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.
In his 1978 book "A Dangerous Place," Moynihan said: “The true diplomatist [is] aware of how much subsequently depends on what clearly can be established to have taken place. If it seems simple in the archives, try it in the maelstrom.” I'm wondering if anyone has read this book and can tell me what page (or even approximately where in the book) this quote appears on. Thanks.128.2.66.228 (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i am researching on food policies and looking for case studies on food policies, everywhere on internet i find the general definition of food policies, but not any examples of some of the most common policies.
Could you explain in a little more detail what you mean by "food policies"? There are any number of topics that could get you in the right direction, but given such a broad topic, it is impossible to give you any useful information. If you could tell us specifically what you are researching, we could aim you in a better direction. --Jayron3205:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i mean , any government policy that affects nutrition.
Policies related to schools, food labels, agriculture, advertising, education, the military, taxes, transportation, government spending, sales of food, research, etc can all affect nutrition.
please help me research something , about any specific policy that affects nutrition.i am looking for a policy that has Directly observable effects, the military spending or govt. spending does not have clearly identifiable link to nutrition.
And drilling down a bit to Pakistan-specific resources, you might look at this Agricultural Perspective and Policy (pdf) document from the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock. It gives an outline of all the ways the Government of Pakistan is involved in food and agriculture issues that affect nutrition – funding research into more productive crops, ensuring food security, regulating fertilizers and pesticides, promoting crops that don’t require a lot of water, soil desalination and clean-up, regulations to prevent plant and livestock diseases, taxes, subsidies…
Mykonos appears to be correct; the picture at right matches up with the scene that begins at 0:28 in the video - they both have that pier near the building with the large brown roof clearly visible. Thank you. However, do you think you could be more specific in your source of information than "Google?" Garrett Albright (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umph, I think I put down "stereo love video location" or something similar as the search string and the first hit I got was from some forum discussion on this where one person figured it could be Mykonos. Can't seem to find the exact link again... Sorry :/ TomorrowTime (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read this article written by Alan Dershowitz regarding the recent passport fraud allegedly perpetrated by Israel in a successful plot to assassinate Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. In light of the recent summons/expulsion of Irish + Australian Israeli diplomats, does Dershowitz make a valid point and is such action by the aforementioned governments merely meant to quell uninformed nations, or is his point invalid and the governments are truly outraged? DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)12:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passport fraud undermines sovereignty, for it undermines a state's ability to protect its citizens. Now, I'm sure he's right that many intelligence agencies use fraudulent passports in their work - but I think that using them in the commission of murder is significantly different from using them to, say, place an operative in a sensitive location or get an agent inside an obnoxious organization. In that article, Dershowitz doesn't seem to understand the moral repugnance that many feel about murder - and about state-ordered murder in particular. If you think it's OK to go about murdering your opponents - then you are adopting the same code as the terrorists, and then they have won. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to make a sort of wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: the fact that many countries adopt these practices does not necessarily make the practice right. A political assassination in general, when carried out in a foreign country, undermines that nation's sovereignty. Doing it with stolen passports just undermines even more nations' sovereignty. There may be valid reasons to steal passports (though personally, I have a hard time seeing them), but I think it's a pretty poor argument to point to someone else doing it and say that that makes it OK. Buddy431 (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying it's the extrajudicial punishment that's behind the of the fraud that's the problem? So Israel decides to assassinate those on it's Most Wanted List rather than bring them home to justice, and since other countries don't agree with that form of justice, they complain. But it does seem that no one is making that point, other than you, DuncanHill. It seems that they focus on the passport fraud, seemingly denying reality, as Dershowitz asserts. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)16:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fraud is a problem - certainly no country willingly tolerates misuse of its passports by another, but what makes this case special is that they were used in a murder, and I think that has been made clear by the British and Australian governments. DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really, it's very simple. The Israelis got found out. Everyone knows this kind of thing goes on and it doesn't usually get mentioned but if you get caught in the act they're going to complain about it. --Tango (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To summarise there are two things here. Just because many people do it, including some of the ones protesting doesn't mean they like others doing it to them. When you get found out, it's entirely resonable to expect the government of the country to be rather annoyed, see 2004 Israel – New Zealand spy scandal. The fact that these were used to commit a murder of course means there is even greater concern. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is probably unanswerable in a 100% rigorous fashion, but it can be answered in a "most likely" fashion by hypothesizing: Suppose Israel had identified the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombings, which killed 88 Australians, and Israeli spies forged and used Australian passports to travel to the mastermind, kill him, and escape. Would the Australian government protest this strongly? No, I don't know for certain, either, but we can all form a guess. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article on American Gold Eagle coins states that they're legal tender and that the value of the gold in the coins far out-strips their face value. I know that in the US (and, presumably, other countries) it's illegal to melt down the coinage and sell the raw metal, although given commodity prices the metals are worth more than the face value of low denomination coins like pennies and nickels. So does this mean that people in America cannot legally melt their American gold coins? Is it legal to melt down gold coins from other countries? 96.246.63.175 (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on the legality, but I can tell you that the market value of the coin (as opposed to it's face value) almost certainly exceeds the value of the gold in the coin. So whether it's legal to melt it down or not, it would be stupid to do so. Buddy431 (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are bullion coins, made in mass quantities in recent years. They are not rare old scarce coins, like St. Gaudens Double Eagle, which have numismatic value greater than the bullion value. The value of "American Gold Eagle coins" is based on the gold content, not the negligible numismatic value. Edison (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, we do have a Bullion coin article. It says they often sell for a small premium above the value of their metal, due to the small size and costs associated with manufacture and storage. Buddy431 (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite a source that it's illegal to melt bullion coins? I used to be into this, and I have never heard of such a thing. During the height of the silver boom 30 years ago, there was a lot of melting down of US quarters, dimes, and half-dollars minted in 1964 and previous, and those weren't even bullion coins. You may be thinking of the US law that criminalizes the defacing of US currency for purposes of fraud. Anyway, I can't think of a reason you would melt down a bullion coin, because everyone knows what the gold content is and will pay you accordingly when purchasing it from you — the $50 (or whatever) face value is just a nominal number that nobody pays attention to. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant section of US Federal law is 18 USC §331 which says "Whoever fraudulently alters..."; merely melting the coin isn't fraudulent. Similarly 18 USC §332 covers debasement (such as melting it, mixing in some copper, re-pouring it, and keeping the resulting excess gold). 96.246.63.175 may be thinking about §333, which covers mutilation of notes. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It says at Penny (United States coin)#Numismatics and regulations that it was made illegal in 2006 to melt down pennies and nickels, and puts regulations on the export of the coins. The article cited is here, and says the rules mirror similar legislation used for silver coins during 1967-69, and (presumably copper) pennies in 1974-78. It appears to be legal (though I'm no lawyer) to melt down higher denomination coins, including bullion coins. Buddy431 (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I remember an article by an amateur astronomer who made his own telescope. He got the silver for the telescope mirror by melting down some silver coins from a coin dealer (it didn't cost that much since only a few coins were required). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of the king (or queen) as protector of the church goes back at least to the dark ages. I guess holding the church is one way of representing this pictorially. Earls & lords & such also tended to found monestaries & act as local protectors. --Tagishsimon(talk)15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they did this as a way of expiating their sins as in the case of Guy de Beauchamp, or else in memory of a dead relative as in the case of Margaret de Braose who founded a religious house in memory of her mother Maud de Braose. Thanks for your prompt reply.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Beauchamps probably owned an advowson, which is shown in the illustration; same with Queen Agnes of Hungary. I notice the churches are different, so are not meant to represent the Church in general but their own particular advowson. These answers are very helpful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Guy de Beauchamp says he donated 42 books to the library of Bordesley Abbey, Worcestershire, where he was also buried. It's possible the building pictured is this Abbey. Of course, he would have had to do something to expiate the death of Piers Gaveston! I originally thought it was the original St Mary's Church, Warwick, but another member of the Beauchamps of Warwick built that. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the image of her mother and predecessor (predecessress?) Elisabeth of Gorizia-Tyrol, obviously from the same source. By the way, it would be nice if people uploading images to Commons were more careful to research and note the original source of images like these ones, not just the immediate source where they found the image. --Hegvald (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elisabeth's article needed a bit of fixing; I'm glad you linked it here. This is all very helpful, as it proves the churches depicted were indeed religious houses that were under their patronage.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the united states, can you write a newspaper article calling for the eradication of black people (a la klu klux klan)
I have no interest in this and this is not a requestion for legal advice. Instead I just want to know whether it is true that America is absolutely adamant about free speech on a constitutional/supreme court decided level, even when it conflicts with America's ideals. For example, can you write a newspaper article calling for the eradication of black people, ie as a klansman might? 82.113.121.113 (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No mainstream newspaper would print such a letter though, so essentially it would still be censored (just not by the government). You could, however, right it in your blog, and while many people would think negatively of you, the government would not intervene. Buddy431 (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are limits to the First Amendment, though. Calling for the eradication of black people may (or may not, depending on how you word it) be seen as either a threat, or as inciting people to do illegal things. In both of these cases, the government may intervene. The other two exceptions to the First Amendment that I can think of are obscenity (a difficult to define concept: in the U.S. the Miller test is applied) and Child pornography. Buddy431 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also Hate_speech#United_States for the specifics of your scenario, with links to the relevant major cases. There are limits but they are pretty specific. In general, if you are not calling for direct violence or trying to incite a riot, you can publish any hateful thing you want, generally speaking. (And people do.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Buddy431 pointed out, you can write it but it may not see the light of day in a newspaper. Newspapers often have a "Letters to the Editor" section where people can write in and state their opinions on many issues such as local politics, social issues, etc. The newspaper isn't required to print these and will generally only print those that have some merit to them (as judged by the newspaper's staff). If the newspaper feels that they will suffer a backlash from people canceling their subscriptions, their advertising, etc., then the paper will likely not print your letter. Dismas|(talk)01:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether some existing newspaper will or won't print your article (an editorial judgment that is up to them). You can always buy a printing press and print your own newspaper. That said, there's probably lots of content you might print that is legal but would get you investigated. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think people overestimate newspaper standards. Even venerable newspapers like the New York Times will print all sorts of hateful stuff if it is carefully written and argued, and is espoused by someone with a fancy title or pedigree. Less venerable newspapers print all sorts of hateful columns about gays, hispanics, Muslims, or any other feared group. (Ann Coulter was able to get published in the National Review the sentiment that with regards to Muslim nations, the US should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"... is this really so different from the sentiments of the KKK? Hate is hate, whether the group hated is considered legitimately "scary" at the moment or not.) And of course there is the internet, which is essentially the world's largest printing press, which contains all manner of foul bile. To say that a newspaper won't print hate is wrong, and is an antiquated definition of "newspaper" anyway... --Mr.98 (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Examples? How about, say, citing the two or three most recent examples of "hateful stuff" printed in The New York Times and written by someone with a "fancy title". —KevinMyers13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone would say that inflation guards against a recession. A moderate inflation rate can be a sign of a healthy economy. I would not consider Hyperinflation healthy for an economy, though it may not actually accompany a true recession (contraction in economic activity). Buddy431 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an optimum inflation rate? The 2% target in the UK is like a jet fighter flying at 2 metres above ground level - it is flying so low that it wacks into the side of a hill, as we have recently seen. 92.15.6.183 (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The standard newspaper-headline inflation figure is based on the Consumer Price Index, which is a basket of goods and services that is supposed to represent what the average consumer buys. Typically, some products (say, computer chips) crash in value and others (petrol) soar, and the net result – depending on things like weighting within the basked – may be that optimum (?) +2%. But, if the basket is out-of-date, which is to say it is based on what people bought 5 or 10 years ago, it may not give as much useful information. So, what happens is central bankers use a variety of inflation measures and hope that they can see far enough into the future to adjust monetary policy so as to prevent prices from rising too fast, or falling too much. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When the Bible says it is better to couple with a prostitute than to leave your mark on the ground does that mean any prostitute (including those that are not Israelite)? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking. I recall it went something like, "... it is better to spill thy seed in the belly of a whore than to spill it on the ground..." but while I can find the phrase in Genesis 38:9 that Onan "...spilled it [his seed] on the ground..." I can't find it in reference to a whore. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something not stated in the text couldn't possibly be a literal interpretation. The only thing I could think of, too, is the story of Onan. However, God's displeasure at Onan's action is more easily attributable to Onan's dereliction of brotherly duty and disobedience of his father. Paul (Stansifer)02:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec's)Chapter and verse would be good. Else we can't tell whether you're talking about hors de combat or hors d'ouvresPhGustaf (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having scanned with "belly" and "on the ground" and a variety of other phrases it does not yet appear. I do not think it from my imagination but it could be from a comment I overheard or from other reading. Anything you find that is close please post here. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having scanned for prostitute, whore, and harlot, there are an awful lot of them in the Bible, but no suggestion that any of them are better or worse than the ground. (There are many statements that people think are in the Bible that turn out not to be there at all.)--Shantavira|feed me07:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such scripture/phrase/reference/advice in the Bible; it is most likely an extrapolation and a misinterpretation of the story of Onan (from which we have the word onanism), Tamar, and Judah. Onan was "slain by God" for not ejaculating inside Tamar, his dead brother Er's widow (whom he was obligated to marry according to levirate marriage). Tamar then posed as a prostitute in order to get Judah, the father of Onan and Er, to sleep with her; which he did, and she bore twins, and according to scripture, Judah was never "punished" for sleeping with "a prostitute". You can see how the phrase has gotten around, but its implied meaning is far from the Biblical story upon which it's (probably) based. A decent explanation is here, too: [1]. Maedin\talk08:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that explains it very well why it can't be found in the Bible so I'm wondering now just how many other false extrapolations are out there which are believed to be scripture and if the Wikipedia has a list? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a list, as it would be unverifiable. But two that spring immediately to mind are the apple that never was (see forbidden fruit) and Noah's animals being in pairs. (Our own Noah's Ark article seems to ignore Genesis 7:2-3.)--Shantavira|feed me10:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I once saw a clip from an American news show where some lady was talking about how the free market stems from the Bible and proving this by the biblical saying that "if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day but if you teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime". TomorrowTime (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That isn't a Biblical quote at all — it's actually a Chinese proverb. [2] (Or is it? [3]) That's a perfect example of yet another false extrapolation from the Bible. Gabbe (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever wrote that (otherwise well-researched and argumented) blog post under (13) fails to acknowledge that "ancient Asian" wisdoms have seen some very loose translating through the ages - you can look up translations of verses from the I-Ching or The Art of War on the Internet, and some translations of the same passages stand ridiculously far apart. But yeah, that was my point - that saying is not even from the Bible, but obviously the above mentioned talking head thought it was because it, well, sounds Bible-y. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question will certainly depend on your orientation and preconceived notions, but I can provide the Jewish perspective. For a Jewish male, there is at most a rabbinic prohibition on prostitution assuming that the prostitute is not similarly male (which would fall under the biblical ban on homosexuality) or a Jewish female either married or in niddah (with whom intercourse is biblically prohibited because of adultery or niddah prhobitions, respectively) and there is debate as to whether coitus interruptus, masturbation and other forms of "spilling one's seed" are biblically or rabbinically prohibited. It's therefor debatable as to which one is worse, and doing one to avoid the other is likely not a legal defense because one should have done neither. The Christian perspectives are likely different. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)15:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a christian point of view, it depends on whether or not you take the Catholic or mainline Protestant point of view. Catholics recognize differing degrees of sin (see cardinal sin, venal sin, mortal sin etc.) and differing degrees of penance one can do to atone for sin. Many mainline protestant denominations do not rank-order sins, instead seeing sin as a binary state: You are either in a state of grace or not. All sin is equal in the eyes of God in that sin prevents one from having a relationship with God, and Jesus resurection redeemed all people who profess faith in him from all of their sins. In other words, there is no sin which God can allow in his presence, and there is no sin which Jesus's death and resurrection did not wash away, so there is no sin that is "better" or "worse" than any other. Though there are likely a continuum of views on sin from the hundreds of Christian denominations, so it would be difficult to answer the question in any singular "Christian" view. --Jayron3201:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
