Humanities desk
< April 2	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 4 >

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.

April 3

Mass shootings outside of North America, and also non-American shootings where the perpetrator committed suicide.

So there has been another mass shooting in the United States, this time in Fort Hood in Texas, and like most American shootings (or at least the ones reported in the news), the shooting ended with the perpetrator killing himself. I've asked on the reference desk a number of questions on shootings throughout the years (check the archives), but now two questions came into my mind.

1. To my knowledge, shootings and perhaps mass shootings are fairly common worldwide, particularly in countries with a high crime rate. However, excluding possible suicide missions in the Middle East or genocides, how common are "American-style" shootings (planned gun attacks ala Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook) outside of the United States? I know that American media sometimes sensationalizes such shootings in the news, making them appear to be somewhat common, but outside of the U.S., do similar events occur? The closest one I can think of was the one in Norway (this time the perpetrator didn't kill himself, but that was more of a terrorist attack than a mass shooting), but are there any others, those that are similar to attacks seen in the U.S.? I'm thinking maybe Canada has had a few, but have there been such attacks, in Canada and elsewhere?

2. Among foreign examples of "American-style" mass shootings outside of North America, which of these ended with the perpetrator killing himself, and among those cases, why did he do so?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Port Arthur massacre (Australia) will tell you about Australia's last, and biggest, mass shooting, in 1996. The perpetrator is still in prison. The event led to major changes in gun laws, and nothing that could be called a mass shooting has happened since. I'm not aware any of mass shooting/suicides in Australia. Others may know more. HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Strathfield Massacre happened about 4km from where I was living at the time (inner-western Sydney). I remember being shocked that such a thing could happen so close to home (I used to go to school in Strathfield). There's also the Hoddle Street massacre which happened a few years earlier (although the perpetrator didn't commit suicide). So while rare I don't think it's unheard of. 59.167.253.199 (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The perpetrator of the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland killed himself. It actually happened about a month prior to the one HiLo linked to. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a series of school shootings in Germany: in both Erfurt (2002), and Winnenden (2009) cases, the shooter committed suicide after multiple killings. As with the British and Australian cases, these events led to tightening of firearms regulations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the Sello mall shooting in Finland, the 2011 Norway attacks and the École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal, Canada. The following list of recent mass shootings, compiled in 2011 [1], has 7 of the 10 most recent ones taking place outside the USA. --Xuxl (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbria shootings in the UK in 2010. Dalliance (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article List of rampage killers has a comprehensive breakdown. Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're less common in countries where firearms are difficult to get hold of due to gun laws. There were 38 gun-related homicides in the UK in 2011 ([2]). Here's a comparison with the United States, taking into account the difference in population: ([3]) --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by firearm-related death rate --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could be worse, you could live in Mexico or South Africa... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firearm attacks are, as expected, much rarer where firearms are severely restricted. Other attacks though are quite common. Nobody's mentioned these pertinent examples: Akihabara massacre, 2014 Kunming attack, Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing. It also hasn't been mentioned that in this Ft. Hood incident the gunman killed himself, according to current reports, only after an armed police officer confronted him. In many other massacres in the U.S. the perpetrators killed themselves only after being confronted by armed resistance; usually the police, but in some cases (Tacoma Mall shooting) a non-law enforcement individual. It should be noted that on peace-side military bases, only the MPs are regularly armed. Shadowjams (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you trying a little hard there to defend guns. Please list the "quite common" firearm attacks in Australia since much stricter gun laws were instituted. HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're trying a little hard there to blame guns. Please list the uncommon knife attacks in your Australia. I already made the distinction between "firearms" related crimes and.. you know.... crimes... Seems to me that as humans we care about sensless murder... the method is secondary to most of us. So focusing, as you do, on "firearms" specifically... disregarding my first words ("Firearm attacks are, as expected, much rarer where firearms are severely restricted")... you're not adding anything useful to this conversation. Shadowjams (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I stuffed up there with my typing. I meant to ask you to list the "quite common" non-firearm attacks in Australia since much stricter gun laws were instituted. They just don't exist. Certainly not on the scale of the earlier shootings. It's simple. If guns are harder to get, mass murders are much harder to do. HiLo48 (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also Shadowjams, The Tacoma Mall shooting article that you linked to doesn't support your case very well: the armed citizen was shot five times and paralysed, while the gunman went on to take hostages and "surrendered to a Tacoma police SWAT team" some time later. Alansplodge (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is the "At least one other person in the mall at the time also pulled a gun on Maldonado, but did not fire for fear of hitting innocent bystanders.[1]" piece you neglected, and I'm not sure why a citizen who failed to perfectly stop an attack is all that relevant... it apparently led him to hole up in a candy store and wait to be taken down; nobody else died. As to HiLo's response, I think that while it's natural to believe that firearm attacks lead to higher body counts, my point is precisely in response to that: nonfirearm attacks result in equally massive body counts. Viewing any of these factors in isolation is a lot like sports commentators compiling stats for their local team. Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Australia made gun control much stricter almost 20 years ago, no nonfirearm attack has gone anywhere near the body counts of earlier mass shootings. Your claim is just plain silly. It's much harder to achieve hig body counts without serious fire power. I will also now stop discussing this. Some of my least pleasant experiences on Wikipedia have been with gun obsessed Americans. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beard in mohamedans

Why do mohamedan males keep and sport a charecteristic beard.Is it a religious compulsion.What does it signify?Can it be related or correlated with fundamentalism and fanaticism.117.194.244.191 (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's obligatory in most interpretations of Islam (more mandub/mustahabb than fard), but some consider it meritorious to imitate Muhammad in all allowed ways.... AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "bearded ones" is often used as a synonym for the Muslim extremists, in a number of languages. There is a style of beard (a long rather unkempt beard worn without a mustache) which is typically associated with salafist movements. As a result, persons who do not wish to be associated with this trend will tend to avoid this type of beard style, but you sometimes see non-Muslim Westerners sporting the style, so one should not jump to conclusions. --Xuxl (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of mentioning what Wikipedia has to offer: see also Beard#Islam (which also directs you to Islamic hygienical jurisprudence where there is very little information, I'm afraid). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islam.tc : The Beard in Islam says "The requirement for keeping a beard is a neglected practice in this day and age". A lot more detail is in The Islamic Perspective Of The Beard. 12:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a word of advice. The last time I heard anyone refer to "Mohamedans", the Muslim who was present was highly offended and insisted the speaker use the word "Muslim" henceforth. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually linked to the spurious argument that it's "offensive" because it implies that Muslims worship Muhammad, which it doesn't - no more than the term Lutheran implies that Luther is worshipped by them. Once when I spelled the word "Moslem" rather than "Muslim" I was told that this was "offensive", but the complainant could not give any reason why when asked. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mohammedan indicates it's basically an old-fashioned term that's not used much anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word Mohammedan is described as "offensive" at wikt:Muslim.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really up to you to adjudicate how good someone else's reason for being offended is, now is it? The implication may not be intended, but if it's taken, that's sufficient. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that argument. I'm certainly not looking to give offense, and since I have no good reason to use Mohammedan in place of something else, I'm quite willing to use something else. However, I don't accept censorship of my speech for stupid reasons (see the "niggardly" controversy). --Trovatore (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most people aren't looking to take offense, either; the offensiveness does not (usually) lie in the intent on either side, but in the choice of words (and media, and so on) employed. I'm simply arguing that 'I find your offense at this illogical' does not not make it so, nor does it take away the offense even if true. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "Lutheran" and "Catholicism" are sects or denominations or branches of Christianity. Just as Shia and Sunni are sects or denominations or branches of Islam. "Mohammedan" is not a sect or denomination or branch of Islam. It's not actually anything... except incorrect usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "incorrect" about it. It's perfectly accurate that Muslims are followers of Muhammad in the same way that Lutherans are followers of Luther. Your point about "Lutheran" and "Catholic" is irrelevant. The issue is word-usage. 'Lutheran' was used as as an example because as a word it means "Follower of Luther". Catholics are not followers of someone called "Cath", nor are Sunnis and Shia divided by partisanship over Sonny and Cher. The fact that they are names of sects or faction is entirely beside the point. Paul B (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lutherans don't "follow" Luther, they follow the teachings of Jesus, as do all Christians. Luther interpreted the teachings differently than the Catholics did. Hence the nomenclature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best solution would be for Wikipedia to establish a special Political Correctness Reference Desk, where those so exercised on others' behalf can opine to their hearts' content. For my own part, I've often wondered why the BBC - amongst others - constantly refers to 'the prophet Mohammed'; he's not a prophet to me. In fact, to be completely accurate, I would regard him as a false prophet, although that is, of course, a personal opinion only. --83.49.77.33 (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder no longer. The key to the impenetrable mystery has something to do with the fact that the BBC et al are not aware of your personal attitude to Mohammed, and even if they were aware, they would almost certainly not take it into account when developing their policies on how best to refer to significant religious figures. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that that's it, on the basis that staff members of the BBC are likely to be, as a population, non-Muslim themselves and probably complete non-believers, at least in majority. My wonder is why the inaccurate honourific 'the prophet' is constantly appended to the name Mohammed. I expect that, in another couple of years, they'll start appending 'Peace be upon him', just to round it off nicely.

As someone who regularly listens to and (occasionally) watches the BBC's output, it is distinctly noticeable how Christianity is treated as an object of ridicule, in, for example, the reporting of the gay marriage issue and on comedy programmes, whereas its treatment of Islam is absurdly deferential, despite its much more illiberal and violent tenets. On the other hand, of course, it may be simply that they defer to passive-aggressive postings from the scholars of Wikipedia, such as yourself.

Just shows that humour in the guise of light-hearted banter does not often translate well online. In either direction, probably. -- -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

There's not much doubt that the BBC sometimes treats Muslims/Islam rather timidly in a way which does not usually apply to other religions. See the semi-notorious 2006 "Room 101 Impartiality Summit" incident, complaints by British Sikhs and Hindus, or the fact that the BBC aired the Jerry Springer Opera, then shortly afterwards refused to include the actual Muhammad cartoons in its coverage of the Muhammad cartoons controversy... AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the question, I suggest that the answer might be that it would be sacrilegious for a man to shave off what Allah has given him; the knights Templar had a similar belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.77.33 (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title 'the prophet' is appended to Mohammed's name to distinguish him from the millions of people who have subsequently been named after him. There is no credible reason why the BBC (or any other secular institution) would be making a positive statement of faith simply by applying what we on Wikipedia call disambiguation. But by all means go on complaining about 'political correctness' and how terrible it is for people to differ from you in their religious views. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not expounded any 'religious views'; I find the usage absurd precisely because it is applied as an honourific even when it is obvious from the context that one is talking about 'the prophet' rather than, say, Mohammed Fayed or any other Mohammed. I find it somewhere between an affectation and cultural cringe. But by all means do keep imputing motivations to me. --83.49.77.33 (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really any different from "the Virgin Mary" or "His Holiness the Pope". People using those forms of words are not necessarily averring that Mary was a virgin or that the Pope is holy. It's simply a mark of respect for how adherents would call them. Muslims call Mohammed "the Prophet Mohammed", so the BBC et al follow suit. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a German Margrave

If I'm citing Karl Markgraf von Montoriola, what should I put into the field for the last name? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Montoriola" alone would be the last name, without the Adelstitel >> "Montoriola, Karl Markgraf von" is how he'd normally be given in citations, in German anyway, but you'll also see the "Markgraf von" being left out entirely: "Montoriola, Karl". (By the way, was that a pseudonym the author chose himself? I keep seeing things like "actually Karl Paul Hasse" being mentioned among the references I found). ---Sluzzelin talk 08:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It could very well be, I don't know anything about nobility and titles on the continent. Also, I don't have the work: I'm just rearranging the citations on Plato. I'm just going by the very tiny title page which Google has: [4], and by the fact that whoever put the citation in originally used the name. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While not claiming to be an expert on Continental nobility, my interest in heraldry has given me a little familiarity with the terminology. In this case I would have taken it that the individual in question is named (baptisimally) "Karl Paul Hasse" and has (or uses) the title of Markgraf von Montoriola, in the same way that "The Iron Duke" was named Arthur Wellesley and had the title of Duke of Wellington: "Arthur, Duke of Wellington" was/is a perfectly legitimate way of referencing him, and Karl, Markgraf von Montoriola is analogous (though I do not assert whether or not "Markgraf von Montoriola" was/is a legitimately held title – I'll check my Almanack de Gotha when I get home from work tonight). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I misunderstand it:

In Britain, the holder of a peerage title is formally without a surname; one sees the form "Arthur (Wellesley), Duke of Wellington".
In Germany now, holders of noble titles (which are not recognized in law) change their surnames to the titles; thus the heir of the kingdom of Bavaria was born with the surname Prinz von Bayern and changed it upon his succession to Herzog von Bayern. (Does the government call him Herr Herzog for short?)

By the way, I searched for Montoriola and all I got was ~~this t-shirt~~ Motorola, argh. —Tamfang (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm late, but legally he stays "Prinz von Bayern", from birth to death, as there are no more dukedoms (=Herzog) in Germany. "Prinz von Baden", in its entirety, is, and remains, his legal surname, as well as his children's. -- megA (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any more Princedoms in Germany either. —Tamfang (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II and Israel

Despite being on the throne for 62 years and visiting almost 140 countries, isn't it a bit peculiar that Her Majesty has never visited Israel. It is a prosperous country, a friend of Great Britain and the royals have good relations with the Jewish people with a tradition of Jewish mohels performing a bris on newborn royal males. Is Israel just too politically contentious for the UK to authorise a state visit? --Andrew 14:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people think so: see Queen Elizabeth banned from making state visit to Israel, says historian. I think security might be another issue, Israel having not been entirely free from suicide bombings and other terrorist activities for many decades. Note that the Queen didn't visit Northern Ireland until the worst of The Troubles had died down, and then her visits were only announced after she'd already left. Also, there are many older Israelis who are not well disposed to the UK; the British administration of Mandatory Palestine was marked by heavy handed efforts by British forces to balance the needs of both Jews and Arabs as they saw it, resulting in considerable bloodshed and ultimate failure. Finally, our article Israel–United Kingdom relations suggests that a state visit might not be too popular at home, with a 2013 poll suggesting that 72% of the British population take a dim view of the way Israel conducts herself. There was however, a state visit by the Israeli President to London in February 1997.[5] Alansplodge (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Security is a major factor in this case, but, says Binyon [a Times journalist], the biggest problem is diplomatic sensitivity over visiting Jerusalem. Israel regards Jerusalem as the capital, but it is not recognised as such by Western nations, who base their embassies in Tel Aviv instead." BBC News Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it won't be obvious to all that Israel is "a friend of Great Britain". HiLo48 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point regarding the British Mandate - I don't know how pertinent it is to the issue of royal visits, but it is not a small part of Israel's history. In Acre Prison, there is a memorial (in the form of posters hung on the walls, don't know the exact term) honouring the Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky, who, by his role in paramilitary organisation and subsequent imprisonment, is regarded by Israel as a major figure in the Jewish/Israeli quest for self-determination. I was there in January, and, having read most of the photographic/written memorial on the walls of his cell, I can safely say that it was quite open about the nationalist character of his insurgent self-defence movement. Something of the flavour of it can be found here, although I can't find the exact text online. It wasn't exactly anti-British, but it was very pro-Zionist, and at best lukewarm towards the British. IBE (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst other incidents, the Kfar Etzion massacre still provokes anti-British sentiment, as I found when I tried to answer this Reference Desk query a while ago. Alansplodge (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an Israeli (if that's what you were indirectly implying), and I don't consider myself to be generally anti-British (in fact quite the contrary in certain specific respects). However, from the point of view of many Jews and Zionist supporters, the British record in Palestine and Palestine-related matters during most of the 1940s was marked by conspicuous hypocrisy and weaseling to justify decisions which somehow always ended up affecting Jews negatively -- enlivened every so often by deliberately and intentionally crude and arrogantly tasteless and offensive remarks by Ernest Bevin -- with the result that the British activities during that period have left a continuing sour taste in the mouth of a number of older Jews, or of Israelis whose older family members have told them how they were negatively affected. Many of them would probably wonder what right Britain has to sit in moral judgement on Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I should think that the reasoning runs something like this; that the British supported and admired Jews such as Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion; subsequently, as the victim of war and terrorism - eg. the Six-Day War, the Munich Olympics, the Entebbe hi-jacking - Israel provoked the sympathy of the underdog; but then, as it moved from the victim to the begetter of violence it has, regrettably, lost that moral authority and respect. The grossly disproportionate and largely civilian deaths from Operation Cast Lead did incalculable damage to Israel's reputation in Europe as does the refusal to make peace and continued building of settlements.

Individuals such as Menachem Begin - whose blatant anglophobia (which verged on the psychotic) is documented in books such as Michael Burleigh's Blood and Rage and such episodes as supplying the Argentinians with fighter aircraft during the Falklands War - and Ariel Sharon were, quite simply, regarded as unpleasant and violent and no different to their most obdurate Palestinian foes; and that no British Foreign Secretary is going to allow such deeply unlovely people as Avigdor Lieberman to make political capital out of such a visit.

Finally, the question draws a dubious distinction between the state of Israel and Jews in general. Support of Israel and its policies is not a sine qua non of supporting Judaism; British Jews exercise a disproportionate influence in British politics, arts, and business, which raises no controversy at all and, based as it is on merit, the approbation, so far as one can see, of the Queen. 83.49.77.33 (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English

Asses the character of Bobadill in Every Man in his Humour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.220.52.84 (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Bobadill is one ass, who is the other ? :-) I assess that you are trying to get us to do your homework for you. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

How old are American baby boys circumcised?

How old are American baby boys circumcised? Newborn? 8 days old? Around time of baptism? 140.254.227.68 (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the religion. If Jewish, the brit milah is at eight days. Muslims have their khitan sometime between birth and puberty. Christians, whenever (or not). But usually when they're young enough to not know/remember what's happening. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant medical circumcision. Surely, Atheist American men get circumcised, because it's part of the culture, don't they? What age is THAT? 140.254.226.205 (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Define "medical" circumcision. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think the routine circumcision of American males is part of the culture? --TammyMoet (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is considerable evidence for it in History of male circumcision and Prevalence of circumcision, at least for the fact that rates are far higher in the US than in other "western" countries. However, I don't think "Atheist American men" get circumcised, but their infant boy-children (who are too young to have an opinion about the non-existence of God) are rather more likely to than those in Europe. Paul B (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I was done at almost two, for burning reasons. Nominally a Catholic, but that had nothing to do with it. Only a North American, if that matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Prevalence of circumcision page suggests otherwise. Perhaps, only Americans do it. 140.254.226.205 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pretty sure on this one. Are you maybe replying to Paul? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American boys are often circumcised "medically" as a matter of course before they are released from the hospital at birth. This was a big issue with my nephews, born last decade in Massachusetts. My sister had to insist they not be circumcised, and her elder son would have been anyway, against her wishes, had she not questioned where they were taking him the morning he was to be released. There's certainly no standard follow up for non-Jewish/Muslim boys to be snipped if it's not either done at birth or medically necessary. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references for "Middlesex" novel page

Hello, I'm looking for information related to screenplay adaptation projects of Jeffrey Eugenides's novel, Middlesex. I'm wondering if the Wikipedia article's author came across any information about it in doing his/her research. As I understand it, just from googling "Middlesex" movie, there was an option purchased by HBO in 2009, for a mini-series, but the project was dropped or never fully developed. Thanks for your help or for putting me in touch with the right people! 173.13.181.189 (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like most Wikipedia articles, Middlesex (novel) has been edited by many people. If you look at the article's history, you can see which users have changed it. If you pick "prev" at some change, you can then step through the changes one by one and see which users added significant material to the article; then you could ask them on their talk pages, or if they have mail enabled, send them an email. There is no guarantee that they are currently active on Wikipedia, though. --ColinFine (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playwright Donald Margulies is adapting it as a miniseries for HBO, per his WP biography article. The project was still going ahead as of August 2013, I found a news article online where it was mentioned (briefly), it was a Margulies interview. Hope that helps! OttawaAC (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]