Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 29

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 29

Buddhists and Christians Bangladesh

Is Chittagong Division the only division of Bangladesh where there is big concentration of Buddhists and Christians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.233 (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the articles Buddhism in Bangladesh and Christianity in Bangladesh, the short answers seem to be "Yes" for the Buddhists, and "Maybe" for the Christians. In both cases, the numbers are but a small percentage of the whole population. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Arab Christians

Are Maronite Church and Copt Church the only ones that are practice by Arab Christians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.233 (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

See Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians. The short answer is "No". ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many Lutheran Arabs in occupied Palestine. They belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan & the Holy Land. They are most certainly neither Maronites nor Copts. Edison (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

speech

I am trying to recall the specifics of a speech that I believe was given during the Vietnam era. As I remember it, the speaker began by railing against loss of morals, students protesting, etc., and audience members concurred enthusiastically. Then he turned the argument on its head by identifying the author of those words as Adolf Hitler. Who was the speaker, and is the speech online? Lesgles (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like something taken from The Third Wave. Dismas|^(talk) 06:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I somehow thought it was a politician's speech, but it's possible that was it. Lesgles (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Third Wave was my instinct too, but you might be interested in a similar thing that happened MUCH more recently. Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment makes for a fascinating read. The audio of the program is available online, but I haven't listened to it (I generally try and stay away from things that sicken me) Belisarius (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The person giving the speech was Emmett Grogan, and he describes the incident in his autobiography Ringolevio.Rhinoracer (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a related quote you might be interested in:

The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for

authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their

legs, and are tyrants over their teachers.

This complaint has been attributed to Socrates[1], who lived about 2500 years ago. How little has changed.  :) -- noosphere 00:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Either of us is v. Either of us are

I searched for both terms using Google and found 40k results for the former and 50k for the latter. So it seems there isn't a clear answer. Which is grammatically proper?

59.108.96.242 (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Traditional grammar requires that either take a singular verb: "either of us is", "either of us does", etc.[2] In everyday usage, hence on the internet, one often hears either with a plural verb, but I would avoid it in writing. Lesgles (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you use the phrase either one of us the singular verb comes more naturally. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Compare with "None of us is..." v. "None of us are..." Although I couldn't bring myself to write "None of us are..." I'm afraid it might sometimes get past my lips. Don't, by the way, trust the simple number of google hits to tell you what is good English. For instance, 'disenfranchise' has nearly thirty times as many hits as 'disfranchise', although the second is a far better word and also shorter. Xn4 (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion that disfranchise is a better word, but whether it's generally accepted as a proper word is another matter entirely. "Disenfranchise" is the counterpart of "enfranchise", which is about permitting people to vote. It has nothing to do with the the verb "to franchise", which is about business operations like KFC. I'm not aware there even is a verb meaning the opposite of "franchise", but I guess "disfranchise" is as good as any in that context. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A question about president William Henry Harrison

Can somebody tell me in a few sentences about his inaugural address [3] what does he talking about? 132.66.100.61 (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph in William Henry Harrison#Shortest presidency was added a couple of days back: "The inaugural address itself was a detailed statement of the Whig agenda, essentially a repudiation of Jackson and Van Buren's policies. Harrison promised to re-establish the Bank of the United States and extend its capacity for credit by issuing paper currency (Henry Clay's American System); to defer to the judgment of Congress on legislative matters, with sparing use of his veto power; and to reverse Jackson's "spoils system" of executive patronage, which meant using the power of patronage to create a qualified staff, not to enhance of his own standing in government." Jay (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How did the US cope in WWII with two fronts and long supply lines?

Fighting at two fronts is a bad idea, which is why the USSR made a non-agression pact with first Germany and then (when that didn't hold) with Japan. That Germany was now fighting on two fronts is seen as a major reason they lost the war. Also, they were held back by long supply lines, as happened to the USSR when it started its own offensive (Operation Bagration) and the western allies in Operation Overlord and especially Market Garden. Having read up on WWII I in the last two weeks, I understand that these are (were?) two major issues in warfare. The above are just some of the major examples.

However, the US fought on two fronts, both across an ocean. So how did the country cope? It deployed far fewer troops than the Germans or the USSR (I believe, although I haven't found any precise figures on this yet). So was it purely material superiority (at sea and/or in the air)? Or are supply lines across oceans easier somehow? Which might also explain how Japan could fight over a 10.000 km wide front. Or is it that the US fought mainly on one front, namely against Japan, which I understand was the case? But that still leaves the long supply lines. Big navy with lots of supply ships? I'm just guessing now. Amrad (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Supplying soldiers over land tends to be more tedious due to the inability to transport quantity with speed. During WWII, nearly everything from food to weapons to men were moved from the U.S. to either European or Pacific theater via Naval transport. The aviation technology level during that period restricted aircraft designed for airlift to just 2,560nm at 173mph cruising speed in the case of the C-46 Commando. The distance between New York, NY and London, England, for example, is 3,016nm making the airlift to the closest theater impossible. Even if the range of the C-46 Commando was extended to 3,100nm (to allow for reserve fuel requirements), the C-46 Commando would only be able to lift roughly 10,000 pounds of cargo as quite generous estimate. On the other hand, the US Navy moved more than 17,000 tons (34,000,000 pounds) of cargo across the sea at a time in the General G. O. Squier class transport ship.

So now that we have the quantity question answered, let me discuss raw production. In the 1940s, it was almost considered scandalous for a woman to work in a factory or nearly anywhere else but the home. After the Attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt roused the nation to a wartime stance, and women answered the call of the factories and foundries while the US Military drafted the men. At the beginning of World War II, the US was under equipped, not well trained, and generally considered a third class military. Do largely to the monsterous production ability demonstrated during the war, the U.S. found itself emerging at the end of the war as a very well equipped, highly trained, technologically advanced, military power like no other the world had ever seen.

To condense these two paragraphs down to a one liner, long supply lines and multiple fronts are never good things in military strategy and tactics. However, the U.S. overcame or mitigated those problems by overwhelming production, transporting in huge quantities, and doing so in a steadfast, relentless manner. Hope that answers the question you had. Operator873 (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To add some details. Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945) will explain some of the problems with supply by ship: Germany's submarine fleet made supply by sea very dangerous, but Allied persistence, improvements in tactics, and some luck (e.g. in codebreaking) kept supplies coming. Scattered through the Invasion of Normandy pages there is quite a lot about the amazing logistical feats involved in supplying the troops (e.g. Mulberry harbour, Operation Pluto). As mentioned above the USA's unrivalled industrial strength (remember it was building many of the vehicles used by the Soviet army too) and a lot of innovation by Allied engineers made possible an incredibly difficult invasion.

Sea transport is still the method favored for heavy cargoes today; those fighting on land in Europe had to depend largely on the railways, which were vulnerable to bombing and sabotage, or by road, which also suffered from destruction of bridges, damage to the road surface, snow, traffic jams, etc. Attempts at air supply were generally last resorts, such as the successful (but costly - 265 German aircraft lost) German efforts at Demyansk Pocket and the failure in the Battle of Stalingrad. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To add to the previous answers: Supply be sea is vastly superior, but only once you have control of the sea and air. The Normandy Invasion, for example, couldn't take place until the German U-boats were effectively neutralized. Similarly, we couldn't take on Japan directly in any meaningful way until the Japanese navy and air force were taken out. Since the Japanese could build runways for planes on islands and harass nearby shipping, this made the "island hopping campaign" necessary, where the Japanese were pushed off of each island and the island was then converted into a US base. StuRat (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be an exceptionally interesting book to write, on the creation of the massive supply system that was needed by WWII. It is exactly the sort of topic I would steer a PhD student interested in WWII towards—I am sure there is a wealth of archival material available and I am sure it was a much more complicated story than the above explanations (which boil down to "they produced a lot"—which we knew, but that does not explain how they worked out the logistics, the transportation, etc., or whether it was a sticking point amongst politicians, the military, what have you, which it surely must have been, given the immense size of it). I can't think of any other war in which the US was geographically stretched so thin while waging such a comprehensive war—and no doubt it necessitated quite a few changes from what they had been managing previously (the scope of WWII is really incomparable to any other previous war, in terms of US involvement). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(Of course, after writing the above, I checked on ProQuest and just this last year there was a dissertation written on the US Army Quartermaster Corps and the development of the WWII logistical system, but anyway, I haven't looked at it.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the Western European theater was smaller than the Eastern European theater. In the West, troops could be measured I believe in the hundreds of thousands. In the East, troops were measured in the millions. In other words, it was easier for the US to fight a two front war than Germany because it didn't require as many resources. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just jumping in here to say that in olden days User:Clio the Muse would have given a fine scholarly answer to this question. Edison (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think two major points in the US's favor for a two front war are that unlike the other major players in WW2, the US's production base didn't really come under attack (contrast with bombing raids in Germany and Great Britain) which is a fun pretext for this link: Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote The other is that the two fronts were almost two halves of a war - Japan and the rise of naval airpower; and Europe with sub warfare and primarily a land war (not to suggest either "half" was exclusively in any domain). If you simply can make more - say, as World_War_II_aircraft_production suggests - well, not to underplay the logistic wonders pulled off, but when you start off with twice of something... also of interest may be Enigma machine - compare and contrast Germans moving materials via trains (kind of predictable, what with those rails) versus the US shipping given directions where subs hunting them were (although it's a substantially more complex subject then I suggest - do you think the German command might've suspected something was up when their subs went months without sinking ships? So the question becomes - how many transports can you redirect without effectively expressing that the jig is up? Information warfare and Information theory don't scream their relevance, perhaps someone with better search-fu can point out the ITheory in WW2 article if it exists. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Having read a bit more about it, it seems that the US wasn't anywhere near the military superpower it is now, which makes the feat more exceptional. I wonder what other country the US would have been comparable to? One of the bigger European counties? For example, more English than US soldiers took part in the invasion of Normandy. Also, a lot of the innovating was done in the UK (such as the breaking of the enigma code), but I assume the US benefited from that too (although the need for secrecy may have been an issue in telling too many people). I suppose the strength of the US was more material and one important reason for that might indeed be that the country had no home front, so the industry could expand unhindered. And the US big, so it had a lot of natural resources. Btw, this might explain the rise of the US as a military superpower after WWII. Once the factories and the whole military infrastructure were in place and undamaged (and no need to rebuild the country), it was very easy to continue in the same vein and come out on top while the other countries were busy ovrecoming the destruction and loss of young lives. (The notion that the USSR was an equal superpower was untrue, but of course it was to the benefit of both, for the one as national pride and for the other to have an enemy.)

Concerning the US having to fight a smaller war in Europe than Germany had to on the eastern front, that is rather my point - Germany collapsed after it had to start fighting on the 'second front' (the western front) as well. (And the same goes for Japan, as you point out.) That suggests that it isn't so much the size of the war on the western front, but the fact that there were now two fronts. And the same goes for the US. Amrad (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Normandy was the opening of a third front, not a second. North Africa and the Italian campaign was the second front. Rmhermen (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Help finding a translated journal article!

I need to read Robert Vivarelli's "Italia liberale e fascismo: Considerazioni su di una recente storia d'Italia" (in Rivista storica italiana 82 (1970) pages 669-703) in English. BASICALLY does anyone know where I would find translated journal articles? I find it so frustrating somebody has used an Italian source in an English journal without providing a place to find a translation 79.78.63.238 (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think there is a translation? This doesn't sound like an article, or a journal, for a general audience, and those who have a professional interest in Italian history are very likely able to read the language. Anyway, his name is Roberto Vivarelli. DAVID ŠENEK 11:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It pertains to the history of fascism which is a global, or at least European, issue. Besides, the citation which pointed me to this article was an English language one by Roberto Vivarelli published by University of Chicago Press...

And I'm not assuming there is a translation, I'm hoping for somebody to show me where I would find such an article if a translation exists. 79.78.63.238 (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I can get you a copy of the original article if you want to try to get it translated on your own. To answer your more general question, there isn't a journal where translated works are published. If the author becomes famous/popular/distinguished enough to warrant an anthology then there may be translations made for the articles that are collected. Otherwise it is up to the scholar in the discipline to either learn the language or have articles translated on their own.--droptone (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn, thank-you for that answer. I've since managed to find sufficient information elsewhere and I wouldn't be able to translate it in time anyway, but thank-you for the offer. 79.78.21.241 (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

poem by Michael Longley

Does anyone know in which book (or magazine?) Michael Longley's poem The Civil Servant was (first) published? The text is available on several websites, but I couldn't find any bibliographic source. -- 95.112.183.248 (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the poem 'Wreaths', which was published in his 1979 collection 'The Echo Gate', which has a page listing magazines in which the poems were earlier published. That's all I can discern from Google Books, unfortunately. Algebraist 14:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! -- 95.112.183.248 (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is Jesus also known as "King of the Jews"?

INRI (King of the Jews) was inscribed on the cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified.. Why Jews?? Jews also worship him? Is regarded as a God by Jewish people too? Also was Christ born Jew? Are Judaism and Christaianity related? Didn't Jews reject Christ's newly created religion- Christianity? Then how come Jews were hated by the Christian world in the medieval times? Also were Jews in any way responsible for His crucifixion? Everyone please pardon me, but I am very ignorant about both Judaism and Christianity... a few questions which I may have posed could be totally unrelated and "plain stupid"... sorry again --Sanguine learner ^talk 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't fault you for asking questions, I will just mention that there's a giant encyclopedia here what covers all of the topics in much more detail than any amount of answering on the Reference Desk can supply. Start with INRI which you linked and go from there; there are literally dozens of articles to study. --LarryMac | Talk 18:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right...I tried reading the articles but they are so complicated and cumbersome...the very idea of going through the articles gives me jitters! Well the problem is I have zero background knowledge about this, however the articles are written as if the reader already knows this and that...the more I read the more I feel confused and get lost midway!--Sanguine learner ^talk 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer your main question, he isn't, at least not among Episcopalians or any Christian church I know about. I was taught in Sunday School many years ago that the title "King of the Jews" was given him in derision by the Romans torturing him and matched the "crown" of thorns he was forced to wear. His "kingdom" was Heaven, not any place here on Earth, and the Romans (and the Jews, for that matter) misunderstood that. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll also take a stab at a bit more; Jesus did not "create a new religion". He inspired it, perhaps, but most would say it was Saint Paul who did more to create the religion. And yes, it's all very complex and cumbersome, which is one reason why discussion of religion often devolves into argument. --LarryMac | Talk 18:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Easy answer: Jesus himself claimed to be the king of the Jews. Let's begin with Zechariah 9:9 in the Old Testament — know that Christians accept the Jewish holy book, calling it the Old Testament, plus some non-Jewish texts, calling them together the New Testment. Go now to Matthew 21 in the New Testament, written hundreds of years after Zechariah, which talks about Jesus' life and teachings. Matthew 21 has Jesus saying that the Zechariah passage, which spoke of a king of the Jews, was speaking of what he was about to do — in short, Jesus says that the Zechariah passage was calling him the king of the Jews. For one more thing, look at Luke 23:3, also from the New Testament: in this passage, someone asks Jesus if he is the king of the Jews, and he says that the questioner is correct. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)First off, Jesus most definitely was born into a Jewish family. The Christian Old Testament basically is the Jewish Tanakh, the Jewish Bible (composed of the Torah, the Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim). Christians believe that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophesies of a Jewish messiah, "a future King of Israel from the Davidic line, who will rule the people of united tribes of Israel and herald the Messianic Age". A small number of Jews formed a cult around Jesus-the-messiah, which eventually grew into Christianity (it can be argued that Christianity become a separate religion, as opposed to a branch of Judaism, when they opened up membership to non-Jews). The people who stayed Jews deny the claim that he was the messiah, (as do Muslims, Atheists, and other non-Christians) and are either waiting for the true messiah, or don't think there will be one. (There are complications on that though - see Jews for Jesus.) The New Testament (which Christians believe in, but Jews do not) claims that the Jewish high priests were upset that people were claiming Jesus was the messiah, and had the roman judge Pontius Pilate execute Jesus (the Romans ruled the area at the time. According to our INRI article, INRI was the charge under which he was crucified. Claiming to be King of the Jews was illegal enough at the time for Pilate to have him crucified. If you read John 19:21-22 in the New Testament, you'll see that the some of the Jewish people didn't like INRI, complaining that instead of just "King of the Jews" it should have been "claims to be King of the Jews". As far as medieval Christians not liking Jews, this is true for a web of complex reasons. A major factor was that Jews were wealthy and influential due to usury laws (written by Christians) which prohibited Christians from becoming bankers, but allowed Jews to do so. However, the oft-quoted reason was that medieval Christians blamed the Jews for having Jesus executed. (It sounds like flimsy reasoning because it is.) This is rehashed at length in the antisemitism article. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(ECx2) I will answer from a non-religious POV:

1) Are Judaism and Christianity related ? Absolutely, in that Christianity is a split off of Judaism. So is Islam, BTW, a few centuries later. All three are sometimes called the "Abrahamic religions", as they all descend from the teachings of Abraham.

2) Was Christ born Jewish ? Yes, and he also lived and died Jewish, as the Christian religion wasn't founded until after his death.

3) Jews also worship him ? Not any more, no. Once the Christian Church was founded in Rome, anyone believing in either the teachings of Christ or those of the Church were called Christians.

4) Is Christ regarded as a God by Jewish people too ? No, but he is thought of as a profit to some Jews and Muslims.

5) Didn't Jews reject Christ's newly created religion- Christianity ? Some did. Others converted, once the Church was established. There was a period, before the Church was founded and after Christ began his teachings, where one could be both Jewish and believe in the teachings of Christ. At that time, Christianity could be considered a sect of Judaism. So, like you can be a Mormon and be Christian, you could be a Christian and be Jewish.

6) Were Jews in any way responsible for His crucifixion ? In a way. The Romans were in control of the area, but allowed the Jews to govern themselves to a limited extent in this period. Some Jews considered Christ's teachings to be blasphemy (going against the word of God), as they do conflict with much of the Old Testament. Thus he was tried and executed. However, that only means that those Jews who arranged for the trial and execution bear responsibility, not the other Jews around at the time and certainly not Jews alive today. Also note that it seemed to be part of God's plan, according to Christianity, for Jesus to be crucified and rise from the dead. So, those few Jews who were responsible were actually fulfilling God's plan.

7) How come Jews were hated by the Christian world in the medieval times ? Not just Jews were hated, so were Muslims and anyone else of a different religion. After Martin Luther (not Martin Luther King), the Protestants and Catholics hated and killed each other. Religion has a tendency to organize collective hatred and murder of "The Other".

8) So, why was Jesus the "King of the Jews" ? Well, he was a Jew, who was considered to figuratively be a king, thus he was the King of the Jews. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Islam isn't really a split from Judaism; although it finds its heritage in Judaism, the first Muslims were former polytheists, not Jews. Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I consider the heritage to be more important than the former religion of those who converted. Also note that most of those who converted to Christianity were polytheists (AKA "pagans") in Europe. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In the first century or two after the birth of Jesus, there were Jews in the Holy Land who considered him to be the Messiah. Christians were just a portion of the worshipping Jews. Some gentiles also considered Jesus to be the Son of God. Edison (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth emphasizing that, in title, the Romans were in charge of a (presumably) subjected land; from this perspective, it's not a large step to compare it to any other nation putting down the local royalty - imagine William Wallace being crucified at the end of Braveheart with "The King of the Scotts," (it's an idea in broad strokes) or Saddam Hussein with "The King of the Iraqis." The message to the people is very clear, and makes modern discussion regarding waterboarding pale in comparison. The Romans wanted to make something very clear - the opportunity cost of dissent with Roman rule was massive, and this what they could and would do to the greatest among the dissenters - how well would the common man fare? Think of it as the counter-insurgency equivalent to an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. Further, if one is willing to accept Biblical accounts with some historicity, the Jewish history is filled with cycles of a prophet showing up, and the Jews going on a victory-filled rampage that occasionally otherwise removed oppressors from history. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If one is willing to take Bible as historically accurate source (and it seams you are) then what you wrote is completely wrong. Bible says that when Jewish sanhedrin (council of Jewish elders) brought Jesus in front of Pilate under their charges Pilate questioned Jesus and on question (paraphrased, not direct quote) "Are you king of Jews?" Jesus responded "My kingdom is not here on Earth, it is in heaven". Pilate freed him of all charges but since sanhedrin insisted, he gave in on their demands, but not before he publicly "washed his hands" from this man's blood.

It also might be worth noting that Jesus had to flee because of charges of being "King of Jews", but much earlier than his crucifixion, when he was infant. Once again, all of this is valid only if Bible is historically accurate (which I very much doubt, Bible was edited by early Church to present Jesus in light they wanted him to be seen in).Melmann^(talk) 13:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Shriners

If all of you will permit another religious question...I know that the Shriners, an American-based secret society related to the Masons, aren't necessarily Muslims, and probably Muslims members are a tiny minority if there are any. Just curious: does anyone know what Muslims in the USA (or anywhere else that there are both Muslims and Shriners) think of the Shriners? Has any study, news report, etc. ever been done on Muslims-and-Shriners? This was prompted by a discussion on historic sites in the USA, where it appears that of the three "mosques" on the National Register of Historic Places, two are Shriner centers and only one is an actual Muslim mosque. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

See [4]. Wrad (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange religious statues

I was in Salvador, Brazil recently and I visited Igreja do Sao Francisco. I believe that is where I saw these statues, but my memory might be off. Anyway, there was a courtyard in the back of the church, and there was a alter-like thing behind metal grating, and inside of that were several candles and small statues and busts. The faces off the statues were obscured by this strange muzzle-like contraption that was strapped both horizontally around the head and vertically, up around the nose and over the back of the head. I'm sorry I can't describe it any better or point one to a picture of what I'm talking about, but it was pretty strange and distinct so I'm wondering if my description rings any bells for anyone...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.74.247.249 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like Santería or possibly Voodoo. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Science fiction short stories

Hello, I am trying to track down two science fiction short stories, have spent ages looking!

1. concerns a manager in a department store in which a replicator suddenly appears, the replicators keep changing the dynamics of marketing but he keeps one step ahead all the time identifying new scarcities

2. astronauts land on a planet and make friends with the primitive natives but when it starts to rain torrentially they discover that the natives turn into plants to see out the flood period

Would be very grateful if you could tell me the titles and authors of these stories if they ring a bell with someone

and would be grateful for a reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.144.59 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC) ((Deleted email address (a)because we don't respond to email addresses, but here and (b) to protect the OP from spam.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Number two sounds like a plot element from Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't get satisfactory answers here, try the Usenet group rec.arts.sf.written (you can post to it through Google Groups if your ISP doesn't have Usenet service). Include YASID ("yet another story ID") in the message header. Few indeed are the stories that the people there won't recognize, often from the scantiest of hints. Deor (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Number one is probably Bruce Sterling's Kiosk, although per the title, it's a street kiosk, not a department store. 128.148.38.26 (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Koran question

Is there any rough equivalent in the Koran to the quote on my userpage? I've looked but I just don't know the book well enough. Wrad (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A few searches for some key words at [5] haven't produced anything relevant - you may have better luck. Exxolon (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you search for hope instead of dream -- which are not dissimilar in that context -- you will find a verse (104) in An,nisa' (النساء) Sura, a little close to that proverb. --Omidinist (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)