Humanities desk
< February 8	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 10 >

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.

February 9

Pixelated

[1]

What does the phrase below the street name say?Curb Chain (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask an Edmontonian Wikipedian. See Category:Wikipedians in Edmonton.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sign has a baseball field and many sources say he was called "Edmonton's Mr. Baseball" so that would be my guess. The initial letter doesn't look quite like E to me but the rest is very plausible. If the whole thing is written in quotes then I suppose the start could be "E. The end also looks like l" with a quote. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter is right: [2] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three in religion/mythology

Why does the number three show up so often in various religions and mythologies? (e.g. the Christian Trinity; the Hindu Trimurti; the Triune Goddess in Wicca; Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades in Greek mythology; etc.) --108.227.30.246 (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same reason why 2 (God and the Devil, Yin and Yang) does, they are low numbers. StuRat (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3_(number)#In_religion has some information, as do bluelinks from that article. --Jayron32 04:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stu that it is because it is a low number. But for Georges Dumezil it was part of a trifunctional hypothesis. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because Three Is a Magic Number.[3] 24.38.31.81 (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internment camps

Who was the first to suggest that the japanese should be put in internment camps during ww2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.20.212 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Panamanian government began interning people one day after Pearl Harbor: [4] -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to say who was the first individual to suggest Japanese internment, the decision likely came from a government meeting that was composed of multiple individuals. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, internment of enemy nationals during a war was a standard practice at the time, so no spark of inspiration would have been needed for that. What made the Japanese internment particularly notable was the treatment of American citizens this way. It looks like Japanese American internment discusses this in some detail. Wnt (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A loyal citizen of an enemy country, at large in the country at war with their beloved homeland, could reasonably be expected to run around doing sabotage, espionage, disinforming the populace, and generally doing mischief. It was absolutely standard to intern or deport enemy aliens in any war. I suppose you could get their "promise to behave," but such a process seems unrealistic. The unusual aspect of the Japanese internment was to lock up US citizens who had absolutely not demonstrated any disloyalty, but who came from the enemy country, or their ancestors came from the country. This was not applied is so blatant a fashion to US citizens of German or Italian origin in WW2, though there were cases where legitimate enemy aliens were interned and their US citizen family members went with them, supposedly voluntarily. Some non-Japanese descendants of German internees have conflated the internment of enemy aliens and US citizens. Who first suggested it? If I recall correctly, the military wanted Japanese nationals and Japanese-Americans interned in Hawaii and California, because of a perception that they were likely to do espionage and sabotage for Japan. A secondary motive was greed on the part of their neighbors and business competitors, comparable to Germans who wanted the property of Jews. Many West Coast Japanese were forced to abandon their homes and businesses, or to sell them for pennies on the dollar. This led to a man I know being interned in a concentration camp, with armed guards and barbed wire, when he was 4 years old, and his father losing a previously successful business. Edison (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only a small fraction of Japanese-American citizens in Hawaii were interned... AnonMoos (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing which I've wondered about this process is to what degree these people were actually hostages. The Japanese had substantial skill in biological and chemical warfare, which if I recall they exercised rather freely in China; they initially had aircraft carriers and later worked on long-range bombers capable of striking the West Coast. Yet for some reason they never made such attacks.... (I should emphasize that I am not justifying the internment here, but this does make it less incomprehensible) Wnt (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't aid it. The reason the Japanese didn't strike the West Coast is because it's really far away. They did not in fact have bombers that could reach it — they never built the Nakajima bombers, and I suspect they couldn't have even if they had really tried and weren't under bombardment. (The American B-29, which has nowhere near that range for combat, was already a major technological feat in and of itself, more expensive than making the atomic bomb. Even the B-2 Spirit has less range than that.) Had they won at Midway and kept going east, they might have taken Hawaii and been able to inch close and closer to being within striking distance of the continental US. But they did not, and could not. The distance was just too far, and after Midway and Coral Sea they lost the ability to make major operations in the Pacific anyway.

I think the idea that moving Japanese-Americans into camps would somehow deter the Imperial Japanese tactics is ridiculous. That was certainly not why it was done and it was certainly not a factor in why the Japanese did not attack the West Coast in any number. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it better if they are in camps anyway? That way if the Japanese were concerned about killing people of Japanese descent in the US they could just avoid the centralised camps and they're sweet. Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're joking. "We're gonna lock you up for the duration of the war, deprive you of your home, your job, your livelihood, and your civil and human rights, and expose you to ongoing stigma when we finally release you. But don't worry, it's for your own protection". Even if that had been the justification, it would have been outrageous. But that wasn't why they did it. It was naked racism. People who were born in the USA and were just as fully U.S. citizens as the President was, were treated abominably because they were assumed to be more supportive of Japan than of their own country and hence a risk to U.S. national security, merely because they were of Japanese origin. Australia did the same barbaric thing to people of German descent in WWI, btw. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not joking no. I don't deny the practice was horrific but it's irrelevant to my point. Wnt suggested that the people were locked up to stop the Japanese bombing the West Coast of the US. Mr. 98 pointed out this was dumb in a number of ways. But more then that, as I pointed out it's flawed in the first instance. There's no reason to think locking them up would discourage the Japanese from bombing or attacking with chemical or biological weapons the West Coast. In fact simple logic suggest it would have made it easier for the Japanese to bomb the West Coast if they really somehow discouraged by the risk of harming people of Japanese descent (for which there may be no evidence but it's a moot point) since now they simply have to avoid the camps (well perhaps saving the people in them once they're done bombing/whatever). So you don't even have to get in to the rest, Wnt's suggestion clearly makes no sense even if you ignore the history and evidence. I don't get "But don't worry, it's for your own protection" has to do with anything since I never suggested that, simply pointed out Wnt's suggestion was inherently flawed since from the Japanese POV it was better if they were in camps, not worse. P.S. I was primarily replying to what Mr.98 said and didn't really properly read what Wnt said. Wnt did mention 'hostages' which may mean he was suggesting the Americans detained people of Japanese descent in camps to warn the Japanese they could turn the camps in to death camps if they desire. This is a different possibility and isn't so simple since them being in camps obviously means it would have been easier for the US to commit such a genocide, but it also gives the Japanese places they can concentrate on to attempt to 'liberate' before the US committed such a genocide. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you wrote "That way if the Japanese were concerned about killing people of Japanese descent in the US they could just avoid the centralised camps and they're sweet". How can that not be interpreted as a move designed to protect the internees? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: it could just be a side effect. A side effect is not by design, and may even be harmful to the designer's original intent. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Britons in the French and Indian War

Approximately how many British colonists fought in the French and Indian War? The page states some 40,000 people but to me that doesn't sound realistic. Are there any citations that can support this? Thanks! 64.229.180.189 (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The figure in the Wikipedia article cites This book. You could read that book and see how they came up with it. --Jayron32 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that 42,000 regulars and militia were used. Not just colonists. There were 18,000 sent to Carillon while 6,000 went to the Ohio in 1758. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hard thing to measure. First of all, understand the three general types of service on land during the war: regulars (full-time soldiers), provincials (colonial units, usually enlisted to serve for about a year on an expedition), and militia (civilians who served part-time in emergencies). The Wikipedia article conflates the last two categories, a common error. (Writers who mistakenly think George Washington served primarily in the militia are legion; Washington hated the militia and had as little to do with it as possible.)

One number various sources agree on is that 16,835 provincials served in 1759. (Search Google books for "16,835 provincials", without the quotes, to find some sources.) This appears to be the year that saw the most numerous provincial enlistment. One source says that "From 1759 to 1762, 51277 provincial troops were in the field", but he is certainly counting guys who served multiple enlistments as multiple people. The number of colonists who served in the militia without ever enlisting in a provincial unit is probably significant. Historian Fred Anderson estimates that about 50% of men of military age in New England served in some capacity during the war. How many men that works out to be, I don't know. —Kevin Myers 17:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mute and motionless

Anyone have any idea of the provenance of the phrase "mute and motionless"? It yields a surprisingly large number of hits on Google, and I can't seem to find any single famous source. This is specifically in reference to Edwin Austin Abbey: Horace Howard Furness wrote of "the laws of his [Abbey's] own 'mute and motionless' art," with the "mute and motionless" in quotations in the original. Earlier in the speech, he quotes Shakespeare, but this doesn't seem to be a Shakespearean reference. --Thegreenj 03:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milton has it in Eikonoklastes (1649) xxvii. 222: "To be struck as mute and motionless as a Parlament of Tapstrie in the Hangings." I don't think this was a very famous work, so the phrase's popularity is probably due to other significant uses. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The characterization of painting, specifically, as "mute and motionless" can be found in Thomas Campbell's "Valedictory Stanzas" addressed to the actor John Philip Kemble, in which he states that acting escapes the deficiencies of the other arts, "For ill can Poetry express / Full many a tone of thought sublime, / And Painting, mute and motionless, / Steals but a glance of time." Deor (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK Parliament - 3rd reading

I seem to recall that it is possible in the House of Parliament, for a single MP to shout "Object!" at a certain stage of a Bill's progress, for it to fail completely, and that this happened quite recently (legislation for a full pint of beer?). Can someone point me to the protocol for this to happen please?--TammyMoet (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can't make it fail completely, it can postpone a bill by stopping it from going through 'on the nod' (without debate) if they're out of time (and this does have the practical effect of stopping a private member's bill that doesn't have government support) - here's a blog entry from Kerry McCarthy MP where she explains some of the ins and outs from a time where she 'object!'ed to a private members bill on tainted blood --Saalstin (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's very interesting. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The shouting of 'object' comes in only when a Bill is being considered after the end of ordinary business. Each day the House of Commons sets a time known as the 'moment of interruption' and after that time, Bills can only make progress if they are unopposed. Shouting 'object' signifies that the Bill is opposed. The most common time is for Private Member's Bills which are debated between 9:30 AM and 2:30 PM on Fridays. All Bills which are not reached in this time are mentioned at 2:30 PM, and if no MP shouts 'object' they can make progress. In practice, MPs opposed to Bills that are not at the top of the list deliberately speak for a long time during the debate so that they have the ability to shout 'object' on the Bill they do not like. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if you're watching BBC Parliament at that point, it's pretty depressing. A long list of bills is read out, and some designated MP just calls 'object' over and over again. I understand why, but it's still weird to watch. 86.166.41.126 (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watching BBC Parliament is always pretty depressing - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think that, knowing they are being filmed and footage may at least be used on the news, MPs would avoid acting quite so childishly in parliament. I mean, who seriously boo and jeers someone they disagree with? And if they have a soundbite joke they're working up to, must they spend 5 minutes smugly approaching it? 86.163.211.160 (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. has a similar procedure (although without the theater of someone yelling "Object!"). Congress passes thousands of noncontroversial bills and resolutions without a vote. In 2009, a member proposed a bill to recognize Pi Day. For some reason, another member demanded a vote, and the bill passed with 10 "nays" and a lot of rolled eyes. For the record, the opponents of Pi Day were Chaffetz, Flake, Heller, Johnson (IL), Miller (FL), Neugebauer, Paul, Pence, Poe (TX) and Shuster -- all Republicans. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best argument for the 'object' procedure is the occasion when the Texas state legislature honoured Albert deSalvo for his "unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology". Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The passing of legislation without a formal vote is called passage by Unanimous consent. That article may provide a good reading related to this topic. --Jayron32 00:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source of inspiration for the "Vitruvian Man" by Leonardo da Vinci

Hildegard's Universal Man
Leonardo's Vitruvian Man

Please bring your attention to your Wikipedia article on Hildegard von Bingen (Benedictine Abbess) of Eibingen, Germany, during the Holy Roman Empire. View her illustration in 1165 A.D. which depicts her "Universal Man" from her book Divinorum Operum. The scope, positioning, and subject matter (even down to the center part in the man's hair) is profoundly, in this observer's opinion, the exact illustration which inspired Leonardo da Vinci to perfect in what later became known as his "Vitruvian Man" sketch. Hildegard captured the concept long before Leonardo. Her texts on medicine and mysticism were circulated during her speaking tours away from the convents. Her prior work could have easily have found its way from southern Germany to libraries in Italy. It is clear that the nun's illustration in 1165 A.D. was an inspired masterpiece, long before that of Leonardo da Vinci circa 1487. (J.R. USA 2012)10:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.25.86 (talk)

I'd put that illumination more in the tradition of medieval medical/astrological depictions of the human body (one such that I can find in Commons is here). For a recent article about a possible precursor of Leonardo's drawing in its geometrical or "Vitruvian" aspect, see this. Deor (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that both images show a human figure within a circle, I can't see much resemblance. The poses are very different, for a start. And Liber Divinorum Operum is an account of Hildegard's visions, not a medical or anatomical text. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a Vitruvian aspect to the Hildegard image. Drawing someone in a circle is not a Vitruvian image. There has to be an illustration of proportionality between a human figure and both a square and a circle at the very minimum. See Vitruvian man for a nice description of the bare basics of illustrating Vitruvius' principles. It is anything but clear that these works are directly connected. The Hildegard image looks like some combination of divine revelation plus astrology (the grid with its little Zodiac-style illustrations), to my eyes, but I'm not an expert on the period. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

languages of Literature

sorry if this has been asked before. What languages, in order, would be useful for a Literature student who is interested in the most standard literature studied internationally to read and understand in the original? (I would think obviously with English in first place.) Thanks. --78.92.86.220 (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that French and Latin would need to be high on your list. They have both been, in the past, languages that educated people were expected to be able to read, and they are both the original languages of lots and lots of important and wonderful literature.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish should be quite high too. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Chinese; there is a lot of Chinese lit, I think, but not necessarily widely studied in the West. German certainly doesn't top the list, but they have quite a literary tradition too. As for the ultimate classics (by Homer), you'd have to learn Ancient Greek. I also know that Russian, Arabic, and Persian all have literary traditions, but I know very little about that. I agree with above, French nears the top of the list, and Latin is paramount for many of the "classics". Falconus^{p t c} 22:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in order for me, I think most of the literature I have studied is originally French (because I have studied French), but Latin, German, and Russian potentially come next. I should state that I have not studied a lot of literature, other than French, and a lot of the literature I have studied is quite old. Falconus^{p t c} 22:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very few Greek works are extant, although it depends on the weighting you give to the work importance-wise. I don't think it makes up that much of the overall picture, although it does include notable works. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "Very few". If you go to a college bookstore near a university with an active Classics department, you can often see the Loeb Classical Library volumes with green covers taking up a lot of shelf space... AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also another thousand years' worth of Greek literature after that (not in classical Attic Greek, but sometimes in a reasonable approximation). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article about the Western canon, with links to a number of "canonical" lists. Browsing through some of them, I might add Italian to the list of languages already mentioned. Pfly (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Literature#Laureates_per_country or de:Liste_der_Nobelpreisträger_für_Literatur#Rangliste_nach_Ländern (both lists use different counting methods) might also give a clue. English, French and German authors dominate the lists. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about countreis Pp.paul, but about languages. Therefore we should add up countries with similar languages. That changes the rang of most important language for reading literature of quality. 88.9.108.139 (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is kinda pointless because it's too broad. It's like asking "What's the best sports team in the world?" You can give answers to the question and some hold more truth than others, but it's all subjective and based on comparing things that are uncomparable and laying weights on different aspects.

The question needs to be what you want to achieve by studying literature. That would be much more answerable. There's masses of Chinese literature and many great books among them, but if you are interested in the Western canon (wich is certainly the most influential worldwide) you can forget about Chinese. If you are interested in how the Western world became what it is today Latin is pretty important for you, but if you are interested in current literature you can forget Latin and Spanish would be much more important.

But even learning a single language usually opens up more literature to you than you could ever study in a lifetime. Even if the language looks insignificant in the global eye like Icelandic, Frisian or Low Saxon. They provide enough literary material to keep you studying all your life. --::Slomox:: >< 10:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does Geoff Ryman's "The Child Garden" have a happy ending?

My girlfriend and I enjoy reading aloud together. My turn to pick the book is coming, and I was thinking about choosing The Child Garden, by Geoff Ryman, which I read a long time ago and remember liking a lot. My girlfriend doesn't like death- she even gets unhappy, when we watch nature shows, if the animals die. If somebody dies at the end of our book, my girlfriend will be very annoyed with me, and I can't remember how the book ended. The Wikipedia article doesn't have a full summary; can someone who has read this book lately tell me if everyone survives more or less intact? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the book (it is now on my list), but while searching around I found this quote from the book:

“Everything goes, everything is lost, eventually. But if something is good, it doesn't matter what happens. The ending is still happy.” ― Geoff Ryman, The Child Garden: A Low Comedy

That doesn't tell you how the book ends and I am happy that I didn't spoil it for myself, but maybe it's worth showing to your girlfriend? Lhcii (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What am I legally eligible to donate for $?

I'm getting the short end of the stick more often in life than I should handle, and the adult world is looking too abysmal for me to enter it. (So will December 21, 2012 prolong my youth? Let's see!)

One short end is that I can't donate blood/plasma. The federal regulations assume that ~20 years after leaving Germany, servicemembers and their families will get vCJD. I haven't been to Germany since 1990, where I had my toddlerhood.

(Why can't they have a test done first to disprove the presence of vCJD?)

With the economy how it is today, going to college amounts to gambling, with the jackpot being getting hired (fast becoming an elusive dream on the par of an actual gambling jackpot.) Hence, I may be calling a gambling debt counseling service to get counseled about my college expenditures. (No joke here.)

Friends donate plasma. However, what CAN I donate for cash, and in a way that's still legal?

If you dare say "recyclables" - tell me, given that friends can donate up to $300 worth every month, then how many pounds is $300 worth of each of the following: aluminum, copper, tin, glass, or plastic?

Or if it's something else I don't know, I'm open to ideas. Thank you kindly. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sperm? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please calculate the transportation & meal costs in the commute between 66502 and the nearest sperm bank while in a PT Cruiser Limited Edition. Is the donation still viable after figuring in? --70.179.174.101 (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not... see vCJD#Sperm donor restrictions. Astronaut (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donating any sort of bodily fluid is hardly going to yield a substantial income. Surely "donation" is the wrong word if payment is involved, or else why not "donate" your time? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your current situation really isn't working for you financially, consider making a dramatic change, like moving to a place where you are more likely to find work and continuing your education there if you are so inclined. It might not be a bad idea to take time out from college and just work for a couple of years. That's what I did during the worst recession of the 2nd half of the 20th century. The jobs I had were lousy and low-paying, at drugstores and fast-food places, but they paid just enough for me to live a meager but still fun and debt-free existence in shared apartments. When I returned to college, I continued the lousy and low-paid jobs part-time, and they allowed me to limit my debt considerably. Even during a recession, not-so-great jobs tend to be available because of high turnover to people who are literate, sober, and show up dependably for their work shift. Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I attended college during the same era (early '80s) and had many of the same concerns as you have. My solution (and that of thousands of low-income students both then and still today): Go to college during the day, and work nights and weekends. Yes, you can do it, if you truly want to succeed. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea is to join the Peace Corps, if that sort of thing would suit you. It seems like an interesting-but-not-expensive way to spend a few years, and even from a purely self-interested standpoint, the skills and connections one acquires are transferrable. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should also get your health (body and mind) checked, if you feel that you are not like yourself and that you could get more from life. There are certainly pro-bono doctors who could take a look at you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.33.29 (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you overestimate the ability to get quality pro-bono medical care in the United States. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the IP geolocates to a university in Kansas. Maybe in this university the students are somehow covered. 88.9.108.139 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing the OP does not seem to understand after multiple postings on the same topic is that 'donating' does not mean 'selling', in any way whatsoever. When you donate something, you give it for free. Voluntarily. If you want to get money from something, you have to 'sell'. Now, on the 'voluntarily' vein, if you want voluntary work - i.e. donating your time - there are plenty of voluntary organizations out there who may take you on, and you will learn valuable and transferrable skills from, which may lead you into a good paid job in the future. Be patient. If the mountain won't come to Mohammed.... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

African American Muslims in New York City

Are these African American Muslims are reverts or are they immigrants from Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Mali, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Senegal and Gambia or are they both groups of reverts and African immigrants from Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Mali, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Senegal and Gambia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.77 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "converts" and not "reverts." "Revert" means, "to go back to." "Convert" means, "someone who has changed religions." --Mr.98 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are both kinds. P.S. to Mr.98 -- Some prefer to use the word "revert", since they claim that all humanity is "naturally" Muslim to start with... AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also true that many African Americans are descended from Muslims brought to America as slaves two or more centuries ago. Marco polo (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect very many, since many of the slave traders in Africa were themselves Muslim, and enslaving fellow Muslims would be frowned upon. StuRat (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic slave-traders dominated the eastern-African slave trade (especially after the Omani capture of Zanzibar in 1698), while the western-African maritime slave trade was always dominated by Europeans. Anyway, you can see Moors Sundry Act of 1790, Bilali Document, etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and most black Muslim potential slaves would also have been in the East. Blacks in western Africa, at the time, tended to practice traditional (non-Abrahamic) religions (and many still do). StuRat (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The story of Islam within African-American communities is complicated by the Nation of Islam, which is something of a political and religious movement, and not merely a "denomination" of Islam. Among African-American muslims, there are a multitude of ways in which they may become Muslim; some are born into traditional Muslim families, some have immigrated from countries where Islam is a dominant religion, some have been introduced to the faith via the Nation of Islam, some have converted to more traditional Islamic faiths, if you can conceive of it, you will find lots of people who meet that idea. There is no universal story, and there is not one kind of "African-American Muslim". It is a very diverse group with diverse backgrounds. --Jayron32 19:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mosques in New York City, Detroit, Dearborn, Minneapolis, Buffalo

Is there a website where there is a list of mosques in New York City, Detroit, Dearborn, Minneapolis, and Buffalo, New York? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.77 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you type "Mosques in <BLANK>" into Google, replacing the name "<BLANK>" with the name of the city you are looking for, you can find the answer faster than waiting here for an answer. To be frank, anyone who answers this question is very likely to do exactly that (I did and found information you seek), so there's not much point in waiting for someone else to do what you could easily do yourself. --Jayron32 19:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mosques by Kyrgyz, Tajik, Iranian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Turkmen, Azeri, Turkish, Indonesian, Malaysian, African communities

How come there is no mosque founded and authorized by the following communities: Kyrgyz, Tajiks from Tajikistan, Iranian Shi'ites, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Azeris, Turkish, Indonesian, Malaysian African Muslims from Nigeria, Niger, Mali, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Guniea, Senegal, Chad, and Burkina Faso ? I only find mosques authorized and founded by Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Afghanis, Indian Muslims and Arabs Sunnis and Arab Shi'as? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.77 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, which country are you referring to? Britain? AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP geolocates to Toronto. Mosques (churches, temples, synagogues and the like) are established when there is a population of believers large enough, interested enough and with sufficient funds to do so. I have known religious groups who have met in living rooms for many years, and others who are still so meeting. Others have amicably shared formal premises. There are a number of Catholic and Protestant churches in Toronto (and likely elsewhere) that have dual congregations: one that worships in English and a second that worships in Japanese or Korean, for example. Bielle (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is always asking about Toronto. There are some churches that have an Arabic service too, and lots more that have Italian and Portuguese. Anyway, for mosques I don't know but I imagine the Kyrgyz population is not very large. There is definitely a Turkish mosque in the Toronto area though, I think it's in Markham. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Turkish Islamic Heritage Association's "Pape mosque" "is one of the earliest mosques in Toronto", dating back to the 1980s. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are three in Toronto and one in Scarborough in the List of mosques in Canada. Of these, the Jami Mosque appears to serve the Balkan community. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant USA. 70.29.35.77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.166 (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a tall order. You could start with List of mosques in the United States, I suppose. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume [5] can provide some info on mosques for Indonesians in the US. Malaysian Islamic Study Group (while directed at students) could probably provide some help for Malaysians ~~(and incidentally the article is probably a copyvio)~~. Also I'm guessing the Khutbah is commonly delivered in English in many mosques in the US [6]. If not it's probably more likely to be in Arabic [7] then say Urdu. So I'm not entirely sure whether it's such a big deal who founded the mosque. Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Canadians Caribbeans

I met a Black Canadian who is from Antigua and Barbuda. We had a nice chat but it struck me that how did he immigrate to Canada when Canada doesn't have a high commission in that nation. When did Canada accept these immigrants from these nations that doesn't host a Canadian high commission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.77 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will be the result of both countries being part of the Commonwealth. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, if a country doesn't have a diplomatic mission in another country, any issues that would usually be dealt with by a mission there are covered by a mission in a third country. In this case, the Canadian High Commission, Bridgetown (Barbados) has responsibility for several neighbouring countries, including Antigua and Barbuda. Note that there is no reason why a country cannot accept visitors or immigrants from a country with which it has no diplomatic relations, anyway. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, sometimes it's encouraged. For instance, immigrants from Cuba to the US are given privileged status relative to other potential immigrants, even though the two countries don't have official diplomatic relations. See Wet feet, dry feet policy. Meelar (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Black Canadians for some of the history of migration. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]