Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 May 27

= May 27 =

Ranavalo Manjaka
What does the last two lines of this document read?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The last three lines are "Hoy Ranavalo Manjaka / Mpanjakany Madagascar / &c, &c, &c" which I think means "says Ranavalo Manjaka / King of Madagascar / etc. etc. etc." There is a letter with a similar closing here.--Cam (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about Chinese references to Indian monument
Are there any sources from dynastic China that make reference to the Iron pillar of Delhi? I know Faxian visited northern India during the reign of Chandragupta II, the person who originally erected the pillar, but I don't think he mentions the monument. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Literal gold diggers
A conversation with a friend led to a very goofy question: how many literal gold-diggers (meaning female gold miners) are there in the world? For that matter, how many male gold miners are there? Thanks! --140.180.253.60 (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Meaning male and female miners working in gold mines ? (There's also gold panning.) StuRat (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect that any answer is going to be very approximate, given that much small-scale mining in less developed countries is illegal. There are certainly many women involved in such activities, as a mine collapse in Ghana in 2009 illustrated - 13 of the 15 people killed according to this BBC report were women. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Since a figurative gold-digger wants the "gold" for herself, does the literal digger need to, too? If she worked long hours in unsafe and disrespectable conditions to make the boss rich instead, wouldn't she be a literal "prostitute" (definition 2)? I don't know the numbers, but if you also see it this way, there are far fewer "gold-diggers" than "whores". 99 to 1, perhaps.

If you count the "pimps" as "diggers", here's a list of 10 major players. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Do we need these references, Hulk? I find them off-topic, and not entirely palatable. IBE (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you mean the prostitute references, no need, but thought it might help answer the question to distinguish between those who dig wholly for their own benefit, and those who dig for others. In this context, I figured the analogy was appropriate. Sorry to any who took it another way.


 * If you mean the link reference, those women don't all mine gold, but about half of them (at least indirectly). Mostly on-topic. It might have suggested some names and companies to Google, I thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Seconded. But in any case, the premise of the question is flawed. If we're being literal, the noun 'digger' isn't gendered, and so the number of gold diggers is the number of gold miners, subject to any quibbles about methods of extracting gold. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote of confidence. But since we now know the purport of the question, we can try to answer it as intended. It did completely throw me at first. I actually thought the OP had no idea at all about the meaning of the word "literally". IBE (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How about deleting your comments now you know they were mistaken? 184.147.147.85 (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How about editing under your real ID instead of hiding behind a drive-by IP? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For 184, nobody else uses the term "drive-by IP". Whatever I think of your comment (which I don't really understand), your id is not a legitimate basis for an opinion. All of us are hidden, except insofar as we disclose ourselves on our user pages. I have elected to say very little on mine, mostly stuff like gender so people know which pronoun to use. So I am also hidden. IBE (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr Bugs is being recidivistically naughty. He seemed to finally get the message that referring to anonymous users as if they were murderers is not acceptable (not that anyone knows Bugs' real name, or mine, or that of anyone else who doesn't choose to reveal it here. In fact, we know more about IPs than we typically do about registered users, who can't even be geolocated).  Let us hope this is a once-only reversion to type.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Although "murderers" might be characterising it a bit strongly, I like the sentiment of "once-only". In fact, it is conceivable that Bugs has a reason to suspect the person has an existing ID, and edits under an IP when telling others off. However, there can be no proof, I assume. The trouble is always the risk of escalation, so the rest of us have to spend time constantly throwing buckets of cold water everywhere we can. So we definitely appreciate the change. IBE (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with proof. Where is there a law that requires registered users to always and only edit under their usernames?  If there is such a law, I plead guilty to having broken it on many occasions.  Admittedly, these were from workplace computers, before I retired a couple of years ago; but there's nothing stopping me from doing the same from home, were I so minded.  It could be sheer laziness, because I have to reconfirm my login every 30 days. Or a host of other legitimate reasons that are none of anyone else's business.  So-called anonymous editors are NOT second-class editors and they have the right to expect to be able to go about their business without being molested by other editors merely because they're not using a made-up user name that tells others precisely nothing.  Of course, they can expect the same sanctions as registered users if they break the rules; the only issue there is that it's harder to enforce sanctions as many editors can use the same computer or dynmamic IP; which is part of the reason why registration is recommended and encouraged. But it's not mandatory, and those who for whatever good reasons choose to exercise the choice not to register, or sometimes not to edit under their registered user name, are entitled to the protection of the system.  We are, of course, enjoined to assume that their reasons are good.  Bugs seriously breaks the rules when he assumes the contrary about IPs as a class.  I thought that message had finally got through.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

140.180.253.60, I haven't yet found a figure for all gold mining, but here are two numbers that may help. 1. According to the United Nations, speaking of artisanal gold mining, "This sector produces about 12-15% of the world's gold. An estimated 10-15 million miners, including 4-5 million women and children, are involved in the sector." 2. According to the International Council on Mining and Metals, speaking of non-artisanal mining, "2.5 million people working in the sector worldwide" - here, "the sector" refers to all metals mining, not just gold. Since it seems by far the bulk of actual gold miners are therefore in the artisanal sector, you could take the UN numbers as a lowish-but-not-far-off estimate. 184.147.147.85 (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

American Legal System
How is the American legal system different from other legal systems in other countries? What makes the American legal system unique? I am specifically talking about the Trial by Jury system of the American legal system. 140.254.226.181 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article titled Law of the United States. You can also find similarly titled articles, such as Law of France or Law of the People's Republic of China, for just about any country in the world.  After reading each article in turn, and then comparing what you find, you can arrive at your own answers to your questions.  -- Jayron  32  21:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * But you should also be aware that each state of the US has its own legal system. This is briefly covered in the article Jayron linked. --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If you have any specific questions let me know. One thing that is very unusual about the US penal system is that it is unusually punitive compared to the rest of the western world. The US has much higher rates of incarceration compared to other countries, longer sentences, in many cases, harsher prison conditions. Plea bargains are often sought by prosecutors--there's a current debate about the practice of overcharging a defendant so they can plead down to what the prosecutor actually wants. Social aspects: I don't know how this compares to other countries, but the US often figuratively tries cases in the media and court cases serve as a source of entertainment. There is debate over the way in which criminal defense is paid for. You have to pay privately unless you are indigent.
 * The interesting thing about the US system is that it is seen by many as fair and great lenient compared to other countries, but there really are a lot of ways in which the US system has more flaws is much more rigid (edited for clarity). When you look at the way the murder of Meredith Kercher was handled in Italy, it really highlights the differences between the two systems. In America, it's almost impossible to get an appeal, in Italy, it's considered a normal part of the process. In America, if you're convicted, you are taken straight to prison, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Despite being convicted, Solleciato is still walking around free, posting on facebook. I'm not sure the intricacies of that situation, but it highlights a distinct difference between the concept of a conviction in America vs. Italy. When you look at the way people describe the treatment of the defendants in that case, it's very clear they have an overly rosy view of America. People are adamant that Knox wouldn't have ever been charged in America, but I've seen it a hundred times here. Also, Rudy Guede is serving less than 30 years. He would've been facing the death penalty in America and definitely wouldn't have gotten less than life in prison.
 * An interesting thing that I learned recently is that in France, you can be charged criminally for things that would only qualify for civil charges in America. I think I heard that civil suits don't even exist in France. An example of this is the death of 12 year old mountain climber Tito Traversa. He died in a rock climbing accident because a piece of his equipment was incorrectly assembled by his 12 year old girlfriend. Manslaughter charges were filed against the owner of the company that manufactured the part (even though there was nothing wrong with it), the owner of the retail store that sold them, the manager of the club that organized the trip Traversa was on, and the two instructors that were present during the accident of manslaughter. A relative of the girl to whom the draws belonged is also being “currently evaluated.” There may be some charges you could file in a similar situation, but unless the owner of the shop or company knew the products were dangerous and continued to make them, criminal charges are a no-go and even then it's unlikely. Anyway, these are a few differences between the American court system and other court systems around the world. Bali88 (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The U.S. legal system has numerous ignominious episodes (as any other legal system must which has applied to millions of people over wide geographical areas for more than two centuries), but I really don't see how you bolster your case by referring to the Amanda Knox case. Prosecutors with a dogged adherence to one theory (no matter how implausible it comes to seem in the light of later events) can happen in any legal system, but if the case had happened in the U.S. -- with Knox's family able to afford good lawyers from the very beginning and no real substantive evidence implicating her left standing -- then it would have almost certainly been thrown out by now. And why shouldn't Guede get more than 30 years?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * When I brought up that example, I was actually just attempting to show the differences between the various justice systems as opposed to arguing a POV. I wasn't attempting to bolster any case. Clearly Italy's system has some flaws as well. The only point I did try to make was the that people are generally unaware of the flaws within the American system as well as how strict it is in comparison to other countries, and that is clear in many of the criticisms of the Italian system. You're not the first person who has said "this would never happen in America!!!", when there are plenty of defendants who were charged and convicted on crappy evidence and misbehaving prosecutors. Although, yeah, Knox specifically probably wouldn't have been charged. But if she was black or a man with a criminal record, they would've been executed already. I'm not arguing that Guede should have any specific sentence, just that it's an interesting comparison. Bali88 (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know that Amanda Knox would not have been charged in the first place in the U.S., since prosecutors with pet theories or idées fixes impervious to subsequent facts can occur in any system. However, if Knox had been aggressively and competently defended from the beginning, then with the evidence against her in its current state, her case would have almost certainly been dismissed by now in the U.S.  Since the Italian prosecutors can apparently drag her case back for indefinite retrials at the trial court level (despite the fact that she was acquitted at the appellate level), and are uninhibited by the fact that they've changed their story about Knox's alleged "motivation" several times, I really don't see how the Knox case casts a positive light on the Italian justice system... AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think they can really go back indefinitely to the level of the original trial court. The history is a bit complicated.
 * The thing to keep in mind is, the Italian appello is not the same thing as the Anglo-American "appeal". The appello is, as we would see it, more of a second trial &mdash; all the evidence can be re-examined from the beginning.  That might seem like a step in the direction of protection for the accused, except that both sides can "appeal".
 * The equivalent of our "appeal" is the court of last resort, the Corte di Cassazione. That's where the evidence is not (theoretically) supposed to be re-examined, but the argument is over technical errors made at the lower level(s).
 * In the Knox/Sollecito case, the defendants were found guilty in the court of first instance. Then they were found innocent on "appeal" (per non aver commesso il fatto &mdash; the court explicitly said they didn't do it).  That verdict was overturned in cassation, so it went back to the court of appeal, and this time they were found guilty.  However they retain the presumption of innocence for now pending another trip to the Court of Cassation.
 * Comparing all this with the American system is a mixed bag. Bali88 is correct that you (almost?) automatically get an appeal, but the problem is, so does the prosecution.  (I've never quite understood, given that, why they bother with the first trial.)  For Knox and Sollecito, that meant four years in prison before they were acquitted on their first appeal (though to be fair, three of Amanda's years wound up being for her false accusation against Patrick Lumumba).  Hmm &mdash; my logic was a bit off here.  They did spend four years in prison before being acquitted, but it wasn't because of a prosecutorial appeal.
 * In the American system, this exact sequence can't happen, but plenty of other Kafkaesque things can happen, what with the many levels of possible appeals. --Trovatore (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The US Constitution's prohibition of double jeopardy was written precisely to avoid the kind of abuse that Italy has visited upon Amanda Knox. However, the American way also puts a lot of weight on the original decision of the jury, and getting a re-trial can be very difficult. As to allegedly excessive penalties, there's a prevailing assumption that the criminal chooses to commit the crime, of his own free will and in full knowledge of the potential penalties. Compare this with the perp in the 2011 Norway attacks who, if he plays his cards right, can get out of jail after just 21 years despite having murdered 77 citizens. In America, there's no chance he would be allowed outside prison walls, ever. Every country's legal system is "unique". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think in some situations there are ways to keep a convict imprisoned past the length of their sentence if there is concern that they could be a danger to society. I don't know about Norway though, but in many countries he would definitely qualify. Certainly there is an argument that some convicts deserve to spend life in prison and others are simply too dangerous to have out on the streets. I'm definitely sympathetic to that POV. However, America is a shocking departure from the way other first world countries view the criminal justice system. Obviously correlation =/= causation, but other countries manage to have far less crime despite having dramatically shorter sentences and in many cases better conditions for prisoners. To me, it's worth looking at whether there is some link. The American system, in theory at least, is a really great system and I firmly believe in the majority of its principles. However, there are a number of ways in which it's abused and the rights we are guaranteed as citizens are not granted. There are almost never penalties for prosecutors who commit brady violations or witness tampering. I think if there was some accountability, it would dramatically bring the system back to the ideals that it's based on. Bali88 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"I really don't see how the Knox case casts a positive light on the Italian justice system"...No, no, that definitely wasn't where I was going with it. Clearly there are problems and this case highlights them. I simply mean that a lot of people look at what's going on in the case and they're all "the Italian system is crap!" when they are completely oblivious to the numerous ways in which people are screwed, and in more severe ways, in the American system (the trouble with getting an appeal, the length of sentences). While they are able to go after Knox and Solleciato in a way they wouldn't be able to in the American system, the amount of damage they can do is diminished by the other elements of the system. Even if they were convicted, they still have numerous chances to be acquitted. And even if they end up serving a sentence, their sentence is way shorter than it would be in the American system. But seriously, don't look at my feelings and bias on this as something super important. I feel strongly about the justice system and sometimes when I talk about it I turn into a frothing-at-the-mouth beast and don't get my point across all that well, but really, I was just trying to point out the ways in which the system vary greatly.

I think another issue that happens in the American system is the way in which the media is used to help win convictions. Prosecutors leak evidence and...sometimes evidence they don't even have and then fight to prevent cases from getting a change of venue. The David Camm case was a good example of that. The prosecutors would do interview after interview where they'd say there was all this evidence, then when it would come time for the evidentiary hearing, they didn't have half of it and the rest of it was shaky. They told the public there was evidence of insurance fraud--forged documents. This didn't exist. They told the public there was evidence of the daughter's vaginal fluid on the master bedroom bedspread. It came out later that the DNA analyst filed a complaint that the prosecutor tried to get her to testify that it was vaginal fluid despite the fact that no such test exists. He also tried to get her fired because she wouldn't say that the real killer's DNA was actually Camm's. That was another piece of "evidence" they leaked to the media. People don't realize how widespread this is. From what I understand, Knox has been presented by the media as the victim in American and a criminal in the UK. The way in which the media treats the case plays a huge role in how the public views the case and can also impact the jury. Jurors don't always follow the "no media" rule. I don't know how this compares to other court systems around the world. Maybe some non-Americans can weigh in on this.

The topic of double jeopardy is an interesting one. The upside of the Italian system is that the convictions are not seen as final the way they are in the American system. The downside is that neither are the acquittals. Canada is one country that the prosecution can appeal a not-guilty verdict in certain circumstances. Occasionally they try in America, such as Robert Angleton or Esteban MartinezBali88 (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Didn't take long to get into the.... "let me tell you what's wrong...." line... or after that into the random tangent based on a case that's not even relevant to the U.S. legal system. Two short, correct, concise answers. First, common law versus civil law systems. The British based systems are common law (U.S., Canada, Britain, Australia... I'm not sure how India works in there, etc.), versus France and maybe Germany, which are civil law systems. Second, perhaps the biggest difference between British and American legal systems is the concept of a "Constituion". In American systems the Constitution is a discrete document; in British systems it is essentially the cannon of law in place, including both statutes and "common law" (similar but not exactly the same as the link above). It's a complicated question. I suppose another glaring difference you could point to is the American rule when it comes to attorney's fees. Shadowjams (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there Jewish or Christian equivalents to Islamic sharia law?
I was looking at this Common law page, and that got me thinking. Are there Jewish or Christian equivalents to Islamic law or sharia law? A quick Google search brought me to a page on Jewish law, but when I typed in "Christian law", all I got was some sort of Christian Legal Society, which was made up of lawyers who professed to be Christians and practice the law. Am I looking in the right direction? Is Christian law called Christian law? 140.254.226.181 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Christian equivalent of Sharia law is called Canon law. -- Jayron  32  21:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that's a very good analogy. Canon law regulates matters specifically within certain Christian denominations.  It doesn't in general overlap with civil law; at least, not insofar as civil law applies to non-members of the church.  --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not in secular, post-Christian societies of the 21st century. However, in past societies in Western Europe, canon law applied to all people.  While it was adjudicated in seperate court systems, the parallel system of canon law was enforceable by the power of the state, and carried real penalties against real people, up to and including death.  See Ecclesiastical court which explains how such a legal system operated within Christian nations.  Canon law may no longer hold the force of "law" within modern states, but it used to... -- Jayron  32  01:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So, if you were Jewish in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, then you were constantly under Christian rule? Hmmm... the Jews seem to be ruled over by Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans, and then the Christians. I wonder whether the Jewish people ever try to free themselves from their Christian political authorities. 69.174.58.108 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After the Jewish diaspora the Jewish people had no homeland; nowhere they could go to get away from authorities (be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever) who had it in their minds to persecute them. In a pre-secular society, every state essentially had a state religion, and stateless peoples like the Jewish people were at the whim of the authorities.  The ONLY post-diaspora Jewish state I know of prior to the formation of the State of Israel in the 20th century was the Khazar Khanate, and that's more of an historical curiosity than any grander trend among global Judaism.  -- Jayron  32  22:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So I agree you have a point when talking about the medieval Catholic Church (I don't think it ever worked that way with Anglicanism; couldn't say about Orthodoxy). But at latest, that ended with the Enlightenment; not exactly a 21st-century novelty.  I submit that that makes your first response a bit misleading. --Trovatore (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A fresh separation of church and state law was one of Henry VIII's innovations as soon as he had nationalised the CofE. One example that comes to mind is that buggery, previously an ecclesiastical offence, became a capital crime in civil law for the first time. So I think you're right - the CofE as a distinct entity has never had a body of law that extended into civil life. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, hell no regarding Henry VIII and seperation of Church and State. Henry VIII actually closed the gap between Church and State.  Prior to Henry VIII in England, there was at least some semblance of an independent (and international) church legal system and church polity; certainly the individual Christian states had some control over such matters as appointment of bishops and the like, but Henry VIII took direct personal control over the English Church and made the church a direct creature of the state, especially through men like Cromwell and Cranmer.  The idea that the English state would take a more hands-off approach to church matters really didn't shake out till after the Glorious Revolution.  But Henry had the OPPOSITE effect of separation of Church and State.  He made the church and state connection more direct and overt, and persecuted dissent and heresy far more directly than ANY of his predecessors.  He didn't work for religious freedom; he worked for religious uniformity under his own personal vision of what Christianity should be.  -- Jayron  32  23:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies! I think you've responded to something I didn't mean to say; but what I meant to say was wrong too. What I was driving at was that from Henry VIII onward people in England would not be brought before church courts for secular matters. This was - as you rightly observe - because Henry had basically rolled it all into one big ball of state law. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * An interesting side-bar here: Blasphemy stopped being a criminal offense in the U.K. in 2008. Though it was rarely invoked in the 20th century, the civil authorities in the U.K. had the legal right to prosecute a religious crime like Blasphemy up until about 6 years ago.  -- Jayron  32  00:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As the linked article says, this applies only to England and Wales. According to Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom, blasphemy is still illegal in Northern Ireland and (possibly) Scotland. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relevant references may be: Two kingdoms doctrine and Unam sanctam (both relating to Christianity). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Canon law would be Catholic and Orthodox, and similarly leaning Protestant groups. Other Protestant groups would range from Dominion Theology (holding that their personal understanding of the Bible at any given moment is "God's law" plain and simple) to Antinomianism, with most falling somewhere inbetween (usually holding to ideas such as the Great Commandment, the Ten Commandments, or some vague notion resembling Noahide law, viewing other "rules" as divinely recommended guidelines to fulfilling or following those big ones).
 * Jewish law would be Halakha. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be kept in mind that unlike Muslims, early Christians were in no position to make or enforce laws, aside from church discipline within their own communities. In Islam, politics and religion were intertwined from the very beginning because Muhammad was both a political and a religious leader. Sharia law is based on how Muhammad and his early followers organized society. There's no Christian equivalent to this because it took centuries before Christians gained any political power. See also Christianity and politics. - Lindert (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There may be a difference in the historical background and in the amount of time from their respective religions' founding the systems took to develop, but I don't see how Canon law, at least as it was applied in Medieval courts, and as part of the various Inquisitions, doesn't qualify as an equivalent system to Sharia. For more on Jewish topics, see Oral Torah, Posek, and (for the sorts of Jewish practices that are decidedly not "Law") Minhag. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 01:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is the Quds Force called the Quds Force
See title. Why the reference to Jerusalem? Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 22:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I get the impression from this that their initial purpose was to prepare for an open conflict with Israel by giving Iran an advantage ahead of time, "in the event of an Israeli strike against Iran" in particular. Seems they've either gone beyond that initial purpose or are digging in to prepare for World War Three to be between them and Israel.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have a direct reference, but I suspect it has to do with the national-religious duty of "liberating" Jerusalem (see for example Quds Day). ---Sluzzelin talk  23:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's one reference in a footnote from a 2012 Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center report: "The name refers to the 'liberation' of Jerusalem (Al-Quds in Arabic), the Qods Force's stated goal" . ---Sluzzelin  talk  00:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as unsettling a rationale as I had expected! Thanks for the refs. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 01:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Quds in Quds Force has any specific significance. Quds is like a sacred name in Islamic Republic. Many cities in Iran have Quds Squares, Quds may be the name of a company, a school, a rocket, a street, a supermarket, anything. Omidinist (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And I suppose that "Suleiman Khater" in "Suleiman Khater Street" doesn't refer to Suleiman Khater? -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a different case. We don't have a Suleiman Khater company, school, supermarket, hospital, bank, etc. Omidinist (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)