Miscellaneous desk
< November 11	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

November 12

Societies/Religions that ban the slaughtering of pigs

I know there are religions such as Islam and Judaism that have restrictions on the consumption of pork. But are there any religions or societies that place restrictions on the slaughtering of pigs? Acceptable (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a pig were slaughtered in a Kosher butcher shop, blood might spray all over the place, besides getting on the knife and other tools used to slit the throat and cut up the meat. Speaking only as a gentile who has studied the Old Testament and watched videos of cattle being slaughtered in a Kosher slaughter house,I would expect there to be grave concerns that the pig blood and possible bits of bone or flesh would remain on the tools and fixtures and thus contaminate any subsequently slaughtered beef, unless everything could be both practically cleaned and ritually cleaned. But I know of a bakery which produces non-Kosher bread and baked goods, and then somehow they get things cleaned up and a Rabbi inspects it and there they go making Kosher baked goods with the same automated equipment. Maybe the purity requirements for meat are more strict. In a simpler sense, would a Jewish farmer in Biblical times have been permitted to kill a wild hog which invaded his field and was eating his crops, or which threatened his family? And if he killed it, could he then give or sell it to a passing gentile, to get it off his land? Could he cut off one leg of the animal, if that is what the stranger wanted to buy, even at a cost of disposing of the tools he used and being impure and in need of some purification ritual? Could a religious Jew or Moslem work in a non-Kosher non-Halal slaughterhouse, butchering all sorts of animals for gentiles? Perhaps wise men of the Jewish and Moslem faith over the centuries have considered this very situation and there are codified answers. Edison (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Jewish law also prohibits commerce in pigs, unless the pig was acquired for non-commercial purposes, or accidentally acquired; so in Judaism, one is very unlikely to be slaughtering a pig, except perhaps a wild pig on a rampage, or one who inherited pigs. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Vegetarianism and religion. Most schools of Buddhism prohibit the slaughter of any animal. See Buddhist vegetarianism.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same for a lot of Hindu sects (though not all by any means) -- Q Chris (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Jew would be forbidden to slaughter any kind of non-kosher animal, even with a borrowed knife, in a non-kosher butcher's shop (where blood spray wouldn't bother him) because of the principle of Marit ayin. (Chalk up another new article prompted by a question on the Ref Desks).

On the other hand, if a wild animal, even a pig, were running amok and threatening human life and limb, not only would a Jew be permitted to kill it, but it would be a mitzvah (commandment) to do so. Not only that, but the usual strict Jewish laws prohibiting cruelty to animals would also be suspended, for fear that someone gets hurt while you're tip-toeing around trying to be righteous.

And yes, there's screeds and screeds of texts about these types of issues in the Talmud and the writings of the various commentators who've spent the last 1500 years or so writing about it. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain that it's in Robert Graves' The White Goddess that he speculates that the pig was originally sacred to an early Hebrew fertility goddess, and that its meat was sacred, only to be eaten once a year on her feast. It was an easy switch to making the sacred once-a year meat into an unclean, never eaten meat once the Hebrews adopted monotheism. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a source I would rely on. More poetry than history according to our article. Rmhermen (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe I said "speculate". (Unfortunately the Amazon and Google Books searches didn't help me find the exact reference--and my copy is in storage.) Nevertheless, Graves does get an awful lot right. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, pigs simply became too expensive to maintain as the middle east turned into a desert. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two biggest problems with pigs are you cannot herd them like sheep or cattle, and if you enclose them they turn their environs into a sty, which they don't seem to mind, but people do. The Semites, being one of the oldest settled urban cultures, would not have enjoyed their neighbours raising swine. There is an old joke among linguists. Q. Why do they call them pigs in English? A. Because they are so dirty. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Aldous Huxley, Crome Yellow. "Rightly is they called pigs." Itsmejudith (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys trying to speculate on why pigs aren't kosher? It's not a tremendously productive discussion, because you're doing so in isolation from discussing all the other non-kosher animals, insects and fish, see Kashrut#Permitted_and_forbidden_animals. Graves' speculation is unscholarly. The cracked article does not explain why something would be banned because it was expensive - there is no ban in Judaism on owning other commodities and the Bible's own account is that the holy land was highly fertile in Biblical times. Our article Religious_restrictions_on_the_consumption_of_pork#Prohibition_of_pork_consumption_in_Jewish_law refers to the thesis of Maimonides, rabbi and court physician, that the dietary laws are intended to benefit human health, but ultimately, as Maimonides himself would assert, kashrut is a "chok", a statute - law given without explanation. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not kosher per se, but the wider issue. As for historical explanations for kosher laws, they are just post-hoc explanations for (and elaborations of) practices that already existed. Maimonides (whose guide I have read) is certainly no more scholarly a source than Graves, who identifies his own speculation as just that. That's not even to mention the forgery called Deuteronomy which they found one day when cleaning out the Temple. In any case, Taboo_food_and_drink#Pigs.2Fpork mentions that pigs were taboo to the pagan

Phoenicians, Egyptians and Babylonians. In some instances, the taboo extended beyond eating pork, and it was also taboo to touch or even look at pigs." The original reason for this taboo is debated. ... James George Frazer [of The Golden Bough] suggested that in ancient Israel, Egypt and Syria, the pig was originally a sacred animal, which for that reason could not be eaten or touched; the taboo survived to a time when the pig was no longer regarded as sacred, and was therefore explained by reference to its being unclean.

That's certainly no less scholarly than Maimonides. The sources within the quote are in the original article. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, even 800 years after he died, Maimonides is still regarded as one of the pre-eminent experts in Jewish law, tradition and philosophy in the history of the world. Graves has no claims to any such scholarship. --Dweller (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am quite aware of Maimonides' reputation among observant Jews and experts in scholastic philosophy. But you might as well quote Aquinas or Al-Ghazali for all the critical history, comparative sociology, or pig archaeology you'll get out of him. As for saying he's a better speculator than Graves or Frazer, one might as well say Bishop Ussher's a better authority than Georges Cuvier. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai City Limit - Perumbakkam

Is perumbakkam (near Sholinganallur and Medevakkam) part of Chennai city limit after the recent expansion of Chennai city limits? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.197.52 (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia really does have an article on everything: Expansion of Chennai Corporation. Unfortunately, there's not much info in the article. However, if you look at the new map of the city limits on the city's official website here you can see that Perumbakkam andMedavakkam remain just outside the new city limits, although Shozhinganallur is inside. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is this logo?

Hi, does anyone know what this logo is? [1] I have seen this icon at many different sites. --Capim Dourado (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a cogwheel to me. It is often used as an icon for "settings" menus of various devices, programs and web pages. --NorwegianBlue^talk 12:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I want to know why it is used as the favicon in many unrelated sites. --Capim Dourado (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's really an answer to that. It's just one of those symbols that has come to assume a certain meaning over time. If you see it, you know that you can click it to get to the settings. --Viennese Waltz 12:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In this particular case, a cogwheel-like icon seems relevant, as cogwheels (or similar items) appear to be among the items they sell. For an example of a cogwheel icon being used for the "settings" menu, see gmail. Do you have other examples of other sites than the one you linked to using similarly shaped icons as favicons? --NorwegianBlue^talk 12:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see this: [2]. --Capim Dourado (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see any number of sites use the default icon that comes with the web publishing software in use, in this case Kryptronic Software. The page HTML also has some interesting comments for Dan. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you see favicons that are the same over many unrelated sites, it usually means that these sites are all running some similar software component that creates the favicon. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Complete Guide to Fitness (With Journal To Track Your Personal Fitness Regime)

I have just found this book in amazon.com Complete-Fitness-Journal-Personal-Regime. But I am not sure whether it's aimed for men or women. I did not find any customer review regarding this book. I already have number of good books on health and fitness (ranges from beginner to advance). I want to buy it since it provides journal to track records, but not sure whether it meets my criteria. Can anyone please help me to get some idea on this book? Thanks--180.234.53.156 (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are the criteria you are looking for in a book that your current library doesn't offer? Maybe you could create a journal page to meet your needs using a piece of paper or a notebook, if there are no other benefits you can see from the book?--Romantic Mollusk (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I see inside the book? It does not have "show inside" feature like other book does. I want to know whether this book is for men or women. The cover page provides a woman doing push up. How can it benefit intermediate or advance lifter--180.234.108.81 (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Googling, I cannot find that *anyone* has reviewed the book, whether on Amazon or not. You may have to visit a physical bookstore so you can look through the book. The book's page on its publisher's own website offers no more information than the Amazon link. However, you could possibly also email or phone the publisher directly. They should at least be able to say whether the book is for men or women. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the book's cover text does not hint at being specifically aimed at either sex, it's very likely to cover both.

You might try contacting the publisher, via their website, and ask them your questions directly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Euro banknotes release rate?

Does anyone know at what rate new euro banknotes are released into circulation? JIP | Talk 20:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "new" do you count ones that replace old notes taken out of circulation, or just new ones that increase the total amount in circulation? --Tango (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page from the European Central Bank provides statistics on the total number and value of banknotes and coins in circulation as well as the amounts released and withdrawn by year. (Data tables are available as PDFs or .csv files; look at the bottom of the page. The PDF tables only go back to 2007; the .csv files go all the way back to 2002.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to that page, approximately 34.7 billion (short scale for the benefit of native English speaking readers) notes are released every year. Do they all get fresh, previously unused serial numbers? The reason I am asking is because I have recently started using EuroBillTracker. According to its web page, it has registered about 111.8 million euro banknotes in its existence since the start of 2002, which is about 10.28 million banknotes every year. So only about 1 banknote in 3375 is registered to EuroBillTracker. The total number of banknotes registered to EuroBillTracker is about 1 in 134 of the total number of currently outstanding banknotes, and assuming no serial numbers are ever repeated, it is an even smaller part of the total number of banknotes ever released. So it is becoming less and less common to get a "hit" on a banknote. If it were the other way around, we would be heading towards a situation where every banknote ever released was registered to EuroBillTracker, which would make getting a "hit" guaranteed. JIP | Talk 19:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Building identification

What is the name of the two buildings that look like the twin towers in this screenshot?:

--helohe (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time Warner Center. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, that's not a public domain photo. (In general, screenshots pulled from recent television programs almost universally are not public domain.) I'm deleting it now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I almost replied that now you lost all hope of the question being answered, but then I saw that it already was. This was like the question I posted a few months earlier, asking to identify a children's TV series, when the only way to get it identified was to temporarily upload a non-free screenshot to Wikipedia and then have it immediately deleted after the question had been answered. JIP | Talk 20:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally heartless; I didn't delete before I saw there was an answer up. But the right way to ask a question about someone else's copyrighted content surely shouldn't involve or require deception about the copyright status of a particular piece of media, should it? I notice that in the instance you were involved in, you at least made an honest attempt to describe the ownership of the image, and to offer a fair-use rationale (though the NFCC don't actually permit this usage; perhaps you should lobby for an amendment). Willy-nilly uploading copyrighted material under inappropriate public domain tags is certainly the most convenient thing for the Reference Desk, but it can have a negative impact on the free encyclopedia that we are a part of (and that provides us with space and resources to do our work here). You and Helohe have both been editing Wikipedia for years; surely you can see why it's not a good idea for editors to pick and choose which parts of the project's copyright policies can be ignored when inconvenient. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me the Foundation needs to move its servers to a jurisdiction with more consumer-friendly IP laws. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if the OP had just uploaded the image to a free image hosting website like imgur and posted the link? Would that have been acceptable? --Viennese Waltz 11:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since our NFCC policies go beyond the IP law requirements (at least partially because, as emphasised by ToAT, we are a free encyclopaedia), it's not likely to make a difference. There is of course a simple solution as suggested by VW. If you believe you can legally upload the content in question, find a host who is legally able to and willing to host such content, and link to it from here. Forcing someone who doesn't want to host such content, to host it, is clearly not the way forward, particularly if you're going to waste the time of volunteers in the process. While we do not allow contributory infrigement, in cases where you have a resonable fair use claim and are not claiming other things about the copyright status, it's unlikely anyone will object to a link to such content. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COLES ISLAND NEW BRUNSWICK & FOWLER'S COVE

DEAR SIR/MADAM,

MY WIFE & I ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE THE ORIGIN OF HER FATHER "DONALD RAYMOND FOWLER" BORN ON COLES ISLAND 23 MARCH 1918. WOULD YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE LINKED TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF COLES ISLAND AND/OR FOWLERS COVE. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE OF ANY HELP YOU CAN GIVE.

HANK & CAROLYN O'HANDLEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.95.164 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, please do not write your questions in all capital letters. It only makes it more difficult to read. JIP | Talk 21:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very brief history of Coles Island at Provincial Archives of New Brunswick - Communities - Coles Island. There is one person called Fowler (Jane Corey Fowler) in the Coles Island Cemetery, but no dates. However there are three in the United Baptist Church Cemetery; FOWLER - Horatio N. 28 Nov 1861 - 14 Dec 1904 age 53 yrs and his wife Marjorie, 1853-1924, also Milcah - wife of SMALL, Fred L. THere are a number of Fowler families listed in First Families of New Brunswick - they were mainly Loyalists who moved away from the Thirteen Colonies when there was a little local difficulty. The New Brunswick Genealogical Society has a Research page which includes links to the 1911 Census of Canada; it also recomends that you look at Provincial Archives of New Brunswick - County Guides. Good hunting! Alansplodge (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth registration is here and marriage registration is here. Zoonoses (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makemytrip Oddity

I was checking out hotels in makemytrip, and had the same page (of the same hotel) open on both Chrome and Firefox. To my surprise, the room that cost 550 in Chrome showed a price of 600 INR in Firefox. When I loaded the same page in IE just to check, IE showed 600 INR too. What's the possible reason for this? 117.226.132.31 (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be they just changed the price at that moment, or one of your options (e.g. requesting a balcony or something) was different. It would help if you gave us the url.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 21:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here: link ;) 117.226.215.82 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are called cookies. See this same phenomenon. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This 2010 Slate article says that vendors can read your buying behavior from cookies and "alter their prices or offers accordingly. Consumers—in the few cases they recognize it is going on, by shopping in two browsers simultaneously, for instance—tend to go apoplectic." Those accursed cookie monsters. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, shouldn't the price go back to its original cheaper price once I delete the cookies from Mozilla and IE? I tried that, but it didn't work. 117.226.207.103 (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the cookies are responsible, that could just mean there's something in your Chrome ones that is eliciting the low price. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was a recent case where prices being offered on the web to Apple computer owners were higher than those on Windows. The reasoning is that people willing to overpay for computers were probably willing to overpay for other things, too. Perhaps Chrome users are known to be thrifty, so they charge them less. StuRat (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]