Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 September 26

= September 26 =

1992 temple attacks in United Kingdom, Pakistan and Bangladesh
After the demolition of Babri Masjid, there were retaliatory attacks on Hindu temples in Great Britain, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

I am not able to find any recent coverage on the attacks in UK. who did those attacks, whether anybody was jailed and convicted in UK.

I know there will be no conviction in Pakistan. So, I am searching for UK related news only.

UK- https://www.upi.com/Archives/1992/12/09/Further-arson-attacks-on-religious-temples/2203723877200/

Mentioned at the end- https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/10/world/hindu-muslim-riots-intensify-troops-fire-at-crowds.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hindu-premises-targeted-in-third-night-of-arson-1562688.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/fears-grow-over-temple-attacks-1562566.html

Pakistan- https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/08/world/pakistanis-attack-30-hindu-temples.html

I want to find recent coverage on these attacks in Pakistan and whether anybody was convicted in United Kingdom. -- 04:27, 26 September 2021 ZebraaaLounge


 * The only UK reference I could find was to the Shree Krishna Mandir in West Bromwich, which was destroyed in an arson attack on 8 December 1992. £1.6m Hindu temple opens after 18 years (August 2010) describes the opening of the rebuilt mandir. I have found no mention of any arrests or prosecutions. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Acts
Today's featured picture, Santi Giovanni e Paolo al Celio, refers to non-apostle 4th century saints John and Paul. That article refers to their Acts but doesn't define or link to what Acts is. Is it an equivalent to a book of the bible such as Acts of the Apostles, is it just a reference to things done by saints, or what? And why is it in italics - which suggests to me it has some specific jargon meaning. The Acts disambiguation page doesn't appear to help. -- SGBailey (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I only see "acts of the synod", is that what you mean? In that case it refers to all the documents related to that synod. Act (document) is the closest I could find, but it may actually be a bit of a false friend, possibly introduced by a non-native speaker. The German word de:Akte covers very well what I think is meant in the article, but it doesn't translate well to "acts". --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was looking at the wrong article (I now see that you meant John and Paul), and may have indulged in overinterpretation. --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * John and Paul has in its lead para "The year of their martyrdom is uncertain according to their Acts; it occurred under Julian the Apostate (361–3)." -- SGBailey (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just throw in Acts of the Martyrs, and be quiet. --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Their lives are described in The Golden Legend, Volume IV. According to the Italian Wikipedia this source is derived from a passio – presumably from the Acts of the Martyrs – which it characterizes as confusa e leggendaria ("confused and the stuff of legend"). --Lambiam 10:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Should this be put in the article? -- SGBailey (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Without source we cannot present this characterization. My presumption that the passio referred to is from the Acts of the Martyrs is based on very high plausibility. Here, in an article said to be copied from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the John and Paul account is mentioned as part of the Acts of the Martyrs, but is classified as an interpolation instead of a passio. As I read the text in The Golden Legend, it does not identify a specific date for their martyrdom, which is not the same as stating that the date is uncertain. More research is needed to find the account in the Acts of the Martyrs. Since the historicity of these Saints is extremely dubious, ascertainment of their supposed death dates would not seem to be a pressing concern. If you have a Scribd account, Section IV, Di una probabile fonte della leggenda dei ss. Giovanni e Paolo, of this article by Pio Franchi de' Cavalieri may identify the passio referred to. --Lambiam 17:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That article is really poorly referenced (no citations for specific claims, just a link to some encyclopaedia articles that don't clarify the question the OP is asking). I've added a No footnotes banner to the page. Iapetus (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * "their Acts" means "the entry for them in Acta Sanctorum", which is referenced as "Acta SS., V, June, 159-60 — cf. ibid., 37-9" in the out-of-copyright 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article which is the basis of the Wikipedia article. "V, June, 158-63" of the cited 1709 edition seems to correspond to  VII June 138–42 of the 1867 edition; "ibid., 37-9" corresponds to "ibid., 33–5". jnestorius(talk) 21:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Charges against Julius Caesar prior to the crossing of the Rubicon river
Greetings! Hopefully this question finds you well, prospective answer-er! I was skimming through a few articles pertaining to the career of Julius Caesar, looking to understand why he was so reluctant to give up his governorship (and immunity to prosecution) to lawfully enter Italy. From what I understand, Caesar committed several infractions against the Roman rule of law during his consulship, earning the enminty of the conservative senate establishment in the process. My question is what were the charges that Caesar would have opened to prosecution should he have relinquished his command and thereby his immunity? 2601:583:8300:28F0:1D83:16FE:4727:810E (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As described in Chapter 20 of Suetonius' account of the life of Julius Caesar, the consul resorted to practices that would befit a Mafia boss: isolation – effectively elimination – of his co-consul by physical violence, extortion, bribery, intimidation, false imprisonment and possibly ordering a hit job, all to get his way. --Lambiam 16:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarification needed for the term "FUND OF FUNDS"
As it relates to Closed End Funds (CEFS) and Exchange Traded Funds (ETFS). The use of the Fund Of Funds (FOF) seems to be used loosely by many authors. Seems to me the use of that term is in the eye of the beholder. An example, I have seen the following funds described by the author as a FOF. YYY, SPE,RIV,PCF,FOF, and many more.

I would appreciate more clarification as noted below. 1.	The primary fund (FOF) must hold a minimum of two other funds in order to hold the title of FOF? 2.	The two funds could compromise 5% each of the portfolio. The remaining 90% could be all individual stocks or cash and it could still hold the title? 3.	An Exchange Traded Note (ETN) could also hold the title? Example CEFD and BDCX. 4.	Could the following funds hold the title? ALTY, HIPS, HNDL and MDIV? I think so. 5.	A fund like HNDL holds all Index ETFs. I believe this should hold the title?

Any help or comments would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.27.228 (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Fund of funds is just an informal term for an investment fund that invests in other investment funds. It is not a rigorously defined term. Usually it is understood to be an investment fund that invests most or all of its assets in multiple other investment funds but, depending on context, it could refer to a fund that invests only a portion of its assets in other investment funds or that invests all of its assets in a single investment fund. An ETN is not a fund of funds, because it is not an investment fund. HNDL invests primarily in ETFs, which are investment funds, so it clearly is a fund of funds. Your other examples have holdings that include investment funds, so they may or may not be characterized as funds of funds. John M Baker (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The term usually refers to investment funds that direct money to hedge funds that in term invests the money. Bernie Madoff, for example, relied on such bundlers. Affected investors didn't always know that they were putting money in his fund as a result. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, that’s one kind of fund of funds, but there are plenty of mutual funds, ETFs, etc., that are funds of funds. John M Baker (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The only one of the OP's acronyms even remotely related to finance (at least here on Wikipedia) is RIV: residual income valuation, which is not a fund of any kind, but a way of determining value. A fund of funds, as the name defines it, is a financial instrument (a mutual fund, unit trust, equity traded funds, etc) that only invests in other mutual funds / unit trusts / etc; it does not invest directly in shares, bonds, real estate, derivatives, or companies (private equity). It may, as per the terms of its creation, hold cash or cash equivalent (e.g., money market funds).DOR (HK) (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

How do you become an economically stable and prosperous African country from nowhere without the intervention of colonial powers?
Lets say you're an African tribe in the middle of the Sahara, The year is 1765. The name is Qolulu and you just started existing, you probably have an abundance of resources but do not have the tools required to extract them, what do you do first to get onto your foot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Saffron (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Many African kingdoms were stable and prosperous before the interventions by colonial powers, so I assume that you mean the Qolulu are being spared such interventions. But what is their back story and what is their situation in 1765? Can they defend themselves against enslaving raids? Do the Qolulu possess territory and are they able to defend it, also against other(?) Bedouin and Berber tribes? Do they not have a semi-nomadic culture? If not, how come? Can they read and write? Have they established contact with outsiders? Can they trade with them? Also, the Sahara is rather arid. The powerful and prosperous Garamantes kingdom broke up when their source of water diminished due to increasing desertification. Even with present technological expertise and industrial tools it is not at all easy to extract resources from the middle of the Sahara. --Lambiam 16:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hypothetically, maybe the backstory would be that the Qolulu would be an African tribe that sprung in 1521 and would settle a territory north of the Songhai Empire. They would build tents from animal skin and mat, and would be largely agrarian, producing numerous goods such as olive, date palms, and oleanders. They are semi-nomadic, and have portable dwellings, however there are camps and small settlements near the regions that are arable. They are able to defend themselves from attackers, and produce spears made from sharpened sticks. However, numerous raids from the Hausa and Bornu tribes would commonly plunder their crops and massacre their population from time to time. In 1765, they would hit another blow from the Berber tribes, they would pillage, enslave, massacre some of their population, at this rate, they would collapse. But for the point-on lets say with goodwill the remaining nomadic groups centered and would permanently settle a village in a cultivated area. They are suffering from de-population and food shortage, what would they do to get back to their former status and economic boom? If it is not possible, how long would it take for them to collapse? @User:Lambiam --Pink Saffron (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are too many unknowns, and any concrete answer would depend on baseless speculation. But as long as they are malnourished, they won't be able to accomplish anything much beyond bare survival. So a first priority would be to ensure a regular sufficient food supply. --Lambiam 21:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is going to be able to find a reference for this one. Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Qolulu doesn't have the geography to make much progress during the Industrial Revolution. The tribe's best bet is to set about conquering other tribes and selling their people into slavery. (I do not advocate slavery.) DOR (HK) (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The investments that fueled the Industrial Revolution were financed with capital accumulated from the slave trade, so the ability to participate is more than a geographical issue. Also, next to financial capital this also requires human capital: accumulated manufacturing and engineering know-how. --Lambiam 23:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the U.S. government will finally go broke.
In this discussion about a year and a half ago Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2020_April_17 the consensus was the U.S. gov won't go broke defaulting on its debts and giving stimulus packages because it's not like other economies. This new article seems to imply something pretty bad will happen to the economy soon https://abc7chicago.com/11038406/ Are some of the arguments from the old discussion still valid? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Any defaulting will be due to the failure of Congress to raise a self-imposed debt ceiling. The warning by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget should be seen as a plea to US senators not to be obstructionist and shipwreck the economy in order to score a politico-ideological point. --Lambiam 16:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The US Federal Government will default on its debts on the day that it is no longer governed by the US Constitution. That document prohibits the failure to repay federal debt. As such, money must be "printed" (to use the archaic term) in sufficient quantity to ensure that all who wish to cash in their Treasury bills (etc), or to receive interest payments, may do so. In practice, that means prioritizing other obligations, such as paying Republican Senators who don't understand basic economics. DOR (HK) (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The US Federal Government cannot lawfully just print money, but it may lawfully mint coins; hence the idea of the trillion-dollar coin. --Lambiam 23:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be most of them. I'd like to know what clause in the Constitution prohibits defaulting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Fourteenth Amendment, under some interpretations. See this analysis from Duke Law School.-- Jayron 32 01:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That would put the obstructionist Republicans in violation of the Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not for the first time, either. DOR (HK) (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Why all those companies out there become public? Does all those companies really need money, and not only that but need in a way that must be acquired by IPO, with no other means being a choice?
Why all those companies out there become public?

Does all those companies really need money, and not only that but need in a way that must be acquired by IPO, with no other means being a choice?

Is there any laws that mess with free market and artificially create the need of companies go public, or something like that?179.183.34.76 (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Normally companies are under no statutory requirement to conduct a public offering, and they typically have access to other sources of funding. But shareholders prefer the company to go public, because that makes their shares more liquid and more valuable. John M Baker (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I establish a company and it is successful. A fair value is a billion dollars, which I would like to have, but I don't want to (or cannot) sell my company. By listing it on the stock market, I am able to both sell part of the company (perhaps for only part of that billion dollars, but at least something) and also to retain control (assuming I sell only a small minority share of the company). I now have both my company and a lot of money, which I can spend on toys and fun, or reinvest in the company. DOR (HK) (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * What's the biggest company where the part they sell is inferior to the part they keep? Do they ever do that? i.e. turn 45% of the right to dividends into class A shares which have 50.000001% of the votes and sell the rest as class B. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * According to this [] Nov 2019 report, the soon-to-be-listed Saudi Armamco IPO would sell 1.5% of the shares for US$25.6 billion. That was based on an estimated value of $1.77 trillion, which ended up at $1.88 trillion, making 1.5% worth more than $28 billion. DOR (HK) (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * When Google went public, I heard it was partly because its size and activities incurred enough SEC paperwork that going public would add little to the burden. —Tamfang (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Mystery Word Heard on Religious Audible Book
I am interested in learning more about a word spoken on the Audible version of The Book of Revelation: An Expositional Commentary by Dr. Chuck Missler. He quoted Professor Frank Tipler (professor of physics at Tulane University), a former atheist who wrote on the physics of immortality and "proved" that resurrection is possible via "the physics of the atomic structure". Missler quoted 1 John 3:2 (... we do not yet appear what we shall be...) from the Bible and mentioned the term Oh-cool-TIH-ree-un (my best attempt at the phonetic spelling of it) or he could have said Oh-coo-TIH-ree-un. I've tried many Google searches including "occulturian, occulterian, occultirian, occulturien, ochuturian, ochuturien, oculturian, ocuturien," etc. The mystery word is spoken at the 21:22 (minute/second) time marker in Chapter 10 of Missler's audio book. I have not been able to find a single word that comes close to the pronunciation heard on the audio book. Has anyone else heard this word or know what it means? I would greatly appreciate any help with finding the correct spelling and a definition of this highly intriguing word. 65.188.51.49 (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * occultrian? Occult. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If either of those characters is still among the living, maybe you could ask them? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alas, it seems Dr Chuck has left us. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you quote a sentence or two of context? Also, which syllable is stressed? —Amble (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Is this online anywhere? (Besides here.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Missler only mentioned oh-cool-TIH-ree-un as a term we (readers) should know. The context has to do with Biblical resurrection. I'm still listening to the book for further mention or an explanation of the word. This book is not available in written format and I'm not sure an audio book can be made searchable. I will upload an audio clip of the word as soon as possible. I appreciate all responses.2603:6080:B601:8ECB:1CB2:5369:AD68:7B71 (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia will not allow me to upload the audio clip because I haven't yet received permission from Koinonia House publishing. StephonieHoover (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You might be able to record it via your PC's microphone and then upload that generic clip. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Missler's audio book eventually revealed that the mystery word is Greek—oiketerion—and it means a type of habitation. A hearty thanks to all responders2603:6080:B601:8ECB:1CB2:5369:AD68:7B71 (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We have an article on that: Oiketerion. —Amble (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That article defines it specifically as meaning "heavenly body", but in Ancient Greek the term simply meant "dwelling" in general, and not specifically a heavenly abode – let alone a heavenly body, which means something like a natural object in the sky like a star or a comet. The New International Version translates it as "dwelling", both in Jude 6 and in 2 Corinthians 5:2. In the latter passage, the translation has "our heavenly dwelling", but that is because the source text specifies it as such: , after having contrasted it with a terrestrial  house.  --Lambiam 11:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That particular problem with the article comes in with this edit from 2016: . There are other issues, too: for example, the citation links for the two verses are swapped; and in general, this seems like it belongs in Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia. --Amble (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)