Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 April 12

= April 12 =

Anonymous lawyers in lawsuits or copyright complaints
I've noticed that sometimes, when people file lawsuits, DMCA complaints, or other complaints requesting the removal of copyrighted material, the lawyers filing them are anonymous, or otherwise do not give their names, simply that they are a lawyer representing the defendant. This isn't the case with all complaints, but without mentioning any legal advice, why is this sometimes the case? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. Look at any filing in any U.S. court and you'll see a signature line accompanied by a bar number that the attorney affixes to it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I said sometimes. In the vast majority of cases the lawyers do give names, but in a handful of instances (can't remember which), the lawyers don't give their names. In this tiny minority of cases, why could it be the case? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Show me one example. I don't know of any civil legal procedure in the U.S. that allows for "anonymous" lawyers, outside of maybe some FISA court or some other interesting national security issue. Shadowjams (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Culture and sport
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES CULTURE INFLUENCE SPORTS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.89.196.10 (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't be sure, but this looks to me like a homework question. Please be aware of our policy called Do your own homework. (Also, please avoid all capitals when you type. On the Internet that is often interpreted as shouting, and I'm sure you didn't mean that.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like homework to me too. To summarise the WP policy on h/w, do a bit of reading and come back with a more refined question. Announce the general topic, and the specific problem you are stuck with. We like helping, but we can't do your homework for you anyway - it won't come out as anything good, and your teacher only has to read this page to know you cheated. IBE (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A LOT. Shadowjams (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I think our work is done here
 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'd encourage you to register an account - it's free and only takes about a minute. Our article on Sport is not a very good one and is lacking in information relevant to your question, and surprisingly, we don't seem to have a more specifically titled relevant article, only ones about various "Sport and culture" ministries in governments around the world. While we don't answer homework questions, we're happy to give pointers to help you work it out for yourself. I suggest you start by looking through Sport, because it will give you ideas, eg when you read the sections on Politics and Gender. For us, we should consider creating a daughter article called something like Sport and culture, to spin off from the main Sport article. Finally, you might also like to read WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now nominated Sport at Today%27s_articles_for_improvement/Nominated_articles. It's one of our "core" articles, attracting thousands of visits every day, but only C class for quality. --Dweller (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

EEZ for St Pierre et Miquelon
Anyone know of any agreement between France and Canada that explains the shape of the EEZ for Saint Pierre et Miquelon? I am not sure it is the shape it would have if the sctrict international law was applied, I think it would be much larger. For example, should it not stop midway between Cap Breton and St Pierre in the detroit de Cabot? --Lgriot (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I found it, it is the Canada–France Maritime Boundary Case, which I could have found in the what links here section of the image. I am stupid for asking. --Lgriot (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to say there's no such thing as a stupid question, and certainly no such thing as a stupid questioner, then I saw the question below and now I'm not so sure ... --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

murder
What proportion are in favour of murder? Horatio Snickers (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 0.00000001% 14:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What proportion are in favor of cluttering the Reference Desks with silly questions? Looie496 (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no rule against silly questions, and nobody is compelled to answer them. But I'll point out that it is a near tautology that murderers are implicitly "in favour" of murder. We have a list of murderers, and a List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about that. I recall a textbook in law, touching on the philosophy of law, claiming that most murderers are against murder. I.e. they think that murder is wrong and immoral, except in their particular case where there was some reason that the murder of that particular person was justified, or unavoidable as the case may be. So, I'd think that not even all murderers can be said to be "in favor" of murder. Of course it depends on how you define "in favour of murder", if you define it as "justifiable in some extreme and very rare conditions" i think that you can find that a large proportion are in favour of it, like this guy.17:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Being a criminal doesn't imply that you find it acceptable, you just think that you can get away with it, but hopes others won't. Maybe the OP should have asked who is in favor of killing people and under what circumstances, because once you call it murder, it implies you are already stating that you are against it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sunday School
If Jews learn how to read Hebrew and learn about Jewish culture and history in Hebrew School, and Muslims learn Arabic in Islamic Sunday School, then do Christians learn how to read Hebrew and koine Greek in Christian Sunday Schools, or maybe the children learn how to recite verses in Latin? Sneazy (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Where are you from, Sneazy? I'd like to give appropriate answers to your questions - especially as they often touch on my own areas of interest - but they often seem very naive or poorly-informed about the religions they're discussing. It would be useful to know and understand a little of the background to your enquiries, so that I can give better answers.
 * That said, I've attended a Church of England Sunday School, and to my disappointment, it didn't do any of the things you suggest. It's worth noting that in many cases Sunday Schools no longer pretend to offer any sort of rigorous curriculum, but just a way to keep kids entertained while the adults are attending worship - usually Holy Communion. In times past the Sunday School movement did offer a more substantial curriculum, but it tended to be scripture knowledge rather than the linguistic and critical skills needed to appreciate that scripture in its right context. These days, it tends to be the singing of song with some sort of Christian content (but not hymns), eg 'The Wise Man Built His House Upon The Rocks'. For me as a pre-teen, the last straw was when one of the Sunday School teachers wrote a song of their own, to be sung to the accompaniment of about 2 guitar chords, which was about nothing but how great it was to be at the Sunday School. I told my parents I'd rather attend the Eucharist in the church next door, where at least the hymns were good to sing and the creed provided some sort of content.
 * It's worth noting that churches which use Latin liturgically are now few and far between, as since the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church has moved dramatically to providing worship in the vernacular. It's therefore unlikely that any form of education aimed at children would see the use of Latin as important. However, as a student at a Roman Catholic weekday school, I did learn to pray the 'Hail Mary' in Latin; several classes opened with the Hail Mary, and in the case of Latin classes, we prayed in Latin. Pretty much all my knowledge of the Greek alphabet derives from maths classes. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am from the United States, so anything American pertains to me. Anything other than just fun? What about learning about compassion, hospitality, kindness, charity, genuine altruism, or accepting people in who are not part of any church? How are the kids kept "entertained"? Is it even relevant to the Church of England? Is the entertainment like some sort of game trying to memorize all the 613 mitzvot or the ten commandments and competing against each other (all in good humor) for whoever could get them all right? Why aren't the kids attending the worship services with the parents? They are not considered important for God? God doesn't want them? God doesn't like children? God wants children to sin? Sneazy (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would Christians learn about the 613 commandments? That's a very Jewishly-slanted view of scripture, and one that most anyone but a Jew would find contrived.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A common Catholic practice, related to Sunday School, is that many parish churches offer a "children's liturgy" during one Sunday Mass a week. This means that the children start the service with their families, but before the Liturgy of the Word starts the children who don't yet receive Communion leave to attend their own version of the Liturgy of the Word. This usually means that they sing/pray simple versions of the main prayers used in that part of the Mass, and then instead of three readings and a psalm they usually hear a simple translation of the Gospel reading that the adults hear (so there isn't the same child-friendly limit to the stories, but they only get Gospel stories). Instead of a homily, they get a lay explanation and usually make or colour something. Then they rejoin their families for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Typically, children who receive Communion are not supposed to leave for the children's liturgy, because they are supposed to attend the full prayers and readings, and take part in the Penitential Rite. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * These pages discuss the use of Latin in Catholic Mass.
 * Facts on Latin in the Roman Catholic Church | Reuters (Friday, May 13, 2011)
 * Una Voce
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * At my Church of England church, the Sunday School generally have a theme for the week based on a simplified Bible story. Examples are "Noah's ark", "Jonah and the whale", "Daniel in the lion's den", the Good Samaritan", "the parable of the sower" "Zacchaeus and the sycamore tree", etc, etc. Associated activities tend to include art or craft work and songs (the song that Alex quotes refers to the Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders, another Sunday School staple). The children join the rest of the congregation for the end of the service. Sometimes, they perform songs or plays in the main church for special days like Mothering Sunday or Harvest Festival. But there isn't any set syllabus and different parishes do different things. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * When I attended a non-conformist Sunday School, lessons were at 9.45 and 2.15 on Sundays. The main Sunday services were at 11 and 6. It wasn't the "done thing" for children to be in the services, which were about twice as long (and many times more boring) than the Sunday school sessions. The explanation given was about the "milk and the meat of the Word", as given in Hebrews 5.13 and I Peter 2.2 - in other words, us kiddies wouldn't be able to understand what was being talked about and would become a distraction. The format of the Sunday school session was: "choruses" to start with, an opening hymn, short prayer, Bible reading (which was read in alternation with the Superintendent reading one verse and the rest of us reading the next), long (or should I say looooooooong) prayer, notices, tuition session in classes (year age range, lasting about 20 minutes) with a verse which we all had to memorise, closing hymn, closing prayer. The tuition usually revolved around the Parables, or the stories of the life of Moses, or of Jesus, or from Acts. We used the King James Version bible, and I believe that sect still does. Believe me, the language contained therein was archaic enough for a 70s child! I didn't learn Latin or Greek until I was 16 and chose to learn them at college. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that Christianity doesn't maintain the link to their founding culture to the degree of many other religions. Why is this ?  Well, first there was the period where Rome (and later Constantinople) took control of Christianity away from the founders, and remade it for their own purposes.  Thus, Latin became the language of Christianity.  Then there was the Protestant Reformation, which objected to this control by Rome.  However, rather than emphasizing the original languages and cultural values, they emphasized local languages and values.


 * I don't see this as a bad thing, however. Many of the values of the cultures around at time of the founding of Christianity were immoral, by modern standards, such as slavery.  I also feel that a problem with Islam is that many, but by no means all, branches try to maintain the values of the Arabic culture at the time of the founding of Islam.  These values are quite extreme, including the total subjugation of women, violent jihad, etc.  Those branches of Islam which reject traditional Arab culture can be far less oppressive. StuRat (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jehovah's Witnesses have information online about children attending Kingdom Hall meetings. You can use the search results listed at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=children+kingdom+hall+meetings&p=par.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You can see and hear "Cy&#39;s first talk - YouTube" (4:06) at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHvjM-3Hs2c.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article "Sunday school".—Wavelength (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sunday School taught me that a lot of the well-intentioned volunteers who ran it had no ability to effectively answer my no doubt annoying questions about Bible stories and the other stuff being presented. We were meant to accept everything on face value - all the miracles and stuff, and the idea that one had to regularly worship God to get to Heaven, etc. It began my slide away from Christianity. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a question regarding Sunday Schools here. In the past, and perhaps at present, are Sunday Schools more common or more important with non-Catholic (as in Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox, Baptist, Nontrinitarian or Nondenominational) denominations? Although I am a Catholic and most of the people in my country are Catholic, I never attended Sunday School and in fact, Sunday Schools are practically unheard of; the only Sunday Schools I've encountered so far are in the so-called "Born-again" (Pentecostal/Nondenominational) churches, and even then they are rare. Also, I never encountered the practice the IP mentioned above (the Children's liturgy during Catholic masses) and before I had my first communion I always attended the regular mass (although again, I have encountered seeing "youth services" at "born-again" churches). But since I did go to a Catholic school, we had regular "values education" classes that sort of served the purpose of Sunday school, but to my knowledge, "values education" is part of my country's basic education curriculum. So in general, are Sunday Schools more common and/or important in non-Catholic denominations? If so, why? I've already read our article on Sunday school but it doesn't answer my question. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was raised a Catholic, and we also didn't have Sunday School when I was a child. Children at the Catholic Church I attended received their theological education through CCD classes, which were held on a weeknight (Thursdays, IIRC) after school.  Today, I am a member of a Southern Baptist church, and church on Sundays consists of about 1 hour of worship and 1 hour of Sunday School for both children and adults.  Worship is a time to sing songs and worship together, as well as to hear a sermon, while Sunday School is a time to study the bible in small groups, usually 5-10 people, in open discussion facilitated by a teacher who generally leads a discussion-oriented class (rather than didactic).  Children at my church have the same schedule, though through the 5th grade they have a separate children's worship service; after that they attend worship with the adults.  Children's Sunday school is as rigorous as adults, usually focusing on a particular bible verse or passage; though of course with age-appropriate activities, similar to the sort of instruction they would get in their elementary school classes.  -- Jayron  32  02:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Sunday School and Wednesday meeting are more common in Protestant churches. Catholics have Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) class for those who are not learning the subject by attending Catholic school. My spouse complained the class was more saints than Bible stories though. Rmhermen (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The theory is rather different in Catholic churches, where children participate in adult worship, taking their First Communion at the age of 7 or 8. In many protestant churches it is thought that much of it would not be understood by young children and so an age appropriate provision is made for them. Some churches have "family services" which are thought to be more child friendly. But there is wide variety in that, even within particular denominations. Traditionally, Sunday School would have been later in the day than the main service, so that children were expected to attend both; however this is no longer a common practice, in the UK at least. Alansplodge (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The children going through CCD (mostly an American term) or Sacramental Preparation classes are expected to hear Bible stories at home and during Mass. Therefore, there seems less point in focusing on those when there is so much else to cover in the classes, and basic familiarity with the main Bible stories is usually assumed. Focus is typically on the importance of prayer and loving one another, in my experience, which is why stories of saints tend to feature. A good class will also cover many other points of Catholic doctrine and practice, and ideally go into "why" when the children ask. Unfortunately, many classes are not good classes. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How are the classes "not good classes"? Can you be a little more specific than "not good classes"? The teaching of Catholic doctrine and practice is not good enough? The classrooms are typically not suitable or conducive to an enriched learning and social environment? The classes are typically so boring that they bore the students to death? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To reiterate the precise content of the comment you are replying to, "A good class will also cover many other points of Catholic doctrine and practice, and ideally go into "why" when the children ask. Unfortunately, many classes are not good classes." 86.161.209.128 (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've mentioned before somewhere on the RD that for the church I attended in Malaysia there was sunday school for children which for most students continued until confirmation (you could continue afterwards but not many did). IIRC, at the time, mass was at 8 am and 10:30 am (and also in the evening) sunday school began at 9:10am or so and ended at 10:15am or so, so you were expected to attend mass at some stage. They did have liturgy of the word for children timed to coincide with the 10:30am mass, but I believe it was introduced after I was passed the age (first eucharist communion I guess) so I never attended. My memory of the practice is you stayed behind after sunday school and we brought in to mass later and seated in a reserved area only joining your family after mass. The times seem to have changed a bit  possibly because of the introduction of an early morning mass on Sunday which I don't think used to occur and the sunday school times have of course also changed  (with a larger gap between the end of sunday school and the beginning of the next mass) but it doesn't sound like it's otherwise much different (although I believe a few years back they added an extra year before confirmation, I'm not sure if they still have sunday school after now). My impression is the sunday school is fairly common for most Malaysian RC churches at least as much if not more so than a number of protestant ones. Nil Einne (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To answer Naruto's question directly, in England Sunday Schools started as a way of bringing education to poor children, who were expected to work (in fields, homes or factories) for six days a week as soon as they were able to work, in order to bring in money to the household. Sunday was the only day available for such instruction, and these schools therefore took on a more educational aspect than they are these days. Since, in the 1700s Roman Catholicism was still forbidden in England, Sunday Schools didn't happen in RC churches simply because there were none (or very few if any). We have an article on the founder of the Sunday School movement: Robert Raikes. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite lots of personal recollections, I’m not sure that there has really been an answer to the question or to the probable question behind the question.

Putting it very simply, for many Jews and Muslims scripture is the foundation of their faith. So ability to read the text in the original language is therefore fundamental. For most Christians, however, faith rests on the three pillars of scripture, tradition and reason. In this case, accessing scripture in the vernacular is considered perfectly adequate. Better, most would argue, to hear it in everyday speech than not at all.

[I know that some Christians learn Hebrew and Greek because they think translations betray the meaning of the text, but they are a small minority.]

--Hors-la-loi 11:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)


 * For Anglicans "accessing scripture in the vernacular" is not only "considered perfectly adequate", it is actually an Article of Religion. "Article XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth. It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people." In the last 50 years, this principle has caused the lyrical 16th and 17th century English of Anglican liturgy to be dropped in favour of more modern language. The Catholic Church has undergone a similar transformation since the Second Vatican Council. Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Mary Antin's mother
What was Mary Antin's mother's name before she changed it to Annie? --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Women's Archive has "Esther (Hannah Hayye) (Weltman) Antin" . ---Sluzzelin talk  16:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What happened to Sergeant William Stott?
Upon reading about the WW2 carrier pigeon discovery I immediately wondered about the fate of the message's author, but can't find any articles with information about the man himself. Can someone help me determine the fate of Sergeant Stott? Did he survive the war? The Masked Booby (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph article says that he was killed in action a few weeks later. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, he was a Fusileer (private) rather than a sergeant (possibly he had a field promotion that was never confirmed); he died on 8 July 1944 aged 27 and is buried at Ranville War Cemetery, which is 10km from Caen. Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

POTUS eligible
Let's say I am a natural born U.S. citizen. I eventually marry someone from overseas, and in so doing so I become a dual citizen of my spouse's nation (and my spouse becomes a dual citizen of the U.S.). Am I still allowed to run for President, assuming I am otherwise eligible? If not, can I become eligible to run for President by renouncing citizenship of my spouse's original nation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.224.251 (talk • contribs)


 * The Constitution's restrictions on eligibility for office are the only restrictions possible for those offices. So if you are 35 and a natural born citizen who has been resident in the US for fourteen years, you are good to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * . . . . but not if you've already been elected president twice, and not if you've been removed from the presidential office upon conviction by the Senate after impeachment by the House of Representatives. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We've had questions about Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 several times during the last few years and you could check the archives. Most of the answers have boiled down to that we can't be really sure until a court makes a decision on the issue. In many places, the Constitution is rather vague and it's up to the courts to work out the details by case law. The thing is that to develop case law you need a case, and as far as I know the eligibility for POTUS re the natural born citizen clause has never been tested. Sjö (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We are unlikely to have a case, as the courts would most likely rule that the political question doctrine applied. It would be, really, up to Congress in the joint session to count the electoral vote. However, if Powell v. McCormack is any guide, then my comment would be a likely outcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, the voters might very well feel that your dual-citizenship means divided loyalties, and vote against you. StuRat (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. Having the right to run does not ensure a "right to win". For example, there's supposed to be no "religious test", i.e. you can't be stopped from running due to your religion. But the voters can apply any test they want to. How many voted against (or for) Romney because he's a Mormon? We'll never know for sure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I expected him to win several times as many votes from women as men, based on the votes from the Mormon's and all their wives. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * They have no more extraneous wive's than you have extraneous apostrophe's. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Me thinks the small font responses to the small font responses are hardly ever less entertaining than the large font responses to the large font questions are informative.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You've finally understood that down here is where the real action is. Come on in, latter-day acolyte of the Church of Small But Interesting Things.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  03:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 99.72.224.251 -- Michele Bachmann went through that situation after her run for president in 2012 (causing some to sarcastically refer to her as the "Swiss Miss"). I don't think it would prevent her from running again (though the fact that she would have no chance of winning might)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Nitpick: You don't become a citizen in another country by marriage alone. Sjö (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, but that is certainly the case in some places, and has been the case in other places. Did you know, for example, that The Right Excellent Sir Garfield Sobers, despite being a National Hero of Barbados and a cricketing icon of the West Indies, also acquired dual Australian citizenship through marriage to an Australian (whom he has since divorced)?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]


 * The Australian government says otherwise. You still have to apply to become an Australian citizen, though it's somewhat easier if you are married to an Australian. I doubt that you become a citizen by marriage alone anywhere in the world, because that would bring all sorts of problems with it. What if you don't wan't to be a citizen of your spouse's country, for example if that means that you have to renounce your present citizenship, or if you don't want the obligations that follow with being a citizen? Sjö (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I said it "has been the case" in some places. See, .  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it matters at all. Obama was born with dual American & British citizenship.  His father was from Kenya, which was still a British colonial possession then.  After Kenya gained independence, Obama then held dual American & Kenyan citizenship.  Kenya will only extend duality in citizenship to children.  Adults cannot hold dual citizenship.  At age 23 (yeah, I know, random-seeming age), Obama had to decide if he wanted to retain his Kenyan citizsenship, which would have meant renouncing his American citizenship.  Because he picked American, he then had to renounce his Kenyan citizenship.  So he's not longer dual anything for the last 27 yrs or so & wasn't at the time he ran for POTUS.


 * Plus, every POTUS through William Henry Harrison was born a British citizen. John Tyler was the first POTUS born after 1783.  Offhand I can't think who it is (a POTUS from the late 1800s, I want to say Chester Alan Arthur, maybe), but there was one who had dual British (Irish) citizenship because his parents were immigrants & had not attained US citizenship before he was born, even though he was born on US soil.  He was *naturalized* when his parents became citizens because he was still a child (though around 12, I think).ScarletRibbons (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Earliest war photography
The American Civil War, or "War Between the States", of 1861–1865 was the topic of extensive photography by Mathew Brady. Was that the first war in history to get photographed while it was going on? Or perhaps the first one to get photographed extensively and systematically? Or were there earlier ones? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Crimean War of 1853-1856 was the first I believe, it was certainly earlier than the Civil War. The photography was mostly from the British side. Ryan Vesey 18:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Roger Fenton's photography during the Crimean War is generally considered the first act of war photography. -- Daniel (talk)  18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * According to our article War Photography Carol Szathmari took photographs of the Crimean War prior to Fenton. Even before that, an anonymous photographer took daguerreotypes of the Mexican–American War.  Some of his daguerrotypes can be seen about a third of the way down this page, photos of the Crimean War can be seen following that.  It doesn't appear that the Mexican-American War was photographed extensively, but the Crimean War certainly was.  A very large number of Fenton's photographs can be seen here. Ryan Vesey 20:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "photollecture4" link includes a couple of items labeled Attitudes Passionelles, which are quite striking, as they appear to have modern, expressive poses, rather than the stiffly formal pictures which dominated that era. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Those pictures appear to come from the book "iconographie photographique de la salpêtrière" which I would presume means that the pictures come from the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, which "served as a prison for prostitutes, and a holding place for the mentally disabled, criminally insane, epileptics, and the poor" according to our article. Ryan Vesey 21:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Condolence gift for someone from Bangalore India
Bangalore India, I have a client whose father passed and wanted to send the appropriate gift for his culture. thanks for your help. 208.65.144.249 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are assuming that giving a gift is appropriate in that situation, in his culture. It may not be. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your best bet may be to ask this question at WikiProject India. If it turns out a gift is actually appropriate, there is a reference guide to general gift-giving etiquette in India here. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

How Do I Find A Free Reverese E-mail Site
I been going through reverse E-mail. Sites and had no luck. They all charge for me to look up this persons. Other E-mail accounts. I have 1 of his E-mail accounts however he does not use that one. So I to do a reverse E-mail look up. But I cant pay for it right now. Is there a way to do it for free. My question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.251.254 (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You had best check with your lawyer about the legality of such an activity. As I recall, you were told this 10 or 11 days ago when you brought the same subject up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As you have no right in law (anywhere in the world, as far as I know) to acquire this data at all, asking us to tell you where you can get it for nothing is a bit much, frankly. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I don't actually understand the question. OP knows an email address (say johndoe@isp.net). What does he want to find? The owners name (Peter Piper? Another email address that the owner uses (p.piper@work.org) or what? If other email addresses for the same user, how would anyone/any organistation KNOW about other email addresses? Puzzled. --SGBailey (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * …and asking on every single reference desk also isn’t going to endear you any. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have raised this as a legal question at WP:ANI. I don't know which IP to notify, so this will have to do for now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The answer seems to be that any such service, free or otherwise, is only legal if it has obtained and accumulated publicly-available e-mail addresses. So at any price, legally, you're only going to get a subset of possibilities. And the point was made that since the data accumulation effort requires work, why would anyone want to give it away? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)