Humanities desk
< June 5	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 7 >

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 6

Correct etiquette in awkward situation?

Hey all. I was recently at a family reunion with my girlfriend and my great-aunt (whom I had only met twice prior) took me to what she believed was out of earshot--but not quite!--and told me that my girlfriend was very pretty. I was wondering what the proper response would be in this situation... I thought about "Thank you" but that strikes me as something I might say upon being told my house or car is very pretty, something I own which obviously does not describe my girlfriend! I talked to my gf about it and she didn't have any ideas, just laughing it off. Thanks, 24.92.85.35 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really go wrong with "I think so, too". Well, unless you don't, of course. --Trovatore (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your instincts are right about the "thank you" - saying that would come across as if you were taking personal credit for her bone structure. If "I think so, too" doesn't work for you, you could reply with "I'm very lucky" or "she's a wonderful woman" or something of that nature. (And if you think that question was awkward, just you wait.) --NellieBly (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the bit about being out of earshot. I could understand it if your great-aunt thought your g/f was ugly or had some other issue with her, but why would she want to hide her positive opinion from others? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have replied "AND smart!" ;) Vespine (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You never know quite how someone will respond to being called pretty. They might feel objectified, or they may think you're complimenting their appearance because you don't think there is anything else good about them, etc.. Or being complimented by a stranger may just make them fell uncomfortable. Complimenting people can be a minefield! --Tango (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a big problem with "thank you". Your great-aunt intended it as a compliment (of your taste in women, I suppose, or perhaps of your abilities to pick up attractive women), so take it as such and thank her for it. I agree with the comments above that a good alternative is to simply agree with the statement. --Tango (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you" could work by meaning: "I thank you on behalf of my hot g/f". And, if you're thinking that being pretty is simply a result of genes, so not deserving of thanks, keep in mind that hair style, cosmetics, clothes choices, etc., all go into "looking pretty", so your g/f is, at least in part, responsible for her own appearance. StuRat (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you" is almost never out of place.--Wetman (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your awkwardness upon encountering that observation as your aunt is female too and you understandably would want to appear unruffled by an observation that could be unsettling in its significance. Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question about Christian Science

According to this page I saw on About.com, Christian Scientists are commanded not to disclose the number of adherents of their religion. This is apparently based on a Scriptural passage that tells not to number people, though no specific Bible verse is given. Which particular verse, if any, are they referring to? Is the verse in question in Numbers or in another Biblical book? Even the very practice seems odd, since it is a relatively small denomination and many larger denominations disclose the number of their adherents. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like hogwash to me. I would like to now which verse(s) they're using as well. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section in the Manual of The Mother Church reads:

Numbering the People. SECTION 28. Christian Scientists shall not report for publication the number of the members of The Mother Church, nor that of the branch churches. According to the Scripture they shall turn away from personality and numbering the people.

I'm sure there's a lot of people more knowledgeable on Biblical matters than me around here, but I'd like to tentatively suggest 2 Samuel 24 / 1 Chronicles 21 as the inspiration. FiggyBee (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those two chapters may be inspiration, but it is weak - they are taken out of context. Those chapters describe describe David as seeking to know his own kingdom's strength, should he choose to be independent of God. To test God in such a way is offensive to Him, and so sinful. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's about motive. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it definitely wouldn't be the first or last time, in both religious and non-religious contexts, that someone has erroneously simplified "x was a bad thing to do in this very particular circumstance" to "x is a bad thing to do". FiggyBee (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or a good thing, for that matter. —Tamfang (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hosea 1:10 springs to mind...maybe Jeremiah 33:22. Assuming they are being extremely optimistic about increasing their numbers...there must be something in the New Testament though, along the lines of rendering unto Caesar, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, those two verses merely use hyperbole, note they use 'cannot' rather than 'must not'. Futhermore, the last verse you hint at, is a lesson in respect for governing authority. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Testament of the Bible itself includes several very detailed counts of numbers of adherents. If this tradition is biblical in origin, the only thing that comes to mind is that perhaps it evolved from the biblical census, which had to be accomplished by counting coins, rather than people. With each person giving the same coin, a count of coins reveals the populace. Exodus 30:11 is the source - here it is with and without commentary by Rashi. But I'm speculating, as this still permitted detailed results being publicised. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think 2 Samuel 24 is almost certainly the main relevant passage... AnonMoos (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a good choice, it does not support the idea. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those too lazy to look it up; here is 2nd Book of Samuel, Chapter 24, in which King David conducts a census of fighting men amongst the Tribes of Israel, and is punished by God with a plague which kills off 70,000 people; some might say this was over-reacting. Alansplodge (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David isn't punished for publicising the results, but for counting people. See my previous response. --Dweller (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that somebody knows about how many members there are, for mailing lists if nothing else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

side issues

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not that I really want to get into this again, but isn't it amusing or ironic that PlasmaPhysics of all people is so opposed to this? One 19th-century millenialist sect opposing another? Who cares? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason for making fun of someone who asks a question here, just because you know what faith he adheres to? If you don't care, stay out of it. You apparently care enough in order to wisecrack about it. 109.97.128.108 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making fun of the person who asked, nor am I making fun of PlasmaPhysics. The question was about the basis for this particular Christian Science practise, not about whether it was right or wrong. We can do without PlasmaPhysics' editorializing, which seems to me to give "undue weight", in the Wikipedia lingo, to his own religion. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it up on his Talk page, that's off-topic for here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe he could take it up on the IP's talk page. But he shouldn't hold his breath while waiting for an answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picking on IPs again, Bugs? It's true that you should hold your breath, but not because I wouldn't answer, rather because I have dynamic IPs. And sorry to Adam Bishop, I was under the impression that PP had asked the question. I still think your comment didn't add anything at all to the discussion, while PP was trying to argue that those Biblical passages don't constitute an argument for such a policy. 92.80.11.196 (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pick on IP's. But I do point out single-entry accounts who come out of nowhere, fire a shot, and then disappear again. Your IP and the other one are both from Bucharest - allegedly. And your comments don't add anything either. You want to avoid getting "picked on"? Try answering the OP's question rather than firing shots at registered users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said my comments added anything, I was just responding to you guys. Adam Bishop made a pointless remark, and I felt the need to point out to him that his unnecessary wisecracking didn't go unnoticed. Your bias against IPs is well-known, and you're not helping your case by saying "firing shots at registered users", as if registered users are some sort of higher class. I signed in now, so you can stop treating me like a second-class citizen. ElMa-sa (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not biased against IP's, I'm biased against your kind of attitude. Registered or IP, so far as I can tell your attitude sucks. So feel free to prove my observation wrong, by trying to answer the OP's question instead of doing what you're currently doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I'm a senible person, if something doesn't make sense to me, I don't believe it. I associate myself with that 'sect' because they believe the same thing as I do, not the other way around. What I'm convinced of, has nothing or very little to do them. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're all getting old, PP. It's unavoidable, really. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Sure it's avoidable. You just have to die young. (Yet I fear it's too late for you and I.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Sensible', not 'senile'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wink. I was just musing on the possibility of such a word as "senible", meaning, presumably, "having the propensity to grow old", which would apply to pretty much everything (except my deathless prose, of course). And Bugs, between you and I, we need to have a little chat ... :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I couldn't find any reference to it as such (apart from zillions of typos for "sensible"), but it's curious that it turns up here, of all places. It's also apparently a surname, presumably pronounced sen-ee-blay. So, consider "senible" and "senibility" hereby coined. In honour of this auspicious occasion, I think I'll rewrite all of Jane Austen's works from an ageing person's perspective, starting with "Senex and Senibility". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Oh, Jack. Dear Jack: No, Jack. Bielle (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Damn! I thought this one was a goer, but with those Biellian thumbs down, I guess not. Never mind, onwards to bigger and better things. I shall now turn my attention to a long-held dream: my renowned 14-act dramatisation of War and Peace is finally to be staged by my local kindergarten in a single 9-hour presentation. I shall direct and play the title role. Isn't life wonderful! -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Sounds like a best-seller in the works. Like Tom Lehrer's proposed math book, Tropic of Calculus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enough with the small talk. The OP probably wants us to the question addressed. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the subject, this comes up,[1] carrying some estimates. One telling factor is that the church is thought to have many adherents who don't belong to any specific congregation. If the OP can tolerate some irony, though, maybe he could call them and ask. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my england not so good when the writting of desk reference. I don't proof-read, or spell check very often when I post on the reference desks. I just saw the gross grammatical mistake in my previous post. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd rather have you guys trying to ask the question than reacting to Plasmic Physics' answers. Anyway, as a Roman Catholic who always respected freedom of religion, I don't actually care how many of them are. If they want to keep their numbers secret then I respect that. The thing that caught my attention is that their Manual does not specify exactly which Bible verse, if any, supports this practice, they just vaguely refer to it as "Scripture". I was just simply asking which verses they are referring to, not estimates of their population. I could ask a Christian Scientist, but I'm from the Philippines, a Catholic majority country, whose largest non-Catholic denominations are Iglesia ni Cristo, Aglipayan Church, Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Methodists and several Pentecostal churches colloquialy referred to as "Born again". Christian Science is virtually non-existant here, and ironically the practice only makes it harder to find someone. Is there a way to contact the Mother Church to ask the question and clarify the practice? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Science alleges that the Adam and Eve story is "allegorical". If so, then they can't go quoting other obscure passages as being "the law". My guess is that they simply don't want to talk about it - maybe because it would reveal how few adherents there actually are. In the citation I noted earlier, there are some estimates, and all of them are less than half a million. As denominations go, that's not large. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing about divinely inspired outfits: they get to tell the rest of us which bits of the Bible are allegorical and which bits are to be interpreted as the literal, historical truth. They all seem to have this power of discernment, so there must be something to it. (spoken with a straight face) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, it's funny how that happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "Renvoi"?

How do you pronounce the legal term "renvoi"?

(No, I don't know how ref-deskers are going to express the answer on this page either! I don't understand phonetic symbols.)

If it affects the answer, I'm in England. So I don't want the French pronunciation, unless of course English speakers use the French pronunciation. AndyJones (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult question to answer without the use of IPA. My copy of the Oxford English Dictionary gives /ˈrɒnvwɑː/ (literally ron-vwa). This is different from the French (in my understanding) which would miss the 'n' and extend the first vowel accordingly. -- role^player 10:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not extend the vowel, nasalize it. —Tamfang (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing to an Englishman, surely? 82.24.161.104 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that's a joke. —Tamfang (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it's over 20 years since I studied French and while I can read it and understand it fairly well, my pronunciation leaves a lot to be desired! -- role^player 21:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The end is nigh, ok, but nigh to where ?

Hi. I'm writing from Paris. In quite a lot of american movies I saw references to guys wearing a sign saying "The End is near" or "The End is nigh". I'd like to know if there is a place where that kind of person can be seen oftenly : Washington square ? some new york streets or avenues ? Thanks a lot to you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-no (talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venice Beach, California has the reputation of being the "in" place to be for those who are a few bricks short of a full load. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my 1960s childhood, there was an elderly man who patrolled Oxford Street (London's main shopping thoroughfare) with a "sandwich board" which said "THE END IS NIGH". I believe the other side suggested that repentance would be a good idea in the circumstances. He seemed to be there every time I went. I'm not sure if anyone ever took any notice, but his own end must have been nigh many years since. I found this picture of some similar but younger evangelical chaps, or perhaps one of them is our man in earlier years. Alansplodge (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to prove my thesis; "There was a guy who used to walk up and down London's Oxford Street, I imagine it was the sixties, wearing a sandwich board bearing the phrase, "The End is Nigh". Though he was warning of the impending Christian vision of Apocalypse, the phrase entered the popular consciousness as a slightly derogatory term for someone or something warning of impending doom.". Alansplodge (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More backup from Psychology Today magazine: Growing up in London, I remember an old man with a sandwich board used to traipse up and down Piccadilly and Oxford Street. His message was simple, consistent, and daily updated: "The end is nigh.". Another honourable mention is here. Alansplodge (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Green was a well-known Oxford Street "character". Another one is Philip Howard. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even those of us who lived far from London, and never visited there, were aware of the Alan's guy in the sixties. He became a national icon, and his message a popular catch-phrase ever since. Dbfirs 16:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised that his name hasn't been recorded for posterity, or that there isn't a photo of him on the web - someone out there must have one. Alansplodge (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian counterpart of that guy was "Mr Eternity", so called because he chalked the single word "Eternity" in copperplate on footpaths all over Sydney for over 35 years; it's estimated he wrote it 500,000 times. I remember seeing this word "Eternity" on Sydney footpaths on my Christmas visits to that fair town in my earlier years, and asking my grandfather what it meant. But unlike the "End is Nigh" man, we know most of Mr Eternity's biographical details – see Arthur Stace. He's become a sort of national icon; "Eternity" was featured at the Opening Ceremony of the 2000 Olympics, and on the Sydney Harbour Bridge in the millennium celebrations. He has a place in the National Museum of Australia in Canberra. There was even an opera written about him, which was commissioned by and premiered in ... a London theatre, of all places. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the squares around major universities — e.g. on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley or Harvard Square in Cambridge — you will several times a year have apocalyptic religious folks. I've never seen any with signs like the stereotypical ones, but I've seen plenty of scenes where people stand on a soapbox with a megaphone and drone on about Jesus and the Rapture, with signs that imply that the end of the world is right around the corner. It is not an everyday sort of thing, but occurred several times a year. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much to everyone, it's been helpfull Jean-no (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of surprised that no one has mentioned this yet: it's a fairly common claim among certain religious Christians (notably, Protestants) that the "end is nigh" - a statement that derives from the King James Version of the Bible. People have been claiming it for centuries. It knows no specific geographical region. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious. In what way does this claim derive specifically from the King James Version, rather than (for example) the Vulgate, the Great Bible, or any other translation in any language? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered where exactly it came from. My guess was the Book of Revelations which I spent half an hour last night ~~reading~~ scanning through the whole thing without finding it. In an English context, the KJV (or it's various revisions) was the only translation in widespread use by Protestants until the mid-20th century. Alansplodge (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That exact phrase does not appear anywhere in the Authorised Version of 1611. (In fact, the word "nigh" does not occur in Revelation.) I suppose it is just an abbreviation of sentiments expressed in parts of the bible, but I don't know whether the exact phrase was ever used before the sixties. Similar phrases occur in the journal of John Wesley ("Prepare yourself, for your end is nigh") and in the Book of Mormon ("for the end draweth nigh"). Dbfirs 06:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I've just found it in "A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Year 1783, with Notes and Other Illustrations, Volume 2 - Page 985", so it must have been a common phrase in the eighteenth century. Dbfirs 06:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True origin (at last!) A poem called "The Choice" (probably written in 1699) by John Pomfret. "Loud Thunders roar, and darting Lightnings fly Thro' the dark Concave of the troubled Sky ; The fi'ry Ravage is begun, the End is nigh." Dbfirs 07:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will in England

how old does an englishman need to be in order to make a valid Will? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's the same age as for an Englishwoman Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The age appears to be 18 BTW [2] Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He is an Englishman! / For he himself has said it, / And it's greatly to his credit, / That he is an Englishman! / For he might have been a Roosian, / A French, or Turk, or Proosian, / Or perhaps Itali-an! / But in spite of all temptations / To belong to other nations, / He remains an Englishman! / He remains an E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-Englishman!"'[3] Alansplodge (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I bet you can whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably most of them, although I confess that I've never watched an entire performance. It makes more sense if you understand the historical context - like most G&S, it's a biting satire on the great institutions and social mores of Victorian Britain, and Victorian Britain loved it. The Monty Python of it's time. Alansplodge (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Bugs, I've only just got the joke. Please ignore the tedious lecture above. Alansplodge (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for being unnecessarily obscure. And I enjoyed the lecture. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright then. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Rhodes had a good one, too: "You, sir, are an Englishman, and have therefore won first prize in the Lottery of Life". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's something about "mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday sun". (If any.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's "midday sun" (see Mad Dogs and Englishmen (song)). Not to be confused with the Noonday Gun. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shazam! You're right.[4] I had heard it wrong, all those years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Christians

Akin to Shas/UTJ/Lehi/Irgun et al. as Jewish "nationalists" and Islamic Jihad and all its factions as Muslim "nationalists," are there any exclusive Christian "nationalist" groups in the area? I know George Habash was a leading figure, but the PFLP were explicitly secular (and the other leaders were Muslim too). Doesnt matter if its extralegal or political parties, etc.Lihaas (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for the members to be Palestinian Christians? In Lebanon there is the Phalange, who have historically had pretty close (generally negative) interactions with Palestinians, though they themselves aren't, of course. Maybe more context would give us a better idea of what you're looking for. Buddy431 (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to define "Palestinian". Do you mean everyone living in Palestine/Israel, everyone living in Palestine only, or Muslims living in Palestine only ? (It can't be that last one, unless you mean people with two religions.) StuRat (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Palestine was almost as much Christian as it was Muslim in 1930 (much like modern Lebanon) - but most Christians (and moderate Muslims) were driven out by anti-Israeli Muslim extremists at that point (source: the wonderfully neutral but also direct O Jerusalem!). To this day, there remain no major political groups in the area that are anything other than militant Muslim. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mean only today, historically even. But i was referring to "ethnic Palestinians" (if you must) in the Levant, which of course the Lebanese Christians would not be.

Though the statement that there are NO political groups to this day that are only militant Muslim is ludicrous. PFLP were not, other organisations today do still exist (albeit overshadowed at the moment())Lihaas (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding secular Palestinian parties, there are a few. The Palestinian National Initiative is moderate centre-left and largely secular. The PFLP is still active in Palestinian politics, as are other marxist groups like Palestinian Popular Struggle Front, though all of them are a bit less Marxist than before. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Palestinian Christians, which says "Christians comprise less than 4% of Palestinians living within the borders of former Mandate Palestine today", compared with 9.5% in 1921. See also Third Way (Palestinian Authority) which was founded by Hanan Ashrawi, who is a Christian. See also Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem to which 50% of Palestinian Christians belong, and Arab Orthodox. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting Alansplodge, thanks for that. So am i t o presume that these days therei representation is only limited to [minor] political representation. Do they have any support for the other Palestianians resistance movement against the state? Either in opinion polls or actively?Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

an A$5.4 millions?

What is that even means? 5.4 million dollars? I found it in the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II article!65.128.168.2 (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it would mean Australian dollars, but youd need the cntext. Since its a commonwealth country it seems to be a gift or something.Lihaas (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[After Edit conflict] It means 5.4 million Australian dollars. It's a standard way of representing Australian currency internationally and makes sense where it is in that article because it's describing the contribution from the Australian government. It would be good to add a conversion to UK Pounds (or Euros?). I'll work on it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. It's about £3.5 million, and now the article says so. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to note the basis and date of the conversion calculation. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember? Hey, I've never done this before so there's nothing for me to remember. I'm just trying to help. If you're aware of a more standard approach to handling currency conversions, please apply it, and educate us all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental rule of attribution is to attribute exactly what you read, "A$5.4 million (£3.5 million)[1]" => "[1] A$ figure from {cite news…} converted using exchange rates available from (source) for the date (x)." It seems like a straight forward calculation to convert a AUD figure to a GBP figure on a certain date, but the conversion method used (ie: the source of the rate) and the date of the rate are elements of the citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]