Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 October 28

= October 28 =

Israeli ministers Mizrahi sephardic 1948
Besides Eli Yishai, Aryeh Deri, Moshe Kahlon and Shlomo Ben Ami, who were the other ministers that were of Mizrahi and Sephardic origin since 1948, the year Israel became independent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.122 (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There were David Levy, Shaul Mofaz, Amir Peretz, Yitzhak Mordechai, Ovadia Eli, and probably lots more. WP has lists of Israeli ministers for almost all ministries and since the birth of the state. Just go through the names there and check their biography. For example this is the list of ministers of defense and this is the list of foreign ministers. And there are also lists for deputy ministers for most ministries. Do your homework. You obviously haven't been looking very hard. Contact Basemetal   here  02:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Muslims and the Koran
(1) How many Muslims (as an integer and as a percentage of all Muslims) own a copy of the Koran (either in Arabic or in another language)? (2) How many Muslims (as an integer and as a percentage of all Muslims) have read all the Koran (either in Arabic or in another language)? —Wavelength (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC) and 03:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean 'practising muslims' only, or do you include 'non-practising muslims'? Do you include those muslims in Africa (and places in Asia) who are unable to read? Not every muslim can speak or read Classical Arabic or even their own language.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  09:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean "people who identify themselves as Muslims". Practice, location, language, and literacy are irrelevant.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You should also be aware that many Muslims who do not understand Classical or any other variety of Arabic are trained to be able to 'read' and pronounce aloud the Arabic text of the Koran without having any understanding of what the sounds mean; this is in itself considered meritorious. However, most of them will likely be literate in at least one other language and will likely have read a translation of the Koran into that language. No specific citation available, but this is something I learned from a recent BBC documentary on early Christian texts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In my second question, I mean "have read ... with understanding (of the words and sentences, even if not necessarily of the accepted religious interpretation)".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Panda are Tibetans
Is there any truth to https://www.facebook.com/PandasarefromTibet and other similar argument saying the Giant panda is Tibetan? The last habitats of the species does fall in the region of Greater Tibet but historically panda ranged were mainly in the China proper in the river valleys.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Facebook is often half true. Pandas are quite Chinese, or panda diplomacy wouldn't work. Some live on the Tibetan plateau, but not as many. Some Chinese people live in Russia or India. Are Chinese people Russian or Indian? Sort of, sometimes. But mostly Chinese. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend on what passport they have applied for. If pandas born in China applied for a passport (and agreed to the one-child policy, rather than their own 'no-child policy, which they seem to currently adhere to), then they would get a Chinese passport, entitling them to Chinese nationality. Please note, that Tibet is politically part of China (according to everyone in the world besides Tibetans and student activists who want to be part of a group so they can feel good with themselves about 'defending' the rights of the people of a territory they have never even been to), so Tibetan pandas would also be of Chinese nationality regardless.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  08:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This of course brings up all of the complex, overlapping, and confusing issues related to nationality and ethnicity. Nationality is usually taken to mean roughly the same thing as citizenship or permanent residence or something similar: a person born and legally subject to the laws of, as well as having the rights accorded to, the state which has political control of said land.  In that case, of course, all Tibetans are Chinese nationals.  They are not, however, ethnically Chinese, in the sense that "ethnic Chinese" usually refers to Han Chinese, which is the dominant ethnic group within China.  Whether or not each ethnic group should also have right to a sovereign state is a touchy subject and one fraught with complex problems.  Insofar as some pandas live in Tibet/Xizang then they would be "Tibetan" pandas, but insofar as others live in areas traditionally populated by Han Chinese, they would also be Han Chinese.  And all those pandas living within both of those areas also live within the PRC, and so live within the usual understanding of China.  -- Jayron  32  12:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another case could be made that wild life simply does not possess the aspect of nationality. We could say that the California_tiger_salamander is endemic to California, and California is part of the United States, but it would be weird (if not wrong) to say a tiger salamander was American. It can't vote or own property, or do any of the other things that American citizens have rights to do... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A salamander's rights (such as they are) are laid out in other legislation. Like the Fish and Wildlife Act or Animal Welfare Act of 1966. If she moved to Denmark, those wouldn't be worth the paper they're printed on. But if she stays in Calfifornia, she's an American, dammit! Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are so vague, you may as well say salamanders are equal to "all men" in that regard. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What would you expect ? That's democracy: googling https://www.google.com/search?q=american+salamander+welcome+in+denmark gets 335000 positive hits, only 19300 when typing https://www.google.com/search?q=incestuous+american+salamander+welcome+in+denmark ( Note that the second gives much more attractive results: Hamlet, Prince of Denmark:Touching this dreaded sight twice seen of us ; Why do they hate us? at open.salon.org; Bill Shaxberd Club: Jim's now a Blind Cave Salamander! etc, etc, --77.128.14.105 (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's some damn fine investigation. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there is that, of course, but we're just playing around with words, rather than getting at the crux of the question. The question could have easily been worded (with no change of meaning, really) "are Pandas endemic to Tibet or to China", the answer being "Yes, No, or it depends on what you mean by Tibet and China".  It doesn't change the problem or the answers.  But it does make pedants feel superior to others, so there is that... -- Jayron  32  16:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it does change the question, and my goal wasn't to be pedantic. Pandas are currently endemic to the land currently controlled by PRC, that is a simple fact confirmed by the maps at giant panda and PRC. That is a question of science. Pandas also live in some lands claimed by some parties to be part of "greater Tibet," and to be fair to OP, deciding what is "Tibet" is a humanities question. When we start talking about nationality, of Tibet or whatever sense of "China", that's outside my ken. So the question is sort of conflating a humanist perspective with the perspective of science (e.g. historical range of species, historical range of governments). To me, the FB page seems to be trying to co-opt science and the range of a species for some political message. I guess my point was that, scientifically speaking, it doesn't make much sense to say "Pandas are Tibetan." And independent of anyone's feelings on these topics, the scientific statement is that species have ranges, not nationalities. Think of it this way, the species does what it does no matter what lines a government may draw. IH is correct to point out that governments and laws do have some effect on an organisms population, but that isn't part of the organism's nature. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Then I guess the nomenclaturists will need to rethink the names of the American green tree frog, the Australian green tree frog, the Burmese python, the Argentine Black and White Tegu, et al. Not to mention the Norwegian Blue parrot.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are common names, and not beholden to any of the bodies of scientific naming convention. But your point carries even in to binomial nomenclature, where there are myriad species with e.g. 'virginianus', 'sinensis', and other place-names as their specific epithet. But those are not establishing nationality, or even range. E.g. Odocoileus virginianus, the white-tailed deer, is not in any sense endemic to the state of Virginia (nor was it ever), and it is found currently across huge swaths of the USA. I haven't read up on any rules for place names use as specific epithets recently, but I think the idea is that it connotes a place where the species can be found, and that is all. All I'm pointing out is that "nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a country", and hence non-human animals do not have nationalities. To me, "Pandas are Tibetan" sounds like an association of nationality, and that's why I've responded how I have. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that "it connotes a place where the species can be found", what does that say about Strigiphilus garylarsoni? Matt Deres (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If garylarsoni is a place name, I want to go to there :) But seriously, naming after famous people is another reason why scientific names shouldn't be interpreted as containing much literal meaning about the organism (even though sometimes they do). SemanticMantis (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * All of this shows just how arbitrary national borders are. It is humans who need to carve up the earth, feel superior about being born inside an arbitrary set of lines, and build walls to prevent people born outside those lines from entering "their" country.  Pandas don't know or care about national borders.  They were living on Earth long before the first country existed, and if they're not driven to extinction, they'll be here long after the borders are redrawn.  --Bowlhover (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

New York Times West Side Plant
Apparently in 1959 the New York Times built a building called the "West Side Plant" in Manhattan near the Hudson River. Gay Talese mentions it in his book on the Times. I gather that at one point they considered moving all their offices there, but in fact they made rather limited use of it, and I believe it was eventually demolished.

I've marked it with a note in Commons:File:THE WEST SIDE OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK. THE NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN REGION IS ONE THE MOST CONGESTED URBAN... - NARA - 555742.jpg, where it is visible from a sign on the building. Can anyone work out (from the photo or otherwise) exactly where this was? I can't find an address online anywhere, and either (likely) the terrain has changed so much that I can't make sense of it from Google Earth or (less likely) I'm looking in totally the wrong place. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 06:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like it was at 40.7754°N, -73.9884°W. As you can see, the large apartment complex on the left side of the photo is still standing between 66th and 70th streets, and the group of low-rise apartment buildings behind the plant in the photo are those bounded by 61st and 64th streets and West End and Amsterdam (10th) avenues. (The building immediately behind it is clearly identifiable as this one.) Deor (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You got it! - Jmabel &#124; Talk 16:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Account registry of Louis XIII's household
I am looking for a list of the court expenditures of Louis XIII, and in particular a list of the pensions paid to courtiers. (The exact year doesn't matter to me.) I gather from scattered references in genealogical books (e.g, Thomas J. Laforest's Our French-Canadian Ancestors, Vol. 5, p. 104) that the household account registries have been published or archived somewhere. I did locate an online copy of Griselle's 1912 book État de la maison du roi Louis XIII, which is an exhaustive list of courtiers, but almost without exception it doesn't list any pensions. Can anyone help, or suggest where I could look? —Psychonaut (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * An Inventaire du registre « États d’officiers des Maisons des rois Louis XIII, Louis XIV et Louis XV, des Maisons des reines, etc. (1638-1725) is available, that's giving access to views of the original documents, through the Gallica archives website. I keep looking for more analytic and directly readable data. --Askedonty (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's pretty impressive! Yes, it looks like the information I seek is contained there, though it is exceedingly difficult to extract.  If you find a more accessible list, in digitized text, which simply maps names of people (or their positions) to their annual pensions, please let me know.  It would be nice to simply search, for example, for "André Du Chesne" and find that he received 2400 livres as Royal Geographer, or for "Royal Historiographer" and find that the position was occupied by Jean Puget de la Serre who received 2000 écus. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The following extract of Economie et finances sous l'Ancien Regime/ Guide chercheur (fr) describes what is what and which have been lost, or destroyed in the various archives. The royal household account registry Secrétariat d’État de la Maison du Roi is considered as a relatively small department before the reign of King Louis XIV, unfortunately, destruction des comptes de la monarchie pendant la Révolution or "accounts destroyed during the French Revolution" shows losses relative to the Louis XIII era, namely: Ecuries du Roi, 1598-1634, 117 vol., Officiers de la Maison du Roi, 1598-1634, 92 vol., Gages des secrétaires du Roi, 1629-1718, 45 vol. 1. It must be stated that accidental fires had already cost several important pieces of various parts of the archives of the state during the monarchy (L’incendie de 1737...) --Askedonty (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see—so the data I'm looking for might not exist any more, or at least not compiled in one place. Thanks for the information. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I hoped I could locate a kind of compilation like you were asking for, I know some must exist but I'm not able to find one in free access. Some of the missing data would have been compiled from other sources, like often, private correspondences. Those directories could not be exhaustive however, there so are many functions in the Royal house ( WP:Fr Maison du roi; the corresponding English article is similar only a bit less detailed ). The following tables could be useful to you perhaps : . (It's an edition 1789) --Askedonty (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)