Humanities desk
< June 22	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 24 >

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.

June 23

Where did Jews come from before the Exodus?

I understand that present opinion has come to strongly challenge the historicity of the Exodus, and therefore there is no agreed-upon date for the event. Still, I wonder whether historians are testing the wrong model. To quote a 2008 Refdesk discussion,[1] "The Egyptian state never kept any quantity of Jewish slaves, the biblical Moses never existed, modern-day Israel was not settled by a migratory people from Egypt at any point in this period of history, and God certainly didn't give said people a set of ten commandments." However, as I recall Marcus Valerius Martialis gave a slightly but perhaps importantly different account of things, in which he said that the Jews originated from Ethiopia and were expelled from Egypt due to their contempt for the gods. Without getting into a full treatise of speculation about Mount Horeb and the Afar Triangle, Beta Israel, Akhenaten, labor unrest, the Ancient Suez Canal, and life on the wrong side of the Jordan river (outside Egyptian influence) --

Can we say whether the Egyptians brought large numbers of skilled workers to the Nile Delta from the region of central Ethiopia where Beta Israel are or were prominent?
Were there times of labor unrest where large numbers of workers, told they could not leave their jobs or demand better wages, did choose to revolt and leave the region in something resembling an "exodus"?
Has the theory been evaluated whether Israeli Jews could be the descendants of Beta Israel with substantial genetic admixture in Canaan and other nearby regions of Egypt, rather than the other way around?
Also, is there any evidence of gangs of raiders based on the east side of the Jordan River and making occasional forays into Canaan while the Egyptians held it?

Wnt (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are archaeological finds that indicate the Israelites were originally Canaanite commoners who rebelled against their oppressive rulers who were sending them to work in Egypt as some sort of diplomatic agreement between the pharaoh and the Canaanite kings. Some evidences included the destruction of idols, the fact luxury potteries associated with the ruling class were discontinued, and evidence that the cities conquered by Joshua were really burned by residents from within, evidence of a revolution. Also early Israelite cities resembled Canaanites cities with the exception of an upper cities, usually where the aristocracy would live. And that the Exodus was only true for a small band of people which later joined the newly form Israelite group and added their stories for the new group to create a distinct identity from their Canaanite neighbors. This is just a theory though. Also there are no migration paths or evidence of a migration through the Sinai Deserts. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the expressed idea [2]. I am not completely sure if this is accepted consensus by academics.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even within Biblical tradition there is this notion that Abraham had his servants circumcised, [3] which does lead to the possibility that many local people could have been brought into the Jewish community, though as your source says, there could have been a nucleus of another ethnicity around which it formed. ~~(I wonder circumcision might have served as a "gang tattoo", dissuading Egyptian government infiltrators from trying to join the group and learn its hiding places east of the river?)~~ (the below clarifies that's wrong, with Ethiopians and Egyptians both being ancient circumcisers). Wnt (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that we know the ancient Egyptians also practised circumcision, as did the Phoenicians, who were cultural descendants of the Canaanites - see this discussion on the Classical Greece and Rome wikiproject. Circumcision may well have been a regional norm not specific to the Israelites. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt -- Our first fairly solid extra-Biblical knowledge of Israelites is the spread of Four room houses along the West-Bank hill chain in the centuries preceding 1000 B.C., not long after the mention of the word "Israel" in the Merneptah stele. Any speculation going much beyond this would be unverifiable... AnonMoos (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An idea that occurred to me while reading Israel Finkelstein and Neal Asher Silberman's The Bible Unearthed. They think (going from memory, I don't have access to the book at the moment) the Israelites originated in Canaan as groups of people who were subjugated or otherwised dispossessed and underprivileged under the rule of the Canaanite cite-states, possibly pastoral nomads, and that when the Canaanite city-state system fell at the end of the Bronze Age they were able to settle down, farm and organise, and ultimately become the dominant group in the region and establish a state. The Amarna Letters show that in the late Bronze Age the Canaanite city states were all Egyptian vassals, dependent on Egyptian power and patronage. They fell after Egyptian power receded from the region during the Bronze Age Collapse, leaving them defenceless against local rivals, some of whom may have been the ancestors of the Israelites. If the Israelites were descended from an oppressed group in the time of the Canaanite city states, they may have preserved traditions that their ancestors were oppressed by the Egyptians, who were the true power in the region, but as the traditions were passed down they got garbled and thought that this oppression actually took place in Egypt. The conquests of Joshua could be an equally garbled tradition of the fall of the Canaanite city states, which archaeologists like Finkelstein and Silberman reckon happened over a period of a couple of centuries rather than in a single campaign.--Nicknack009 (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last (and so presumably the most likely to be accurate) event in the Exodus migration was the crossing of the Jordan. The West Bank hill chain is presumably the Jerusalem area. If four room houses are indicative of Israelites, then if the story was true, there might be some on the east side of the river, and indeed, there are excavations of such from 1200 BC ([4] led me to [5]) though apparently some of these were Ammonites and Moabites. Can the migration be tracked back at least to this region? Wnt (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt -- the West-bank hill chain extends from south of Hebron to north of Nablus (look at a suitable map), including Jerusalem, but extending considerably beyond it. It was the central core of Israelite-inhabited lands in early days (down to ca. 721 B.C.), and a central-south segment of it remained the central core of Jewish-inhabited lands down to the days of the suppression of the Second Jewish revolt... AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically invited to comment here on the question "where did Jews come from before the Exodus" and please note, let it be know to all parties I am not "forum shopping". (This has been an issue with some particularly nasty business lately). The question is "where did Jews come from before the Exodus?", and as usual we are seeing every possible answer and conjecture BUT the one that the Jews themselves say. What the Jews themselves say, is that they came from an ancestor named "Yihuda", who lived in Canaan and Egypt a few hundred years before the Exodus. Now this name Yihuda is just a name - that's all - a series of vowels and consonants, like Bob, Fred, or John. I have never understood how a mere name like this (Yihuda) could throughout centuries of history, stir up so much emotion, fanaticism, and opposition to this name existing, but if you look at the records of history, it seems that has indeed been the case. At the end of the day, that's all Yihuda is - a name - one that some people choose to use, and others in history have got in a twist as soon as they hear it and object to the existence of this name and the right of others even to use this name. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be defensive here, it's the Refdesk. :) (He was getting hassled on ANI over a few edits to The Exodus; I've since noticed we have a huge range of perspectives on articles ranging from the Biblical approach to Ammon to the secular approach at Jericho) Yihuda is apparently not a familiar term for us but Yehuda is recognized as a variation of Judah; though perhaps Tribe of Joseph is more useful - it should remind us that among other things there are multiple groups' history being described here, which doubtless adds to the confusion... Wnt (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with this. Technically, "Jew" refers specifically to the Tribe of Judah, or to the Kingdom of Judah that included a couple of other tribes. Joseph is held to be a brother of Judah, not a descendant, and the Tribe of Joseph (two half-tribes of Joseph) are technically not considered Jews, not being part of Judah or descended from Judah, but rather part of the northern kingdom known as Israel. The two half-tribes of Joseph are among the "Ten lost tribes of Israel" who were deported by the Assyrians in the 700s BC, and their current location or existence is debated and controversial, with multiple claimants. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See etymological fallacy and Who is a Jew?. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Yehuda" refers to the same thing I wrote as "Yihuda". The correct Hebrew pronunciation of the vowel represented by "e" in "Yehuda", is a very short vowel like the i in "hit"; so you may sometimes see "Yihuda" as a feasible representation of the Hebrew name in the Latin alphabet. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a redirect for Yihuda, given what you say. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Til Eulenspiegel -- unfortunately your claims are somewhat confused. Yehudah was the eponymous patrilineal ancestor of the tribe of Judah, who gave its name to the later Kingdom of Judah, but Yehudah was never the patrilineal ancestor of Israelites generally. The Kingdom of Judah (in which Jewish theology as we are familiar with it started to be defined) was never inhabited by Judahites only, but contained significant numbers of Levites and Benjaminites, the remnants of the Simeonites, and scattered individuals from other tribes... AnonMoos (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just knew this was going to get confusing. However, I am not the one who is confused. Please re-read my remarks more carefully. I did not suggest Yehudah was considered "the patrilinear ancestor of Israelites generally". I correctly stated that Yehudah was considered the ancestor of the Tribe of Judah, and that it also refers to the Kingdom of Judah that included a couple of extra tribes in the southern Kingdom. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous assertion that "Jew refers specifically to the Tribe of Judah" is unfortunately highly misleading at best. There's an etymological connection, but that's simply not the meaning of the word "Jew". AnonMoos (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The query is meaningless. (a) Exodus is a sacred narrative much like the Iliad or Beowulf are national/tribal epics predating the concept of 'Jew' as formulated in classical Judaism. It assumes there is a unique origin for an ethno-religious group whose features began to defined, consolidated and (self-)imposed a thousand years after the putative date that same tradition calculated for the legendary event. Suffice it to think of the implications of the hitpael form mityahadim in the Book of Esther. If people in biblical tradition could 'judaise' or 'become Jews' or 'join Jews to become one of them', inquiries as to the origins of Jews must take into account that their origins, like those of all human groups, are multiple, as multiple as the interpretations of 'am ha'aretz', who are at times Canaanites, remnants of the older tribes of Judah, at times unobservant Jews, or the unwashed rural tillers of the soil who were not taken to Babylon, and even gentiles. Fortunately for those who can read Hebrew, the Tanakh is far less coherent on this and everything else, than whatever later ages wished to make out as a single coherent world.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True ... even today it is hard for anybody to figure out what the Jews are, race, religion, even a (at least potential) nationality... harder in Esther's time or at any point after (as described in Judah) there was a recasting of the ethnic identity; and more so earlier. Yet the Iliad turned out, against all skeptics, to be quite a fine historical document ... leaving us grasping for just who was involved in the Exodus, and how they ended up in that position. Wnt (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt -- I'm not too sure what "the Iliad turned out to be quite a fine historical document" really means. The Iliad preserves some historical oral traditions of the days of Mycenean palaces and chariot-fighting, and that there was a bronze-age city at Troy, but it was never intended to be a "history" as we or Thucydides would understand the term, and its details can't be relied upon to always be historically accurate. For example, it was remembered that bronze-age kings used chariots to fight, but the author(s) of the Iliad really don't seem to have understood how chariots were used in war, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Iliad is not a 'fine historical document'. In reading it you are taught to observe the successive historical strata, discernable through language, reference to armoury, navigation, fighting techniques, etc., which underlay it. These 'residues' are the result of traditions, some having perhaps an historical core, others legendary, or mythic, which extend over several hundred years down to the final touches in the Athenian recension. Trying to square anything in the Iliad with what we know of Anatolia in the surviving Hittite archives is extremely difficult, but fascinating. Some five to six centuries separate the putative war in Troy from the monumental composition. The distance between Moses and the problem era when the definitive Exodus story was formulated was even longer. The decalogue written by God was composed in Hebrew apparently, written on stone, 3 to four centuries before the invention of Hebrew script, etc. Moses learnt to read it instantaneously, the fastest mastery of a script in the history of linguistics.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Lord works in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See "William Cowper" and "Olney Hymns" and q:William Cowper#Olney Hymns (1779), No. 35.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I am suspicious that the letters' unchiseled appearance is due to them being pressed into cooling lava from a feature in the general vicinity of Erta Ale... the Iliad has a few more poetic explanations for things also. The whole region was clearly literate in some sense - Proto-Sinaitic script, Phoenician alphabet, South Arabian alphabet - I probably am missing some really important ones - so I don't buy the argument that it couldn't have been in writing. Wnt (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was an early Semitic alphabet in existence in the middle of the second millennium B.C., but surviving attestations of it are rather fragmentary, and it would be exaggerating what we know to say that there was any kind of widespread literacy in it. The South Arabian alphabet belongs to the first millennium B.C., and so basically does the Phoenician alphabet. The Proto-Sinaitic script is interesting, but after many decades of effort, only one word -- לבעלת LB`LT -- is widely agreed to be solidly deciphered. In the 14th century B.C., the language of international diplomacy was Akkadian, the language of the overlords of south Canaan was Egyptian, and only the cuneiform Ugaritic alphabet is known to have been in use to write extensive alphabetic texts... AnonMoos (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's really "in" nowadays with any literature as old as the Iliad is "anything-but-thatism". If the Iliad suggests something, but there's no solid proof including a timestamp dated to the first millenium BC, then it is taken as evidence by anything-but-thatists for the complete opposite. After some amount of time, say about three weeks or so, the "evidence" automatically turns into "proof" that the anything-but-thatists were correct all along. We are all making wonderful strides in our understanding of the past through this technique. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was the economic point of alchemy?

Consider these three premises, and let me know if they are flawed:

1) If gold is very rare, it is very valuable 2) If gold is somewhat rare, it is somewhat valuable 3) If gold is ubiquitous, it is not valuable

So let's say alchemists were extremely successful in turning lead and other materials to gold. Initially the alchemists would get a lot of business and customers who would want the alchemists to make gold for them. But at some point (I imagine in not very long). The market would be flooded with gold, and no one would want/need it anymore.

So what is the point of alchemy from an economic standpoint? (I do realize there are scientific and magical reasons for wanting to practice alchemy, but my question only relates to whether it makes economic sense).--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemists wouldn't need customers. They'd make some gold, sell it and make a nice tidy sum. They wouldn't flood the market if they had any sense at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your question supposes the alchemist is purely altruistic, wanting to make everyone rich; but what if he were content to make only himself rich? Besides, the article alchemy mentions ancient alchemical documents (chemistry really) about making imitation gold and silver, which would have economic uses without actually making the real thing common. Though I imagine that the first few times someone cooked up that recipe, he pretty much had made gold or silver so far as he was concerned, before people invented the idea of a counterfeit coin... Wnt (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So their economic stake in alchemy would utterly depend on their ability to keep their alchemy formula/methods a secret? And if the secret became widely known, the game is up for all alchemists everywhere? (remember, I am assuming they found some wildly successful method to create gold).--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making gold is a special example, but certainly there were many secret recipes in the days before patents - Damascus steel, Corinthian bronze, etc. Some of them were worth more than gold anyway. Wnt (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True but I'm pretty sure Damascus steel was hard to make. In other words, in addition to the methods being a closely held secret, I'm sure it took a lot of skill, time, effort, labor, etc. So if the "secret" to making Damascus steel got out, their market share would suffer, but it wouldn't collapse. Because they could still claim they were the first and the best and most experienced producer of true Damascus steel.

In my hypothetical, it relatively easy to make large amounts of gold--it may sound like a crazy hypothetical, but I'm sure this was the dream/goal of many people at the time.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless you were a total fool, you'd keep it a secret. In addition to the financial motive, consider it self defense. If the process became general knowledge, there would be great economic havoc, and many angry people anxious to vent their displeasure on the perpetrator of their troubles. Anyway, Newton didn't consider it crazy (see Isaac Newton's occult studies). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It only remains for someone to point out that maybe some alchemist really did discover the secret, but kept it to himself for the reasons outlined above. Or maybe not. We'd never know either way. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given what physicists now know about nuclear transmutation, it is highly implausible that the synthesis of precious metals (such as chrysopoeia) would have been feasible with equipment available to medieval scholars. If it were possible to turn lead into gold using fourteenth century technology and energy levels, a lot of present-day atomic theory would have to be thrown out the window. Gabbe (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree, naturally. Still, Horatio, there are stranger things etc, and one must retain a slightly open mind about the unknown. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(To be precise, I wonder if fluorescent resonance energy transfer can be done with nuclear isomers. But that is another conversation...) Wnt (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For one, the fact that gold is just another commodity, and that its value is governed by supply and demand, may not even have occurred to the alchemists and their backers. During the height of alchemy, Spain happily ruined its economy importing large amounts of gold and silver from South America. Bullionism was popular an in the early 17th century, and other forms of mercantilism held on longer. By the time Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, alchemy was basically dead. Also, of course, transmutation of elements was only one aim of alchemy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory webcomic link: [6]. Gabbe (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that one could ask what the economic point of gold mining is using exactly the same arguments (with exactly the same degree of validity). Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s the economics: If there are 100 pounds of gold in the known universe, I myself will be better off conjuring up out of thin air an additional 10 pounds, even if that devalues the total stock (100+10 = 110) by 10%. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that even large nations were not very smart about the economic impact of flooding the market with the precious metals that served as the basis for one's currency. Consider that the economic collapse of Spain in the 16th-17th centuries was largely due to the inrush of silver from Spanish-controlled mines in the Americas into Europe, i.e. Spain, in its own greed, mined a whole mess of silver, brought it all back to Europe, and in doing so brought its own economic ruin. How such things work is well known today, but at that time, was completely not understood. A single alchemist also would not have understood it in any way. At that time, and indeed for some years after alchemy was debunked, the idea that more gold = more money = all good was as far as economics got. More money = more problems was not yet entering into economic thinking. See Philip II of Spain#Economy as one such article which mentions the problem "Inflation throughout Europe in the sixteenth century was a broad and complex phenomenon. In Spain, its main cause was probably the overwhelming flood of bullion from the Americas, along with population growth, and government spending." Also Inflation#History... "Historically, infusions of gold or silver into an economy also led to inflation...(Inflation in Europe in the 16th century) was largely caused by the sudden influx of gold and silver from the New World into Habsburg Spain". Again, that the best minds of European governments couldn't foresee this would happen it is not surprising that the alchemists of several generations before would have not foreseen it either. --Jayron32 03:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gold was symbolically a pure metal and important in the theory,the real prize was the Elixir of Life or Philosopher's Stone.Hotclaws (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Joaquim Garcia de Braganca or es:Manuel Joaquín Álvarez de Toledo

Are there any written source that indicate he was made First Prince of the Blood in Portugal as said here [7]. As the descendant Duarte of Braganza, younger son of João I, Duke of Braganza and Catherine, Duchess of Braganza, he would have been next in line after the descendants of John IV of Portugal since at the time King Peter II of Portugal's (prior to his second marriage) only heir was his sickly daughter Isabel Luísa, Princess of Beira, not counting Catherine of Braganza who was in England and also childless. Are their ever any official declaration or lacking that any actual written source indicating he was acknowledge as a potential heir or even called First Prince of the Blood. English sources bring up nothing maybe searching Spanish or Portuguese sources might be helpful. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Priest clothes

The BBC is currently showing a new version of Father Brown stories, transplanted a from pre-war city setting to the 1950's Cotswolds. Father Brown is always depicted wearing a distinctive gown and wide-brimmed hat. I was wondering when Roman Catholic priests in England stopped wearing this clothing (if they ever did). Is it accurate to use it in a post-war setting? Rojomoke (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The distinctive gown is the pellegrina, which is worn to this day. The wide-brimmed hat is the cappello romano, which, according to our article, was worn until "around 1970" (I personally recall our local Roman Catholic priest wearing one until about 1973), so Father Brown's costume isn't anachronistic. Tevildo (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those links. By "distinctive gown" I actually meant the cassock, rather than the cape over it, and our article says those were used as street wear until the latter half of the C20th. The cappello romano article says the hats were popular in countries with a Catholic majority population until the '70s. Rojomoke (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As our article says, the British English name for the Catholic cassock is "soutane". Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I've only ever heard British Catholics (including priests and deacons) call it a cassock. Is this an older term? 212.183.140.55 (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I was an altar boy (Catholic) in a previous life, it was "soutane". Cassock sounds vaguely Anglicanish to me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article suggests it's an Irish term, so maybe it was more common when/where Catholic populations were mainly Irish immigrants? 86.162.68.199 (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. My family of origin were not immigrants, but we certainly come from Irish stock on both sides (as well as Scottish and English), and most of us identify as Irish-Australians. But my time as an altar boy was 50 years ago, my memory may well be faulty, and many things have changed since. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform?

Heading inserted by ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

should there is a uniform for 11th and 12th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.237.165.6 (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, poster, you'll have to be somewhat clearer as to what your question is about. --ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is almost certainly about whether pupils in their 11th and 12th years of education should have to wear a school uniform or not. I guess such pupils would be aged around 16 to 19. The question implies that the pupils in question already had to wear a school uniform up to their 10th year of education. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that when my high school started the uniform thing, it only applied to new students. So from Grades 10 to 12, I got to laugh at the younger kids. I failed my last year, so for a month or so of the next, only me and three others had the privilege of looking unprivileged. It was creepier than funny, by that point. I doubt that answers the question, but maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) If so, there are references. The main research quoted in favour of school uniforms is: Huss, J. A. (2007). THE ROLE OF SCHOOL UNIFORMS IN CREATING AN ACADEMICALLY MOTIVATING CLIMATE: DO UNIFORMS INFLUENCE TEACHER EXPECTATIONS?. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 131-39. I couldn't find this on-line, but a cursory overview is here. I did find a dissertation called A Comparison Research Study on the Use of School Uniforms and Graduation, Attendance, and Suspension Rates in East Tennessee by William Elihue Gouge of Liberty University. On the other side of the coin, I found School Uniforms Are Inefficient and Unnecessary, Opposing Views: ACLU Nevada. Curiously, the American Civil Liberties Union is apparently blacklisted by Wikipedia, so you can look it up yourself here (first result). Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That link was at "opposing views" (www.opposingviews.com/i/school-uniforms-are-inefficient-and-unnecessary); also [8]. More importantly, they found that teachers’ perceptions of their students once in uniform changed greatly, and that they viewed uniformed students as better-behaved, smarter, and more successful. This perception, however, was only in the minds of the teachers – statistically, the researchers found that student uniforms had no positive statistical correlation with absenteeism, drug use, attitudes toward school, or student achievement. Strikingly, the authors found only one statistically significant correlation – a negative effect on student achievement by tenth graders forced to wear uniforms. Wnt (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more Googling produces (I believe) the research quoted in Wnt's link above; Effects of Student Uniforms on Behaviour Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement, Kerry A Rockquemore, University of Notre Dame. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic - there's a Talk page for this. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this question qualify as "soliciting opinions"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only if editors give opinions. This is a reference desk, so I found some references for academic research into the subject. The OP can form their own opinion from those. Alansplodge (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like the OP is asking for a moral judgment. But I'll keep your response in mind the next time someone tries to shut down a thread because it calls for opinions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the user asked for opinions, Alansplodge denies it, and now you want to hold him to your interpretation he does not share? Not that I support overly narrow(-minded) interpretations of the reference desk... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of Boris Gudz , please

Hello Learned Ones ! Has somebody a photo of that OGPU spy, dead in 2006, apart from the one as a centenarian in WP ru ?. Thanks a lot beforehand, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several: in 1934, in 1936,in 1955 or 1956... Brandmeister^talk 20:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks awfully Brandmeister ! Though, the 1934 one looks to me to be rather Varlam Shalamov himself... Anyway, thanks again, & here's to you ! Artigliest Brandmeister, "Miss Arschgeweih 2006" gibt uns einen Tropfen Jägermeister . Um Ihre Gesundheit!Arapaima (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :D (didn't know her before) --Brandmeister^talk 09:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake on Wikipedia

Keith Hunter Jesperson never made it to acquire U.S. citizenship. He had a U.S. permanent resident status but he remained a Canadian and of course is a Canadian more than ever now and forever because he'd never be able to get U.S. citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hienzman (talk • contribs) 17:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit that page and remove the references to him being American, as there are no sources given. For future reference, the right place to discuss this would be on the article's talk page. Rojomoke (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]