Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 15

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.

November 15

National Guard nuclear weapons

How many nuclear weapons does the National Guard possess? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 00:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

None (hopefully). Countries like to have more trusted/specially trained forces minding their doomsday weapons. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In the USA, all nuclear weapons belong to either the US Air Force or (in the case of SLBMs) the US Navy. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the US Army own all nuclear artillery? And why wouldn't the Air National Guard, for instance, own the same types of nuclear weapons as the US Air Force? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear artillery states "In 1991 the US unilaterally withdrew its nuclear artillery shells from service, and Russia responded in kind in 1992. The US ... reportedly dismantled its last shells by 2004." Oh for the good old days, when men were men, and had the nucular ordnance to prove it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a little detail: the Army does not have custody over nuclear weapons, though they are allowed to "nominate" nuclear targets for fulfillment by the Air Force. They still have nuclear doctrine for this reason. --Mr.98 (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt members of the Air National Guard are given the opportunity to train to be missile combat crews. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As to why the Air National Guard doesn't deal with nuclear weapons, the final paragraph of this section explains why nuclear weapons aren't handed out to everyone who might possibly need one. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: everyone who might possibly need one... I don't think the Air National Guard does need nukes to do its job. Blueboar (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Only very carefully screened personnel are allowed anywhere near nuclear weapons, like Major "King" Kong for example. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Although the ANG operated 6 squadrons of the Convair F-106 Delta Dart in the 1970s, which was desiged to carry "a single GAR-11/AIM-26A Falcon nuclear-tipped semi-active radar (SAR)-homing missile... or a 1.5 kiloton-warhead AIR-2 (MB-2) Genie air-to-air rocket intended to be fired into enemy bomber formations" according to our article. Alansplodge (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"A live Genie was detonated only once, in Operation Plumbbob on 19 July 1957. It was fired by a Montana Air National Guard F-89J over Yucca Flats Nuclear Test Site"[1] So it looks as though they did have tactical nuclear weapons in the past. "The Genie was deactivated and removed from the Air Force Arsenal in the mid 1980s" Alansplodge (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That reference is suspicious, like many regimental fan pages. The reference isn't even internally consistent— the image caption immediately next the paragraph making the Montana ANG claim says that the aircraft was operated by regular Air Force. The Defense Nuclear Agency's report of that test indicates that the plane was operated by personnel from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. This sketchy source claims that the F-89J used in the test (based on serial number given in the DNA's report) was indeed associated with the Montana ANG at some point; even if true, I can't find anything which indicates that ANG personnel were involved in the test or that the ANG ever had independent (i.e. not attached to a regular AF unit) operational nuclear capability. If a clear link can be found between an ANG unit and nuclear weapons, that would be a big deal and entirely worthy of addition to Wikipedia. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Something else to consider... We have to distinguish between the Air National Guard and Air National Guard pilots... ANG units double as Reserve units for the US Air Force. So someone who is ANG might well be called up for active duty in the USAF. In this case, the pilot might well fly a jet that is capable of carrying nukes ... but when he does so, he does so as a member of the USAF, and not as a member of the ANG. In other words... the ANG, as an organization, is not issued nukes... but a USAF reservist who happens to be a member of the Air National Guard might well fly a Air Force plane that has been issued nukes. Different command structure. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We have W25 (nuclear warhead) which says; "Limited numbers were still used for Air National Guard F-106 aircraft until December 1984."

However, Schwartz, William A., and Charles Derber, et al The Nuclear Seduction: Why the Arms Race Doesn't Matter--And What Does. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1990. Notes: Chapter Nine What About Arms Control? "Note 12... In 1974 the Air Force reportedly removed nuclear warheads for air-to-air missiles from Air National Guard units nationwide after allegations that two Air National Guard fighter pilots were involved in drug trafficking (UPI, "Removal of Nuclear Weapons from Guard Units Revealed," Boston Globe, October 24, 1988, p. 5)." Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also FLIGHT International: 8 May 1975 (p.764) World Missile Survey; "McDonald Douglas Astronautics AIM2A Genie: An uguided nuclear warhead weapon designed to destroy bomber fleets. Operators: US Air Force Air Defence Command (F106), US Air National Guard (F106, F101B), Canadian Armewd Forces (CF-101)."

And Center for Homeland Defense and Security - Press Release April 2010; "The Air National Guard has renewed focus on nuclear enterprise, something the Guard played a key role in during the 1960s and 1970s, Burkett noted. During the Cold War the National Guard manned nuclear missile batteries in key urban areas and flew air defense missions with nuclear warheads to defend against potential Soviet attack." Alansplodge (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally, Sioux City Journal on Feb. 5, 1961 - Change Of Mission: 174th Will Fly Fighter Bombers Fitted for Nuclear Attack Role; "The daring young men of Sioux City's 174th A.N.G., have a new flying trapeze, the supersonic F-100 sabre jet, an 822-mile an hour airborne mailed fist equipped to deliver two nuclear bombs, each one of which is more destructive than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima." Alansplodge (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, nice find. I've updated the 174th Air Refueling Squadron article accordingly (and bless the Sioux City Journal for keeping that online)! Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Just think how differently the Kent State shootings might have turned out if the Ohio NG's had The Bomb at their disposal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

University System

In New Zealand, their Bachelor degrees are 3 years long. Most other polities have Bachelor degrees that are 4 years long.

What is the educational difference between New Zealand's Bachelor degrees, a 3 year degree compared to a 4 year degree, and administration of the degree over 3 years versus 4 yearsCurb Chain (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually several countries have 3 year long Bachelor degrees. One difference between NZ (and Australia) and some other countries with 3 year long Bachelor degrees is in New Zealand you generally need to take an extra year to get a honours degree if the Bachelor degree is only 3 years unlike in say the UK (except Scotland?) or Malaysia. But then again, my understand is per the Bologna Process, many European countries now have a Bachelor's degree for 3 years and often without the possibility of Honours although I'm not sure how similar the NZ system is to a country following the Bolonga process. A big difference between the system in NZ (or Australia, UK, Malaysia) or in fact I think most of Europe (our Undergraduate education seems to agree) and the system common in the US is a minimal amount of general education at university, most courses you take even in the first year of undergraduate study are orientated towards the degree or to some extent even the major or specialisation (you may be able to take enough courses for 2 or 3 majors/specialisations in the first year particularly if they're related but you definitely have to choose and plan carefully if you want to keep your options open and you may also reduce your options with the majors). The general education requirements were introduced back in 2006? partially out of concerns that the education wasn't well rounded enough but they are clearly still limited. Nil Einne (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What was introduced in "2006?"? Why ... is the education "still limited"?Curb Chain (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Do US graduate schools regard a foreign 3 year Bachelor's degree as equivalent to a US 4 year Bachelor's degree, or is it regarded as more like a US 2 year Associate Degree? Do they take the same course sequence in less time (smarter people, who work harder, with better teachers)? Are holders of 3 year Bachelors required to take additional courses before being admitted to full standing in a US graduate program? Even in the US, it has long been possible to accumulate the required 120 or so semester hours by taking a heavy load and attending during summer sessions. Edison (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The standard requirement for admission to a [nominally] 3 year PhD programme in Australia or New Zealand is completion of a 4 year honours degree with a I or high IIa. A relevant research Masters is also acceptable. It would be unusual for someone without a 4th year of honours (or equivalent per longer programmes such as Engineering) to proceed to a PhD programme, though they would be considered for a Masters programme depending. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that this is another key difference between the system used in Australia and New Zealand or for that matter the UK, Malaysia and I think most countries following the Bolonga process with the US. Admission to a PhD (which is generally a completely research based degree) generally follows a Masters. In the case of Australia and New Zealand you can also go through the four year Bachelor honours degree route (this also happens with those using the 3 year honours degree in some cases but it's often less transferable to other countries). The PhD is expected to take about 3 years although many find this isn't enough time. In the US, the PhD is generally straight from the Bachelors degree and expected to take about 5 or 6 years or so (edit: and may include coursework), a Masters degree is often earned while completing the PhD or alternatively the candidate may decide either before beginning or while doing the degree they only want to complete Masters level. Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

US PhD programs virtually always include coursework. It is unlikely (though, certainly, not impossible) that a student coming straight out of a Bachelor's or even Master's degree has sufficient knowledge to pass the qualifying exams. Even past quals, most students continue to take courses, and why not? When are you going to have a better opportunity? You're a better researcher if you know stuff outside your immediate research project. --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Depending on what, if I can ask?Curb Chain (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As I noted in my first reply, the key difference between the 3 year Bachelors degree and the US 4 year is generally said to be in focus. The US system is generally said to have a wider breadth since AFAIK it's fairly normal for the entire first year of a US degree to be in general education with many courses only losely connected to the degree. In fact I've sometimes seen it suggested, particularly in the case of the UK that even taking into account the entire 3 years compared to the final 3 years of a US degree, the US degree still has more breadth and the UK has more depth. Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In the UK,pupils specialise in their education prior to University also. GCSEs,( in England - Scotland has a different system), are chosen at age 14 and 2 years long courses. This is the first narrowing stage, followed by a fewer number of A levels (studied for two yaers age 16 to 18). Thus when I went to university to study physics (late 1970's) I had previously done A levels in Chemistry, Physics and Maths and no other subjects. Physics was a required A level in order to do Physics at University. Thus, although the English University BSc Hons is 3 years duration, prior to that, I had already specialised for 4 years at O level (precursor to GCSE) and A level. My friend, in contrast, dropped phyiscs at age 14 and went down the arts/languages route. In Scotland, University honours courses are 4 years. I have also seen it mentioned that an English BSc is deemed equivalent to a US Masters because of the greater focus on one subject only.

In the University of Auckland, a requirement to complete general education courses was introduced in 2006 or sometime around then. I thought it was throughout New Zealand but it looks like I may be mistaken. However the number of courses is only generally one or two in total for the entire degree (out of 8 total courses which are normally completed per year at least for most of the sciences) [2], so the breadth of the education is still significantly less then seems to be the norm in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh

In the article Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh it says that the following morning a hotel cleaner attempted to gain entry, but found that the door was latched from the inside. Previously the same article mentions Al-Mabhouh had asked for a room with no balcony and sealed windows, so as no one could enter other than through the door. Assuming he was in fact murdered, how did the assailants exit the room while still managing to latch the door? The article does not explain. The Masked Booby (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure he got what he asked for? Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If I was sure of anything, I would not be asking here. Do you have anything helpful to add? The Masked Booby (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is there's no reason to assume the windows were in fact sealed, the article simply says he asked for it, not that the windows were sealed. In any case, depending on the type of latch, it wouldn't be that hard for a professional, in some cases possibly even an amateur to latch it if they could be bothered. Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A hotel's "privacy latches" can be opened from the outside without much difficulty [3]. It's easy to imagine a simple tool with a hook at the end which would permit the reverse. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes those sort of chain latches was one of the exampls I was thinking of, and if that's what we're referring to must be trivial to latch from the outside. To some extents, it's even easier then trying to unlatch from the outside since you're pulling the chain towards the door frame rather then away (although you do need to catch it on the latch in the first place). Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In case there remains any confusion, as noted here [4] most hotel security systems intentionally should be able to be opened from the outside without too much difficult. It's unlikely they would even consider how easy it is to latch from the outside. BTW, I had a look and can't find any sources discussing the particular type of latch used at the hotel although several sources say it was chained and latched. Most discussions I can find seem to focus on the theoretical rather then based on any actual knowledge of the specific sort of latch used in the hotel in question (and some seem surprised it's possible which as we've dicussed doesn't make much sense). Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Root cause behind the Fatah–Hamas_conflict

What are some of the root causes behind the Fatah–Hamas_conflict? While the article has a lot of detail on conflict itself, it's completely blank on the actual cause behind the conflict. It starts off by saying: "The tensions between Hamas and Fatah began to rise in 2005 after the death of longtime PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who died on November 11, 2004, and intensified after Hamas won the elections of 2006.". It sounds like the electoral victory/defeat is merely a trigger and not the actual cause of any resentment. A8875 (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The 'root cause' of conflict between Fatah and Hamas is essentially not different than the conflict between Democrats and Republicans in the US, the difference lies in the means used. They are two politically parties. On one side they have different ideologies (or in the case of Fatah, no ideology), but it is also more short term interests. Controlling the government means a lot of positions in government and state institutions.

Having said that, animosity between Fatah and Hamas run decades back. Whilst Fatah took a lead in the resistance struggle in the 1960s, the Muslim Brotherhood (the founders of Hamas) stayed aloof from open politics and resistance activities in Palestine. Rather they concentrated on building religious and social institutions. Compared to Fatah and the other active resistance groups, the work of the Muslim Brotherhood received implicit tolerance from the Israeli side, leading Fatah and secular Palestinians to accuse the Brotherhood of being collaborators. Now when Hamas was founded in the 1980s, it positioned itself outside the PLO. It rapidly emerged as the largest non-PLO faction, and gradually emerged as a challenger to PLO and Arafat's claims of representing the entire Palestinian people. At the time, PLO factions accused Hamas of being supported by Israel. Then, when the Oslo Accords were signed, Hamas positioned itself as opponents of the Accords and refused to participate in the Palestinian National Authority. They continued armed resistance activities (including a series of suicide bombings), and became targets of Fatah clamp-downs. The Fatah-controlled PNA was supported by US (and in some ways, Israel) in clamping down on Hamas, leading Hamas to challenge Fatah as traitors and collaborators. Once the public opinion's dissatisfaction with Fatah's corruption in the PNA had reached a critical level, Hamas decided to enter the electoral area and was able to swoop local and parliamentary elections 2005 and 2006. --Soman (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent answer. Does religion play a role as well? From reading their respective articles it seems while both parties are firmly Islamic, Hamas appears to be more fundamentalist while Fatah appears more secular. Is this a contributing factor?A8875 (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually Fatah is non-denominational. Of course its members and leaders are primarily Muslims due to the religious make-up of its constituency, but it also represents Christian Palestinians. Our article on Fatah says that four Christian members were elected to the Revolutionary Council in the 2009 election. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

university policies on police clearance

Hi all, for my PhD research, because I may be visiting people in their homes, it turns out I need police clearance. I was rather surprised, so can anyone tell me if this is normal around the world (or at least in their part of it)? I'm talking in general, not where there are specific issues like visiting the elderly, or dealing with minors, or research that involves asking sensitive questions. Do many universities take a more extreme approach, requiring police clearance for any research on people? Do any take a rather laissez-faire approach, requiring it only in very rare circumstances? Just curious, that's all, IBE (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "police clearance"? What, exactly, are they requiring? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

By the context it likely means a background check. Mingmingla (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Or simply a police clearance certificate. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What Wikipedia has seems to be in Guidelines for human subject research. Universities in the U.S. have committees to regulate human research, and I know that linguists semi-regularly have to get such committees to refrain from imposing unsuitably restrictive conditions (appropriate for manipulative or intrusive types of experiments, which linguistic studies rarely are) to their work. I never heard of police record checks, though... AnonMoos (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Classic quote from that article: "This document contains great guidelines for the use of deception in research." Just in case you thought Wikipedia really was NPOV. IBE (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the word "great" (as you could have done when you noticed it). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you are spoiling our fun. With diligent editing, there would be no articles like this one, for example. Also, I have tried editing mainspace, and I find it a frightfully lonely experience dealing with the opinionated freaks. Here it is much safer, as I am something of a wallflower. IBE (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the research institution wants to cover its back, so they can say they did their best, just in case IBE steals stuff. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There'll be some variation between universities in the UK, but not much. You would need a CRB check (police check), probably enhanced, for any unchaperoned interviews with minors or anyone considered vulnerable. And unless you can show that your interviewees won't include anyone vulnerable - no-one who might be lonely, anxious or depressed, no-one who might leave children unattended in your company, etc. - that means you probably do need a CRB check. It's regarded as a good exercise for PhD students to have to pass their work through the research ethics procedure. Even if you're only interviewing people in professional roles there are a lot of considerations. (Are they speaking on or off the record? What will you do if they start criticising their colleagues? What if they disclose sensitive information about a third party?) It's a good training for the research roles you might go into after you get your PhD. (Yes, there is life after.) I'm glad that universities do keep a check of who is going into people's homes. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A quick search confirms it's a common requirement in the UK for reseachers who may have unsupervised contact with vunerable adults or with children [5] [6] [7] [8]. Nil Einne (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutely a CYA issue. If you are representing the institution officially (as a researcher doing work for the institution you certainly are), the institution may be liable if you commit a crime while on institutional business. That is, if your research requires you to enter people's homes, and you then rob them, or sexually assault them, or commit any of a number of other crimes, the university and its officials may be civilly or criminally liable for your crimes as well as you. The point of a criminal background check is so that the university can have met its legal requirements for due diligence in sending you into people's homes. If the university has the ability to check into your background, and does not, it can be seen as willful negligence. --Jayron32 18:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the Canadian Yachting Association has such concerns. Sorry, I had to look up CYA. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess I should have covered my ass by explaining the acronym in text. --Jayron32 20:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I learnt long ago about PYA activity. I was told it stood for Protect Your Asterisk. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The OP's user page tells us he is in Australia. A national police clearance is a common requirement for the kind of activity he is planning to undertake. He would be seen as a representative of his university, and it protects that body. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are underage persons in the target group, the researcher might also need a Working with Children Card (which WP calls Blue Card (Australia), but that refers to the one used in Queensland only. Other states have their own versions, not necessarily blue.) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Study question

Can you study a career at distance learning from another country? i.e. from the United States with a British university. Newyorkboyy (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone will probably correct me here, but my understanding is that some courses are delivered fully electronically, although then there would be trouble doing an exam (perhaps they have open book exams). There are also universities with arrangements with other countries, such as Murdoch University in Perth, which has a campus in the Emirates. That may not really answer your question, so clarify if you have any specific university in mind. IBE (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh University? Newyorkboyy (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. One of my "classmates" in my library program was in China the whole time. I was in Vancouver. I suppose it depends entirely on the school and program. Mingmingla (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You can indeed. One of the big institutions for this is the Open University - my partner got her degree through it doing part-time distance learning and I have a couple of other friends that have (i've only got half way to my degree - it's a blooming lot of work whilst doing a full time job so hell of a lot of respect for anybody with the dedication to get all the way through it!). ny156uk (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that at some, like the Open University, you can complete the whole degree without traveling to the UK. However, I suppose you'll have to travel to a recognized testing center, like Pearson VUE near you. If you are serious about obtaining a degree through distance education, your best bet is to ask them directly. I am sure that they have template answers for such questions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Some UK universities have campuses in other countries, but I note you're looking for distance learning. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Shady Groves" and "Matty Groves"

Many sites on the internet including Wikipedia indicate that the song "Shady Groves" is an Americanized (and less graphic) version of the British Ballad "Matty Groves," also called "Little Musgrave and Lady Barnard" among other titles (Child ballad 81). I am seeking any authoritative source that backs up this apparently common belief. Thank you 216.7.233.70 (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Both lyrics can by sung to the same tune. See Doc Watson's version of Shady Grove[9] and Fairport Convention - Matty Grove. However Doc Watson uses a different tune for his Appalachian version of Matty Groves[10] than [Songcatcher did while Planxty admits to putting a random tune to the words[11]. Rmhermen (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

top hats among jew men of different sects and ethnic groups

Is there a website where it shows different top hats worn by jew men of different sects (e.g. Reform, Conservative, Haredi, Hasidi and Modern Orthodox) and of ethnic groups (e.g. Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi)?--Donmust90 (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• A few things 1) The use of the word "Jew" as an adjective is usually taken to be a rude slur in any context. If you are a non-native speaker of English, you may have not realized this, but describing someone as a "jew man" could be taken very rudely. The correct term is "Jewish men". Jewish, as an adjective, is much less likely to offend. 2) Regarding headgear worn by Jewish men, I'm not aware of any headgear which is uniquely associated with Judaism aside from the kippah or yarmulke, the skullcap worn by some Jewish men. The article on the kippah describes its usage. I'm not aware that the Top hat is particularly associated with Judaism in any way, so perhaps you just confused the terms. Some Jewish groups are better known then others for distinctive dress; Hasidic men are known for distinctive hats such as the Shtreimel or Spodik. Other Hasidim are known to wear brimmed hats, but these aren't really unique or distictive to Judaism or Hasidism, hats like the Bowler hat or other similar hats are sometimes worn. The other distinctions you draw (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi or Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox) are not known for any identifying clothing beyond the kippah: they will dress as everyone else does, wherever they live. --Jayron32 20:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Our Haredi Judaism article has two or three pictures with men wearing shtreimel/spodik-type hats and one with a yarmulke - but all but one picture has men wearing a a broad-brimmed back hat. What is the name of this hat? Rmhermen (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well there is a Top hat in one of them, but mostly they appear to me to be Homburgs. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see several distinct and different styles of brimmed hats in that article. I see some kids wearing what looks like a wide-banded fedora, I see the man at the payphone wearing a hat with a flat top and cylndrical shape, like a Pork pie hat, I see the two men in the picture titled "Meah Shearim neighborhood, Jerusalem" wearing different brimmed hats: one has a wide, flat brimmed fedora-style hat while the other has a bowler hat. In the picture of the crowd at the bottom, I see hats of all sorts: the fur hats like the Shtreimel, the kippah, several different styles of brimmed caps, including ones with flat brims, ones with brims that curl up, ones with cylndrical cross sections, one with more peaked cross sections like the fedora or the homburg. Really, other than "brimmed hat" I'm not sure there is anything in common between them. --Jayron32 21:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

However, I doubt whether many Jewish people will be comfortable with anything described as "pork pie". Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Touchè. --Jayron32 18:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you acutely aware you've made a grave error, Jay? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I did find this article about the Bevis Marks Synagogue in London, which follows the Sephardic tradition; "Bevis Marks is a synagogue which does not give up on tradition lightly. The service leader wears a top hat...". Alansplodge (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Eureka! Ask the Rabbi - "Why do some synagogue presidents – such as in the Great Synagogue – still wear top hats (tzylinders) during Shabbat and festival services?". Alansplodge (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that both synagogues above my indent are in the U.K., which possibly leads the contemporary world in the wearing of top hats. I'd say the question forks into two branches: either (a) the rabbi of authority for a particular sect or community dictates the practices of choosing headgear (and for married women likewise), or (b) the choice rests on the individual congregants - in which case they'd be as likely or not to follow mainstream fashion as any other hat-wearing individual. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"...leads the contemporary world in the wearing of top hats". Excellent, I knew we were good at something. Actually the synagogue mentioned in my second post is the Great Synagogue (Sydney) in Australia. Alansplodge (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

<blush> So it is! I'm caught out - I scanned only the left-hand portion of the screen when the oztorah.com link came up: Figured the name in big red letters was transliterated from Hebrew (not "oz" = "au"), saw "...English synagogues... London..." and jumped to my conclusion. Good thing this isn't a mainspace page! </blush> -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Samuel Kipi

Can someone help me pinpoint when this encounter with Royal Governor Samuel Kipi of Hawaii occurred in this book? Also who was the traveler(s) and when did they visit Hawaii and specifically when they visit the Big Island. Its published in 1878, so we know it must have happen before that year. PS the book is in German.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, while his narrative includes dates, I couldn't find a place where the author states the year. He mentions a date in 1874 as having been in the past, so the voyage must have taken place between that year and 1878. Marco polo (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just found a passage a bit before the one in question where the author states that it is the 100th anniversary of the founding of the United States, so that places your encounter on August 21, 1876. His ship made stops in Maui and on the Kona shore of the Big Island and landed at Hilo on August 23. The author is Max Buchner, a German physician and ethnographer. After finishing his study of medicine, he signed on as ship doctor for a German shipping line. He was 30 years old at the time of his encounter with Kipi. This book is his account of his travels. Ten years after this voyage, he became conservator of the State Museum of Ethnology, where he remained for the next 20 years. Marco polo (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

So were they heading back from Maui? Where exactly on Maui? And also why was Max Buchner traveling in Hawaii?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

They weren't heading back from Maui, they were on a regular steamship run from Honolulu to Hilo by way of Maui. I don't have time right now to read those chapters of the book, but you might try running it, paragraph by paragraph, through Google Translate, and I think you will find answers to your questions. The translation won't be completely accurate, but it's not too bad from German to English, and you will get the main ideas and most of the facts. Marco polo (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that is sufficient for the article. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)