhs in the military, just found a few Hindu bodyguards to take over. This brings up an interesting Q, does the US Secret Service employ Muslims to guard the President ?  Presumably most would do an admirable job, but there's always the risk of an extremist. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That question could be posed from various angles, e.g. "Does the US Secret Service employ Christians to guard the President ? Presumably most would do an admirable job, but there's always the risk of an extremist."  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would Christian fundamentalist kill a Christian President ? Or are you one of those who believes that Obama is a Muslim ? StuRat (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am fairly certain, StuRat, that Jesus commanded his followers something like, "Kill them all, you em-effers! Kill them all!" μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That 2nd quote is bad news for those who enjoy fencing. StuRat (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. ("Kill them all. For the Lord knows those who are His.") Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Crusader makes a joke 800 years ago and Jesus gets the blame? μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A fundamentalist Christian can kill the president if he thinks the president isn't being "Christian" enough, if he is siding with Muslims too much or something, or if he appear too "anti-Christian". Plenty of Muslims have killed other Muslims and plenty of Christians have killed other Christians. And people can change minds too. A person might be okay, a decent Muslim with a clean record so he gets hired as a body guard. Then the president does something extremely "anti-Muslim" which flips him or he meets someone who convinces/brainwashes/blackmails him and then he assasinated the president.70.58.0.141 (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are just making that up off the top of your head, and rather poorly. I am an atheist, but even I have enough respect for Jesus not to make up such nonsense. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Stu, I'm not one who believes Obama is a Muslim (not that there's anything wrong with that). But I equally do not believe that, just because someone is a Muslim, there's automatically more of a "risk" factor than if they were a Christian or a Buddhist or a Jew or an atheist or anything else. I know it's anachronistic to make this comparison, because the rise of terrorism postdated them, but I'll say it anyway: None of the assassins of US Presidents have been Muslims.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  09:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems quite obvious that there are Muslim fundamentalists who would like to assassinate any US President. It's not at all obvious in the case of Christian fundamentalists, although I could possibly imagine them assassinating a liberal President, utilizing similar logic to that used to justify killing abortion providers. StuRat (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that sentiment is still there. See SGPC pays homage to Indira's assassin. 61.16.182.2 (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Freemasonry and youth
I'm 77 and wanting to enter the Iowa Grand Lodge, once inside, can I invite my 20-year-old nephew to enter Freemasonry too? He is supported by his mother. Iowafromiowa (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe. See our article on Freemasonry for the details. Looie496 (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Some jurisdictions require apprentices to be 21 years old. Roger (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, the answer is "No, you can not invite him to join"... Masons are not supposed to invite potential members to join... potential members are supposed to initiate the process by asking a mason to propose him. Of course, once you are a member, you can let him know of this tradition... and inform him that, should he ask to join, you would be more than willing to act as his proposer. (ie you can ask him to ask you).
 * That said... My advice is don't rush into things... first go through your own initiation, passing and raising. Get a sense of what Freemasonry is all about.  In a year or two, you will have a much better concept of the sort of men your lodge is looking for, and whether your nephew is one of them. Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"The New Evangelization"
So, how is the Roman Catholic Church going to evangelize Europe? Send missionaries all across Europe and invigorate the Catholic-Christian faith? What happens if an irreligious European becomes a Protestant instead? Does that still count, or does the Roman Catholic Church only recognize Catholics as true Christians? Is there any benefit in being a Catholic rather than an irreligious person? I attended a Wednesday Mass today, and this priest mentioned something about the New Evangelization, and even though the New Evangelization is "great" and all that, he claimed that Catholics should be respectful and loving and kind and generous and (ideally) allow those good characteristics to bring new Christians in. How is this "evangelization" carried out? 140.254.121.34 (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is partly commentary, and partly a question. As per the question, the Catholic Church does missionary work across Europe but more low-key through its own example (like running schools, charities, etc.) than the active door-to-door knocking preaching of Jehova's Witness and some protestant groups. A fair number of Protestants are converting to Catholicism every now and then (imho seemingly interested by the mysticism of the Catholic church, absent in many Protestant denominations), so the Protestant/Catholic divide is somewhat blurred as compared to past centuries. --Soman (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The main objective of "New Evangelization" is to convince Catholics who have stopped practicing to do so again. There is no thought of trying to convert Lutherans or Calvinists or whatever. --Xuxl (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When I was in France, I was amused to see Catholic tracts "accidentally" left in convenient places (public toilets, on the Métro, etc). In North America, that sort of thing is associated with evangelical Protestants, like Chick Tracts. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some thoughts on the matter of Evangelization within the Catholic Churches of Europe. (And not only within those specifically. Biblical literacy is pretty low in many areas.) Youcat and | NightFever being some - specifically Catholic - of them.
 * On the recognition issue: That is a fairly complex thing, which, in its entitiy, is well deserving its own article. Generally speaking, Protestant Churches -- so long they have Bishops -- are recognized as being 'a' Church (though not 'the' church) and their Baptisms as valid - so long as the ritual involving water and a trinitarian formula is being adhered to. Valid Baptisms again are generally speaking considered necessary for salvation in Catholic Theology. (Which is why there is such a thing as a Emergency Baptism.) Churches with invalid Baptisms are, again very generally, regarded as not being Christian. (Yes, the Latter-Day Saints are, according to Catholics, neither a Church nor Christian.)
 * On the matter of benefits: Theologically, from a Catholic perspective, there are some of course. But then again benefits in religion are scarcely objective in an economical sense. Though objectively you can communicate within the church only when youre Catholic. (That disambiguation page needs a section on Theology, but Im too new here to work on that.) I doubt a Priest would try to subsume the issue under the guise of 'benefits'. --Abracus (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are all Trinitarian churches with bishops really considered good enough from a Catholic point of view? I was under the impression that Methodists didn't have apostolic succession in Catholic teaching, and I can't imagine the Pope recognising the Church of God in Christ as having it.  Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are, though I'm lacking a source for that belief at the moment. As I stated above, it is a very complex issue on which I made some very, very broad generalizations. Apostolic Succession is another one of those points where differentiations can be made, I think. (To validly create a bishop you/your church need/s A-S I think.) Personally I don't know enough on the issue to even identify all points, let alone treat them in a comprehensive refdesk answer. Maybe a Theologian will come along an clear up some of them. --Abracus (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Economic impact of natural disasters
After a catastrophic natural disaster with significant damage such as the 2011 Super Outbreak, 1999 Sydney hailstorm, or say the recent Hurricane Sandy, how much of the economic loss caused by the storm is recuperated by the subsequent rebuilding and related processes? (The lines I'm thinking along are basically "If a tornado destroys a $150,000 house and it costs $300,000 to build a new one (between parts, labor, etc) does this mean that the tornado actually boosted the economy by $150,000?") Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 22:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Some economists seem to think that way. I've always been one to wonder where the $300,000 actually comes from. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Broken window fallacy. Loosely related: Lump of labour fallacy. —Tamfang (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Imagine that instead of you hiring other people, it was all you. You would consider that time rebuilding wasted. Larger, more complicated economies are no different. You're thinking about the flow of money/value through an economy, which is a natural way to think about things because that's how governments tax, but if you want to disabuse someone of the notion that "flow" is equal to "value" then consider if you bought and sold the same item back and forth for exactly the same price. You'd generate a lot of "flow" but no change in value. Shadowjams (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The short answer is, none of it is recouped, per the above fallacies, also known as the difference between what is seen and what is not seen.. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that the flow of money can lead to increased wealth. The reason is that unemployed people, who were not contributing to the economy, are then employed to do repairs, and thus contribute.  If they get enough on-the-job training to remain permanently employed, all the better.  There's also an opportunity to rebuild destroyed slums as something more valuable. StuRat (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The money that is wasted paying the unemployed to repair what otherwise would already have been in good condition, were it not for the hurricane, would otherwise have been spent or invested in other activities that would also have employed them, but without the cost of the hurricane's destruction. That's the whole point of the fallacies mentioned above, StuRat.  If destruction were good for the economy, the best thing would be to burn absolutely everything.  The problem is that you see rebuilding to the same state we had before, and think economic activity.  But what you don't see is the economic activity that will never happen because people have to spend money getting back where they were in the first place. For a downloadable PDF that covers this in detail, see economist George Reisman's college textbook, Capitalism''. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: "would otherwise have been spent or invested in other activities". Not necessarily.  If government does the repairs, and is already spending beyond their income, this means more money will likely be borrowed to pay for employing those people.  This is a classic economic stimulus plan.  Of course, some day we will have to pay the piper when the debt comes due, but that's another discussion. StuRat (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a very good mathematician if you don't think equations balance whether we want them to or not. Read Reisman.  He's also quite hilarious. μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what your argument is. Does the government borrowing money to pay people to go to work stimulate the economy or not ?  Is your argument that no matter what happens or what anybody does, it has no net effect on the economy ?  If not, then how do you distinguish between things which do and things which don't ?  StuRat (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The paying of the piper (or the popping of the bubble) would thus be the "what is not seen" part. —Tamfang (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If, StuRat, you didn't have to pay to fix your roof, wouldn't you either have spent that money on some other item which would have kept someone else employed or got the a job, or saved it, meaning it would be available as capital to a borrower to start a new business? μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Saved it in my sock drawer. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That would cause deflation, increasing the value other other's assets, still serving the same purpose, but not profitting you by the interest you forewent. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing you mean it would decrease inflation, as causing deflation would be a bad thing. StuRat (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your putting your money in a sock is a local irrational choice that will at worst contribute to disinflation or a minor deflation, both of which are good. It cannot cause a disinflationary spiral unless, as they say, everyone is batshit, in which case we are all, as the Viennese Economists say, "fucked". μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is irrational, considering the risk versus reward of having it in a bank. Interest rates are truly pathetic now, such that monthly fees and hidden bank fees can quickly overwhelm them.  Then there's the possibility of your money becoming unavailable when you need it.  A friend had his account locked down due to "irregularities in his account" (suddenly taking the max out at ATMs several days in a row), and had to meet with the manager and present his birth certificate and several forms of photo ID to convince them he was really the owner.  Given these risks, it makes sense to keep some cash at home. StuRat (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a bank that's taking precautions to protect its customers. Supposing he had been called in and it turned out it wasn't him that had been pulling the money out? There's another factor to consider: Spending is what fuels the economy. The more money banks have, the more they can loan out and stimulate business. Every dollar stashed in a sock is a dollar not being spent, and a small chip taken out of the economy. See Paradox of saving. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course there are circumstances when hoarding gold outside a bank is rational. But it is irrational as a long-term strategy when interest is to be had.  Even Jesus prought that. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Prought? The past tense of 'preach' is surely 'praught' (cf. teach > taught).  Or is prought the past tense of 'pring' (cf. bring > brought)?   :) --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You cought me. For some reason I always type tought for taught. μηδείς (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Building war equipment spent the US out of the Great Depression. Cities and factories in Germany and Japan were badly damaged in WW2, but the rebuilding seemed to give their economies quite a boost. One financial person on TV today said that fixing the damage from the storm would be a boost to the US economy (in a way that gets around Congress's refusal to pass any infrastructure programs proposed by the President).  Edison (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As usual in economics, the answer is "it depends". If before the disaster the economy is wisely and fully employing all of its scarce resources, above all people, then μηδείς is absolutely right. Destruction is destruction. Real wealth is going to be destroyed. It has very little to do with money. People are going to be taken from other tasks to rebuild. No recouping. But continuing to follow her for one more sentence before violently disagreeing, in the world we live in everyone is batshit, and we are all, "fucked". Because the assumption that Bastiat and μηδείς make of full employment is rarely satisfied. Because modern economies rarely are sensibly run at full employment, except when disasters have occurred, in particular the disaster of war. If the disaster kills everyone or the nation is conquered in war, then she is still right of course. But if we have the conditions of the USA before WWII - still high, though decreasing, unemployment, then the war-disaster can stimulate the economy enormously. Of course it would have been better to not have the war or disaster and for the government to spend the same amount on peaceful pursuits if there is mass unemployment - then the economy would have grown even faster. But the constant disaster of forcing people not to work during the usual periods of mass unemployment in peacetime capitalist economies with no disaster is an unseen destruction that dwarfs many, many broken windows. As Keynes said "Pyramid-building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth, if the education of our statesmen on the principles of the classical economics stands in the way of anything better." The disaster can be a helpful kick in the ass.John Z (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well said. Note that government spending to increase employment must not compete with private industry, or it will just displace those workers.  So, this means they need to do something which private industry won't do.  Hence the building pyramids bit.  I'd personally like to see more employment in the field of space exploration.  For example, the Mars Rovers seem to be quite successful, so why not set up an assembly line, build thousands of them, and explore every inch of Mars, the Moon, and whatever other rocks we can land them on  ?  (This may not make sense in the current debt situation, but is a general observation on stimulus programs.)  StuRat (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it might be efficient - even desirable - for the government to compete with private industry if private industry's existing provision is significantly inefficient, or acts contrary to public interests which the state might reasonably be expected to serve. To take a no-brainer: the existence of mercenaries clearly demonstrates that the provision of armies is something which the private sector can and will do; and the state could, in theory, just hire mercenaries when it needs troops. But the risks to the state in such an arrangement (bidding wars immediately before or during shooting wars, unilateral terrorism as reprisal for non-payment, leaks of state secrets) mean that most states since 1648 have wanted their own standing armies instead. More contentiously, it could be argued that beyond a critical point, the provision of railways solely by private enterprise leads to highly inefficient use of land that is in demand by other sectors - and therefore at least the infrastructure ought to be masterplanned and built by the state, even if the resulting traffic is privately-controlled. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The US got a boost in WW2 from being the last major industrial power not at war; the stimulus money came from outside. After the war, Germany and Japan had the benefit of not having to pay off the old regime's war bonds out of new taxes. —Tamfang (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has mentioned yet that the bulk of cash for reconstruction will not be coming from the US taxpayers, but from the world-wide insurance market. Estimates for the total loss for this "catastrophe" (the term used by insurers for very large losses) vary from USD 20 billion to 60 billion. Insurers obviously know all about hurricanes and use sophisticated software to be certain that their exposure to any one event will not be more than the company can cope with. The system of reinsurance ensures that the burden of the loss will be spread around hundreds of companies worldwide, much of it via Lloyds of London and the associated companies that make up the London insurance and reinsurance market. As with the 9/11 losses, I suspect that the business interruption claims will outstrip all the personal and property losses. As to the overall effect on the US economy, the "Time Business and Money" link above gives an opinion that "In the long run, the devastation the storm inflicted on New York City and other parts of the Northeast will barely nick the U.S. economy. That’s the view of economists who say a slightly slower economy in coming weeks will likely be matched by reconstruction and repairs that will contribute to growth over time." Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You all (except maybe for Medis) are bouncing around to avoid the central point that wanton destruction doesn't help civilizations by and large (if someone brings up the black death then this conversation may take a decided turn). You guys keep referring to all the rebuilding efforts, but the simple AND OMG A 1ST GRADER WOULD REALIZE THIS, fact is that if I unnecessarily destroy something that gave value, the rebuilding of it will not somehow magically give more value. If you believe otherwise, I'm available for hire. I supply my own sledgehammer. Shadowjams (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, find us a reference that supports your point of view (although not from a 6 year-old). My limited knowledge of economic history suggests that something that seems obvious and intuitive is usually wrong. Alansplodge (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Parenthetical parentheses
If I want to cite a sentence with parenthetical parentheses, but I want to use two citations, would I put both citations in two seperate parentheses at the end of the sentence? For example:

"I like to eat cake (Krugman, The New York Times) (Pear, The New York Times)."

Thanks. -- Jethro  B  22:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not (Krugman, The New York Times; Pear, The New York Times)? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that how it's supposed to be done? I just don't know the correct way to do it, so I'm asking. -- Jethro  B  00:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In what context? On Wikipedia, or under the regime of some academic style guide (and if so, which one)? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not Wikipedia. It's not really for academic peer review or anything, I'm not publishing it, but I guess we could follow those guidelines. Anyway, now this is more of a hypothetical question, as I've avoided the issue by simply splitting the material in each reference to two different sentences and then using only one citation per sentence. -- Jethro   B  03:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation styles differ widely, depending on who the publisher is. Also see Parenthetical referencing. Nowadays, you will nearly always use software to manage your references - if you are lucky, you use BibTeX, but see Reference management software. Most scientific publishers will tell you which style they prefer, and with reasonably software this is just a global setting (e.g. ) to change this in the finished paper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The most common style is to use a semicolon, as in (Krugman, New York Times; Pear, New York Times). Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, it's not quite the same thing, but there are plenty of Wikipedia articles which begin "Joe Blow (Farsi: جو بلو) (born 1946, died 1982) was a...", i.e. with the native-language spelling of the name and the birth and death dates in successive parentheses... AnonMoos (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

NYPD firearms and bullets
What kind of bullets do the NYPD officially supply their officers with? I know the official weapons are largely Glocks 19s (which are all 9mm I think?), but this New York Times article lists full metal jacket, but flat fronted .40 S&W. I don't live in NYC but in the times I've been there I've overwhelmingly seen officers carrying service sized Glocks, but I can't really distinguish the caliber at a glance. Does anyone have any additional knowledge? Shadowjams (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was quite a matter of controversy whaen they switched over to hollow points in the late 90's. You can search google getting these results with this at NYT being an example. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)