Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 26

Poland

Is Poland in Eastern Europe or Central Europe? --75.15.161.185 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• See our articles on Central Europe and Eastern Europe. What is "central" or "eastern" in Europe has always been a somewhat slippery concept. But the short answer is: both. --M@rēino 03:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• • To explain a little more in detail about the "slipperiness", the question is somewhat politically colored (something I would have never learned had I not gotten to witness the rather rediculous levels of nationalistic conflicts at Wikipedia articles first hand) in the sense that "Eastern Europe" has become a euphemism for "Russia". As I said, I wouldn't have used to have known that before coming to Wikipedia, but it seems that over the past several decades, as countries have tried to distance themselves from Russia politically they have started to wish to stop being considered part of "Eastern Europe". Until about 1990, "Eastern Europe" meant everything east of the Iron Curtain, so Poland was squarly in Eastern Europe. Since the democratization of many former Soviet satelites, the concept of "Central Europe", including countries like Poland the former Czechoslovakia, has been applied to them more and more, as they attempt to distance themselves from the old idea of what Eastern Europe was. --Jayron32 03:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The way I perceive it, it's not so much objecting to be associated with Russia but objecting to being pigeonholed into a nasty stereotype of "dirt poor country with ugly gray buildings where the streets are rough and donkeys are still an acceptable means of transportation, with men who are only good for plumbers and women who are pretty and easy" - in my experience, some people have the amazing ability to mean all of this, almost verbatim, when they say "Eastern Europe". But then, my vantage point is different than that of the Polish, so that's probably the reason for this difference in perception. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

East Europe has often been used as a synonym for the East Bloc. So in some sense, you could say that the area that is now Poland was in Central Europe until 1945, in East Europe from 1945 to 1990, and then in Central Europe again after that. The term "central Europe" was not much used during the Cold War, I think. Jørgen (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Depending on whom you ask in Europe, you get different answers. From a Portuguese position, Poland is quite East, so Easter Europe. From the Baltic, however, they are quite center, so Central Europe. Germans, for example, want to take some distance from Poles, so they consider themselves Western Europe, and Poland East, avoiding putting them into the same category (Central East Europe). Quest09 (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

These categories are essentially political. Finland is located to the east of several eastern European countries, but is nevertheless a West European state. Prior to the Cold War there was a concept of Mitteleuropa ('Middle Europe'), which identified a largely German sphere of interest (Germany, Austria, Hungary, etc.). The ethnic composition was quite different then, what is today Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, etc. had large German- and Yiddish-speaking populations. The demographic shifts during and following WWII meant that more ethnically homogeneous nation states were formed. The border of Slavic predominance was moved westwards, and thus large parts of Europe were now "east". After 1991 there has been a concerted and politically motivated effort to revive the "Central Europe" concept. The success of the effort is so and so. People in Western Europe still largely refer to the former Eastern Bloc countries as "Eastern Europe", whilst people living in these countries are more keen on using the "Central Europe" name. --Soman (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Central Europe has always been defined more by ideas than by geography. Historically, various definitions prevailed in different times. I would list the following main ways of defining Central Europe:

• Bulwark of Christendom is the point of view in which Central European countries are the easternmost outposts of Western (Latin) Christianity, sheltering the western world from Eastern Orthodox Christians, pagan Tatars, muslim Ottoman Turks and atheist Bolsheviks.
• Cultural gradient concept maintains that as you move eastward from highly populated and highly developed Western Europe, you gradually move into countries that are less developed and more backward – economically, politically, culturally. From this point of view, Central Europe is a region that is considered – and often considers itself – as more civilized than barbaric and despotic Russia, but retarded towards Western Europe and looking to it as a source of ideas and guidance. This may explain why Central Europeans so much resent being labeled as East European. When and why they began to lag behind the West has been long debated, but it seems that the process started already in the Early Modern era when Central European economies lacked access to overseas colonies and relied too heavily on grain exports, strengthening the land-owning gentry and artistocracy who stifled the growth of an urban middle class and forced the peasantry into so-called second serfdom.
• German imperialist concept, as laid out in Friedrich Naumann's Mitteleuropa in 1915, focused on the German-speaking Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary, with the former as a natural leader of a region separating a civilized West from Russia, and with non-Germanic peoples living on its peripheries. This concept appeared during World War I, then was revived by and pretty much died with the Nazis.
• Danubian concept was similar, but focused more on the multiethnic Austria-Hungary where the Habsburgs created a relatively benign and benevolent alternative to the autocratic Germany and Russia. Imperial and Royal nostalgia coupled with the smallness and neutrality of post-World War II Austria also allows it to be seen a Central European country by those who think of Central Europe as a group of small peace-loving nations, specifically excluding Germany. This concept also allows western Ukraine, Romanian Transylvania and parts of northern Italy to count as part of Central Europe because they once belonged to the Habsburg family.
• Interwar Middle Europe consisted of nations that regained independence in the aftermath of World War I; countries that were usually little more than pawns in the hands of Great Powers and provided a buffer zone between the defeated and truncated Germany in the west and the new Soviet Union in the east. They were all brutally occupied by one or both of them during World War II. What these countries had in common is that they lacked political independence throughout the 19th century, a period crucial for the development of nationalisms and national identities; as a result these peoples link the notion of nationality more with ethnicity than with the state.
• Cold War era concept tried to challenge the dichotomous division of Europe into a democratic, market-oriented West and communist East; as Czesław Miłosz wrote, Central Europe at that time seemed "to exist only in the minds of some of its [dissident] intellectuals", such as himself, György Konrád, Václav Havel, Adam Michnik, and Milan Kundera who defined Central Europe as "a piece of the Latin West which has fallen under Russian domination [and] which lies geographically in the center, culturally in the West and politically in the East."
• Modern concept, which can be seen, for instance, in Joe Biden's Bucharest speech, where Central Europe consists of those formerly communist countries which over the last two decades have made sustainable progress towards democracy and market economy, and have joined the EU and NATO – as opposed to East European countries which have not on the one hand, and to what Donald Rumsfeld has called "old Europe" on the other.

Oscar Halecki decided that one Central Europe is not enough and defined two: West Central Europe (German-speaking) and East Central Europe (roughly between Germany and Russia). Some people who talk about Central Europe today may have only the former in mind, others – the latter, others still – all or parts of both. As Jacques Rupnik said, "tell me where Central Europe is, and I can tell who you are." (The above is partly my OR, partly based on books by Lonnie Johnson, Norman Davies and others.) — Kpalion^(talk) 23:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OMG

Resolved

What does OMG mean in this context? STANSFELD, Capt. Logan Sutherland, O.M.G., of Flockton Manor, Yorkshire. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Oh My God"!!! Sorry Kitty, I just couldn't resist this. Honestly, I did a Google and came up zero.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Spelling mistake? CMG? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Eureka! Order of St Michael and St George, an order of chivalry founded in the 19th century. The initials are CMG.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a spelling mistake, Kitty. The closest correct postnominal would be CMG (easy to misread as OMG, I guess).

Actually, the first thing that occurred to me was Order of Malta and Gozo, but there's no such thing, only an Order of Malta. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's definitely Order of St Michael and St George as that was the first thing that came up when I did a Google with CMG.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation - Captain Logan Sutherland Stansfeld, RN, was appointed CMG on 3 June 1916: Supplement to the London Gazette, 3 June 1916, p.5561.

W. M. mason

Resolved

In the context of Freemasonry, what is a W. M. (specific context)? SpinningSpark 11:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Worshipful Master.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ta, SpinningSpark 19:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Northern Ireland's Royal Black Preceptory also has Worshipful Masters as can be seen here: Markethill Royal Black Preceptory--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Front bench changes after Irish general elections?

Do smaller Irish political parties usually change their front bench in the aftermath of general elections to distribute portfolios towards the successful candidates? For instance, will the Fianna Fail front bench likely be overhauled to exclude representatives who lost their seats? If only one Green Party T.D. is elected, would they be expected to become leader? And so on, thanks. 83.70.253.29 (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't have a seat on the front bench if you don't have a seat at all, so yes, they'll have to form a new front bench made up of those that survived the election. --Tango (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well my terminology might be a bit off, but I had in mind the shadow spokespeople, who don't necessarily need to be T.D.s it seems if Marc MacSharry is any indication. 83.70.253.29 (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, my knowledge is of Westminster, rather than Irish politics, but over here the shadow cabinet is always made up of current MPs and Lords. Roles like party chairman often go to people that aren't sitting in parliament, but you can't really be spokesperson for a policy area if you can't stand up and speak about that policy area when it is being debated. MacSharry is a member of the upper house, so while not a T.D. is still a sitting member of the Oireachtas. --Tango (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan uprising

Reading this article, I am really surprised to see the death toll of pro-Gaddafi forces. How 5000 soldiers can be injured? I'm really curious about their fighting method. If it is urban warfare, death toll is very much possible, but they have advanced weaponry including aircraft. So why they are not using aircraft or tanks to quell the uprising? Do they posses missile? Just curious. --Goartoa (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That "5000+ injured" figure is overall, not just for "pro-Gaddafi forces" (and in any case does not seem to be supported by the sources cited for it).

I don't think it is very clear yet to anyone what the exact extent of casualties is, but see the Casualties section of the article for other estimates.

My impression is that the "fighting method" on all sides is fairly chaotic right now, with some military personnel now with the opposition and some not, bands of foriegn mercenaries with machetes running around, Air Force pilots defecting to Malta with their aircraft rather than carry out orders to attack protesters, etc. Our article will be updated as things become clearer and more reliable sources start publishing more reliable casualty figures. WikiDao ☯ 17:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

German speaking Metallica-like bands?

Does anyone know any German speaking bands whose style is influenced by Metallica? --Belchman (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The only one I know of is Rammstein. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Just looked at their entry here, and Metallica isn't listed as one of their influences. However, my nephew is into both of these groups, and they sound pretty similar to me! You might find some of the links on their page useful too. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we do have an article on German heavy metal (which, to be frank is a redirect to "teutonic heavy metal"), but I don't think any of those bands performed in German (at least as far as I checked through the links). I think German is just not "cool enough" for metal bands, heavy metal umlaut notwithstanding. That said if you are willing to expand a bit, there is some industrial music out there that is sung in German. There's the already mentioned Rammstein, there is Laibach, then there is electropunk stuff like DAF (IMO a brilliant but sadly overlooked band) and so on - but then, these might not be your cup of tea. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It may not be similar to Metallica, but In Extremo is a heavy metal band who sings in german. Check Vollmond MBelgrano (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"permission to speak freely"

surprised there's no article, but in the Military is there really such a thing as "permission to speak freely"? (as in movies) Can you tell me more about this? 109.128.182.182 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In many situations, a soldier would need permission from an officer to do a wide range of things not normally required of him/her. If they want permission to speak freely, that's what they'd have to ask for. If it's permission to kiss the officer, that's what they'd have to ask for. There's potentially no limit to what they could ask for, and I can't see that any particular request would make a suitable enyclopedia topic. I guess "permission to speak freely" occurs in movies a bit because soldiers are normally required to shut up and do what they're told, and only speak in order to answer a direct question. If the dramatic imperatives of the story require a character to expand on a direct court-room type answer, to give the bigger picture of some issue, then they'd have to be seen to ask permission first, so as not to violate military protocol. I'm sure there are many examples in films where there is little or no accuracy when depicting protocol, and much that's just made up for dramatic effect, but this is one thing that's easy for the filmmakers to do and it would reflect reality, more or less, depending on what their military technical advisers tell them. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but I find your answer rather obscure. In the real military, do people really say that or don't they? 109.128.182.182 (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

One would presume that some of them do so because they've seen it in the movies, and many officers don't object to such a question because they, too, have seen it in the movies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Obscure? Just reread my first 2 sentences. An officer can theoretically give permission for anything he's asked, and permission to speak freely would be one of countless things a soldier could conceivably ask for. You yourself seem to be in a confused state: you seem to doubt there's any such thing as asking permission to speak freely, but still say you're surprised there's no article on it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the culture of the military concerned.

ALR (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Middle East

Is Iran in the Middle East? What about the -stans? --75.15.161.185 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Traditional definition of the Middle East

  Greater Middle East

  Central Asia (sometimes associated with the Greater Middle East)

The Middle East is a region within Asia. "The -stans" are typically considered part of Asia, but not of the Middle East. Schyler! (one language) 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The middle east is usually as much a cultural designation as a geographic one - it generally refers to areas populated by semitic peoples (jews, arabs, and persians, mostly). The 'stans tend to have slavic or turkic populations, and farther east you get indic peoples. --Ludwigs2 22:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The term "Semitic peoples" is really almost completely and utterly meaningless when referring to modern populations (as opposed to tribesmen of 1000 B.C.). There are peoples who speak a Semitic language (this includes Arabs and some Jews, but NOT Persians). However, I'm not sure that speaking a Semitic language has much to do with the definition of the middle east -- Ethiopia is usually not included, despite all the Semitic language-speakers there, while Turkey and Iran often are included. AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran is included in the "Traditional definition of the Middle East" and the "-stans" are included in the concept (from a Western perspective) of a "Greater Middle East" (see map). WikiDao ☯ 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the Middle East meant the Arab countries and Israel. --75.15.161.185 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Morocco is Arab, but not Middle East. Quest09 (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As the Middle East article states, the term "Middle East" originally referred to the region including Iran and Afghanistan. The Arab countries and Turkey were called the "Near East." For some reason, the term "Middle East" migrated to cover what used to be called the Near East, leaving Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan kind of in a void between the Middle East and Central and South Asia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a cool Euler diagram at Terminology of the British Isles. Someone of skill should do a similar one showing the interrelationships between Middle East countries, Arab countries and Muslim countries. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Would have been cooler still if it hadn't made the Isle of Man look like it was near Holland. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And there was me thinking Israel and the rest of the Levantine coast were still part of the Near East. I miss that place, it seems to have disappeared somewhere. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

See also MENA. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pistol Packing Mama

Can someone tell me something about the tune and song of this name. I have taken two mp3s from web one by Bing Crosby etc, and others by Big Jack Johnson and Al Dexter. But none of these matches the tune I am looking for. The exact tune I am looking for is sung by Raghubir Yadav while he plays a drug addicted urchin in Salaam Bombay film.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a link so we can hear it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe this song was made famous in the UK by Sophie Tucker, or possibly Tessie O'Shea. It was also used to advertise Rowntree's Fruit Pastilles about 40 years ago! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility is that he is singing a version so distorted that you don't recognize it as the same tune as that of Al Dexter et al. I couldn't view the scene or listen to the song anywhere online, and I watched the film when it came out, over 20 years ago.

I did find "When Chillum [the character played by Yadav] sings his slow, haunting, completely anti-percussive version of "Pistol-Packing Mama," we know it could happen nowhere else but in Bombay." by Arjun Appadurai (Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania), which lends some support to my wild theory. (From "Marriage, Migration and Money: Mira Nair's Cinema of Displacement" in Gilmore, David D. , Musello, Chris , Sciorra, Joseph , MacClancy, Jeremy , Loizos, Peter , Fernea, Elizabeth A. , Fernea, Robert A. , Fuks, Victor , Chalfen, Richard , Appadurai, Arjun and Breckenridge, Carol A.(1991) Film reviews', Visual Anthropology, 4: 1, 69 — 102, p100). Here is their link from where you can download the entire text for free ---Sluzzelin talk 11:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Another quote reveals that it probably is the same "tune", or the same lyrics anyway: "[...] Chillum, out of whose wasted, very eloquent body surprisingly emanate the lyrics, 'pistol packin' Mama, lay your pistol down'; [...]" (Genre, Gender, Race, and World Cinema, Julie F. Codell, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007, p 182, ISBN 9781405132336). The original lyrics are "lay that pistol down", but I think that's close enough. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(Adding to satisfy my love of links, not that it really answers your question, but) we have an article on "Pistol Packin' Mama". ---Sluzzelin talk 11:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

February 27

Modern presidents

i think modern president's today are violating the constitution and is suject to impeachment with out gettting authorization from the congress to send out troops because, so many times we hear the president senging out troops for nothing and many died from the war because the president was trying to make a statement from the opposing side to see it his way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.121 (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If you've come here hoping to have a discussion of what you said, you've come to the wrong place. There are plenty of other more suitable places for that.

If you had a question suitable for a reference desk, though ... -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about USA, BTW ? I agree with what Jack of Oz says, you are almost soapboxing, however being especially specific and precise regarding your names/dates/parties/issues/incidents etc might make it a legitimate RD question....  Jon Ascton  (talk)

War Powers Act could be relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Precision is nice, but the most important thing is to actually ask a question... --Tango (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The US Constitution restricts to Congress the power to declare war, but gives the President authority to command troops during a war as commander in chief. The founders of the US did not want a President to be able to place the country at war for reasons that were clear only to him, since losing a war has, many times in history, led to a country losing its independence. Unfortunately, Presidents since 1941 have simply claimed "inherent powers" to direct troops into combat, as Truman did in the Korean "Conflict," or have asked for "war powers resolutions" based on some fraudulent claim ("The North Vietnamese attacked US destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin," "Saddam has Weapons of Mass destruction," etc.) The Presidents have then used these vague jingoistic resolutions to justify largescale war operations with no end in sight in some cases. The Congresses have generally been afraid to vote "No" for fear of being called unpatriotic. These undeclared wars seem unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has been unwilling to make such a ruling. Edison (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So much for not engaging soapboxers and discouraging them from spraying stuff at us. We're here to help those who seek to learn something. The OP didn't even ask something like "What do you think?". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you require inline citations for every statement in my post? They could be added. Did you read news magazines such as Time, and papers such as the New York Times over the past several decades, where everything I posted has been stated? Edison (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? I wasn't disputing anything you said; I was objecting to the saying of anything at all in response to a soapbox rant that was not even remotely a question. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

16 syllables

What is the name of the bengali poetry that consists of 16 syllables and it is like Haiku? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.124.52 (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are examples found at Rabindranath_Tagore#Poetry. Schyler! (one language) 04:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

bengali poetry

Is there a website that showcases how many types of poetry there are in Bengali literature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.124.52 (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very extensive article at Bengali poetry. Schyler! (one language) 04:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsignatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?

Hi, I know that India, Israel, and Pakistan are all non-signatories to the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and all are believed to have nuclear weapons. I am also aware that North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty. Iran is alleged to be in violation. My question is, are there *any* other non-signatories (albeit without nuclear weapons programs), or has *every* other government in the world signed the treaty? Eliyohub (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has a color-coded map that answers your question. Taiwan sticks out, but a lot of others haven't signed. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of those haven't signed because they weren't involved in the negotiating process and have acceded under Article IX "1. This Treaty shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Treaty before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it at any time." s:NPT, which presumably implies without signature. List of parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty says them and Taiwan (which being unrecognised I suspect isn't allowed to be a party) are the only nonsignatories. Straightontillmorning (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The above is incorrect. I have added some clarifications below. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguous possibly, but I did read enough of the articles to mean what you said below. The bit about "not involved in .." referred to the colour-coded map and Clarityfiend's implication that those countries that were marked acceded but not "signed and ratified" were nonsignatory in any meaningful sense. Straightontillmorning (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I think you were fairly unclear. What you are saying is just applied to those marked as "accession" and not signatory. Accession just means, you can join the treaty when you want to, even if it is technically closed for signatories. Those countries marked as such are essentially signatories. There are only three true non-signatories — Israel, Pakistan, India. Taiwan is the weird special case of a signatory who can't sign. North Korea is the special case of the signatory who withdrew. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

if Taiwan wants to be seen as a country, why don't they sign anyway? Then if nothing else our article would say that they are a signatory... 109.128.182.182 (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not what Taiwan wants, but what continental China wants. And the latter certainly doesn't want that Taiwan is considered a country. Quest09 (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

See 1992 Consensus - despite having had an independence-leaning government for several years until recently, Taiwan never formally renounced the position (and has now apparently re-embraced it) that both Taiwan and mainland China are one sovereign state with two rival government ruling different areas (called "Free Area" or "Taiwan Area" versus "Mainland Area" under the law in Taiwan). So while they do not agree with the Communists being on the treaty, they are not going to sign any treaty if the Communists are a party to it. Multilateral treaties are state-level "contracts" between all the countries who have signed it. If Communist China has already signed it, then Taiwan signing it would mean it is in a "contract" with, amongst others, Communist China, which would mean that it is recognising Communist China as a separate state - which it doesn't. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A few clarifications: India, Israel, and Pakistan are straight out non-signatories. They all specifically and overtly rejected the NPT. (It is not that they were not involved with the negotiating process.) It is clear why they did this in retrospect (all had bomb programs). Taiwan is the only special case. They signed the NPT in 1968, but were kicked out of the UN in 1971 at the demand of the People's Republic of China. They thus are not recognized as a state by the United Nations, and technically lack the ability to be a signatory. They have, however, pledged to abide by its terms. It is not at all the same situation as with India, Israel, and Pakistan, and they should not be lumped together. Taiwan does have effective NPT compliance due to a trilateral agreement with the US and the IAEA, and its nuclear facilities are under IAEA safeguards. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Help finding a Desert Storm photo

Hey. I've been searching for this photograph for years. I saw it a long time ago in a magazine and it really stuck with me. It's a blurry image from an Iraqi fighter jet's onboard camera. In the picture, you can see an incoming missile milliseconds before it impacts with the Iraqi jet. In the far, far background, you can see a black speck which is the American jet that fired the missile. American special forces who investigated the wreckage found the camera and the photos. The original article was from an interview with the American pilot who shot down the Iraqi. I think it was National Geographic. If anybody could help me out I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks a bunch!

TravisAF (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is the image you are referring to. Found it one this forum, which has other pictures and some background to the picture. Also here is a recent, 2009, article in The Atlantic about the pilot whose missile that was: article. Ravendrop 10:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the article you read. --Sean 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe you guys found it. Thank you so much! TravisAF (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pendolino trains - why?

What is the point of making trains tilt at bends? If it is for the comfort of the passengers, then wouldnt the discomfort be much less than that of a car going around a corner (slower speed, but tighter bends)? Or is the tilt so that the train can go around the corner faster without de-railing? Or is it just a gimmick? Thanks 92.15.20.7 (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's essentially for the comfort of the passengers. Our article on tilting train explains in detail.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've read the article. It still seems like a lot of effort for a small effect. If the curves were banked for fast trains, then the discomfort of going around them on a slower train would be very little, just a slight tilt. The cost per un-spilled beveridge must be enormous. 92.24.189.108 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to quantify "discomfort." You probably just have to ride one to find out. Zooming across the Spanish countryside in a tilting Talgo is rather pleasant. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) In the UK at any rate, many railway track curves are banked or 'canted' to best comply with the range of speeds normally expected for passenger trains on those bends, in order to to aid vehicle stability and steering, minimise wheel and rail wear, and preserve passenger comfort: on the rare occasions a train I've been on has had to creep around one at a markedly lower speed (due to train or signalling problems, or congestion ahead), the "opposite tilt" effect has sometimes been quite disconcerting. Tilting trains are used to permit running faster than the "normal" express speeds for which the track was primarily designed. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, that a tilting train can be comfortable at any speed, while a canted track is only comfortable at one speed. Also, while the cost of the train is probably far more than a mile of canted track, it might be less than thousands of miles of track. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find the following online courses for under $220/credit-hour?

It doesn't matter what college it's from; as long as the online tuition isn't over $220/credit-hour and it's transferable back to K-State, then it'll have the classes I'm looking for.

COMM 322: Interpersonal Communication

http://catalog.k-state.edu/content.php?catoid=13&navoid=1380

COMM 322 - Interpersonal Communication

Credits: (3)
Examination of the dynamics of face-to-face interpersonal interaction. Focus is on applying principles of relational communication.

Requisites
Prerequisite: COMM 105 or 106.

When Offered
Fall, Spring, Summer

UGE course
No

K-State 8
Human Diversity within the U.S.
Social Sciences

A Level 1 Korean language Class

Such a class doesn't even exist at K-State, so I would hope to take an online version from anywhere, of course just so long as the tuition is under $220/credit-hour.

I don't think Google will be that helpful, as it doesn't handle very specific requests too well. It would likely return University of Phoenix's hits, and their classes cost more than even many private colleges' classes do in Kansas, so that is why I hope for someone here to find me a great deal. Thanks. --70.179.169.115 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't now if credit earned at the British Open University can be transfered to your university. But, regarding price and quality, it certainly is a pretty good choice. Quest09 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I found the website - http://www.open.ac.uk but why isn't there an article? Anyway, I hope to find out that they won't overcharge overseas students. --70.179.169.115 (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is, at Open University (presumably unqualified as the UK's was the first opened), but if you Wiki-search on that name you'll see that there are similarly named institutions in various other countries, which also might be of interest to you. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As the article notes you will generally be charged more as an overseas student. As they don't receive any government funding for you that isn't surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If it'll be more than $220 US per credit-hour, then what other universities will offer these online courses for a lesser amount? Remember that I'm from Kansas, if that helps anyone figure anything out. Thanks. --129.130.102.141 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

$220/credit-hour is really a lot. The Open University will charge overseas students just $50/credit-hour. However, I'm not sure we are talking about the same here. In Europe, a full study-year normally consists of 60 credits. If your university accept these credits, it might be the perfect way of saving money. A further caveat would be that they do not offer all courses for students from all countries. Quest09 (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find a Korean class at the OU. What other universities will offer online Korean language courses for reasonable rates? --129.130.96.58 (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Islamic view on ancient Egypt

Could anyone recommend a good book or website on how the legacy of ancient Egypt, such as the pyramids, sphinxes, polytheistic pantheon, etc., is seen or intepreted by Islam? For example, the modern Egypt is a secular Muslim-majority country but I got an impression that many people there do not feel much of a religious dilemma when commercially exploiting their ancestors' polytheistic legacy. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters the pharaos are portrayed as evil and cruel. That's why anti-Mubarak protestors labelled Mubarak as 'pharao'. Polytheism is outlawed in Islam, but there is a tolerance for polytheistic remains if they are not used for active worship. If someone would seriously try to revive the ancient Egyptian religion, it would be extremely controversial I guess. --Soman (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just by the way, in English that's spelled pharaoh. Your pharao link goes to something completely different. --Trovatore (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Some Quran links: http://corpus.quran.com/concept.jsp?id=egypt , http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=12&verse=99 , http://corpus.quran.com/concept.jsp?id=pharaoh and http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=11&verse=97 , http://quran.com/26/10-68 --Soman (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I found it interesting that the nose of the Great Sphinx of Giza was vandalized by a 14th-century fanatic Sufi Muslim, who was enraged by the Egyptian peasants making offerings to it. (Contrary to popular belief, the story that the nose was vandalized by Napoleon's soldiers appears to be a myth.) Curiously, when in Egypt I saw several small noseless sphinxes... I seem to have read somewhere that there is a magical belief that removing their noses make them powerless or something... --BorgQueen (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not know a lot about this subject, but one force favoring Ancient Egypt, among secular as well as Islamist Egyptian thinkers, was the rising Egyptian nationalism of the first half of the 20th Century, which instrumentalized Egypt's great pre-Islamic history. Sayyid Qutb, one of the most influential 20th Century religious writers on Islam, who was also a literary critic, praised the early works of Naguib Mahfouz, such as Thebes at War, which glorified Pharaonic Egypt. I got this from a book by James F. Goode which looks quite interesting, and depicts the facets and efforts to reconcile the struggle between an Ancient pre-Islamic identity and a more Arab, Islamic identity. Between al-Jahiliyah and Islam: (Negotiating for the Past: Archaeology, Nationalism, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, 1919-1941, University of Texas Press, 2001, p ISBN 9780292714984)

In Scenes of Resurrection in the Qur'an (1947), Qutb compares concepts of other world and afterlife in Islam and pre-Islamic mythologies, Ancient Egypt among others. His treatment of pre-Islamic ideologies is described as "relatively dispassionate and even positive in some ways" He identifies "defects", but also expresses acknowledgement:

"One might think that the defects in the idea of the other world in Ancient Egypt's creed reduce its value. But we should remember that this idea was established in the shade of a pagan creed before the dawn of history. There about five thousand years passed for this idea; therefore the idea itself can be seen as great. And if we attach to this early idea the later one of tawhid, which was established by King 'Akhenaton' three thousand years ago, we can imagine the greatness of the conscience (damit) which had arrived to all of this before the dawn of history." As quoted in Sayed Khatab, The Political Thought of Sayyid Qutb: the Theory of Jahiliyyah, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2006, p 90 ISBN 9780415375962.

-Sluzzelin talk 23:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, both of the books you mentioned seem to be highly informative! --BorgQueen (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

At least some Muslims seemed to have contempt for ancient Egyptians, evidenced by burning mummies for heat. However, unlike current world religions, the religion of ancient Egypt isn't perceived as a threat, so the opportunity to make a living off tourism may well trump any discomfort. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Taliban destroyed Buddhist statues for being sacreligious, so at least there are some contemporary Muslims who consider anything non-Muslim as blasphemous. Corvus cornix_talk 18:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The destruction of those statues was done by Islamic extremists who were imposing a strict interpretation of the sharia prohibition against any depiction of humans. They could have been "Muslim" depictions of humans and they still would have been destroyed. (Perhaps that also may have been involved in the defacement of the Egyptian sphinxes?) WikiDao ☯ 19:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I read (in Mark Lehner's Complete Pyramids, which just went back to the library so I have to rely on memory) that it was a medieval Muslim fanatic who hacked off the Sphinx's nose, but he was hanged for it, so apparently most Egyptians at the time didn't approve. Most of the damage to ancient artifacts (like the burning mummies) was due to indifference rather than fanaticism: temples taken apart to make new buildings, tombs camped in, stelae turned into millstones. The Rape of the Nile by Brian M. Fagan is a good source about the treatment of Egyptian artifacts by Muslims and Westerners alike. It doesn't say much about modern Egyptian attitudes, but the impression strongly comes across that, before modern Egyptology, Egyptians simply didn't care about the stuff sitting all around them. They did with it what was useful, including selling it off once the Europeans started coming to buy in the 19th century. I think that nowadays modern Egyptians do take some pride in their ancient heritage; it first became important when Tut's tomb was opened and the Egyptians objected furiously to any of the artifacts being taken out of the country. A. Parrot (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We (that is, the "enlightened West") used to use mummies as manure or as fuel for steam engines. You'll find plenty of old buildings in Britain which incorporate pieces of older structures "quarried" after they fell into disuse (e.g. after the Dissolution of the Monasteries). Dressed building stone is far too useful to leave lying around in a ruin, whatever your religion. Many of our churches were vandalised in the name of Christianity during and immediately after the Civil War - the Roundheads, inspired by their Christian ideals even stabled horses in Lostwithiel church. DuncanHill (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

NM Native American Lands

I have a friend who insists that New Mexico Native Americans "have the best land in New Mexico" and cited a ski resort as proof, forgetting ski resorts do not operate year round. I disagree, since I have read that NM Native Americans are among the poorest in the US, having been pushed by the federal gov't. onto desolate waterless lands. Who is correct?--Joanastein (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Best" is always relative. I don't know who has the "best" land, but having just read about the Zuni, who I believe live in either Arizona or New Mexico, I can say with relative certainty that they do not seem to have much economic opportunity on their land. Now, if your whole life goal is to ski, I suppose any land with a ski resort could be the "best" land. Falconus^{p t c} 02:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As of the 2000 Census, 10 of the 20 poorest counties were part of reservations but only number 20 was in New Mexico (McKinley County) [1]. Rmhermen (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans were given land nobody else wanted, and, if it later became valuable for some reason, they were then evicted from that. I suspect that when they first arrived at the NM reservations (from the East, presumably), that this land was far worse than what they had before. Recently, Native Americans have been able to make money off casinos, but only if they are near a major population center. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are out in the boondocks, but still rake in the cash (mine formerly included). If you build it, they will come. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been to both, and they are within driving distance from many large population centers, such as New York City. (The Las Vegas casinos did prosper, despite being far from population centers, when started, because they had little competition, early on, due to moral objections to, and thus laws against, gambling elsewhere.) StuRat (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If they have a moral objection to gambling, they are nevertheless still a bit stymied? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Oklahoma Indians got put out onto the worst land in the territory/state, till oil was discovered. Corvus cornix_talk 00:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Will Rogers, who was from Oklahoma and had significant American Indian ancestry, had some things to say about that. Something about how the government gave the Indians a reservation to keep "as long as the grass grows and the water flows." Then they were kicked off the land, "because the treat didn't say anything about oil," and finally they were stuck on reservations, "where the grass don't grow and the water don't flow." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

February 28

Proportion of soldiers at the sharp end

During a state of war such as WW2, what proportion of military personnel (including soldiers) ever come into contact with the enemy? By "contact" I mean they could potentially see the enemy directly by sight, or they are able to fire a weapon at them, or they are out on patrol looking for them. In terms of the total amount of time served by military personnel, what proportion would be in the "contact" stage as previously described? Has the proportion of time spent at the sharp end changed much over recent history? Thanks 92.24.189.108 (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Our article at Military logistics, and those linked from it, seem to be annoyingly short of actual numbers. For what little it's worth (being unreferenced), the rough rule of thumb I've seen quoted for 20th/21st century Western-style warfare is that it takes around 10 personnel 'behind the lines' to support one soldier in the field. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

However, in recent US wars, many of the "behind the scenes" duties have been done by contractors, leading to higher percentages of soldiers available for combat. In additional, asymmetrical warfare lacks a "visible front", so everybody in the region may be considered to be in a combat area. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a similar question someone asked on a different website, with a fairly informative response. #4 on this Cracked article also covers the topic, though it doesn't get particularly specific. 90.195.179.167 (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be worth remembering that support troops sometimes end up in the firing line if things don't go to plan. The British Expeditionary Force (World War II) was in such dire straights in May 1940 that the line-of-battle of the 12th Territorial Division in the defence of Amiens included a mobile bath unit. A searchlight company led by Airey Neave fought as infantry in the Siege of Calais (1940) in the same month. More recently, a team of Royal Navy hydrographers found themselves helping to defend Government House in Stanley against Argentine Marines at the start of the Falklands War. Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

can private companies sell shares with restrictions that they not be resold within a time?

this isn't asking for legal advice, I'm just curiuos. I've heard that there can be options given out, even for companies that aren't public yet (?) - no ipo - but that you can't exercise them for a while (until a specified date). Can shares in a non-public company be sold in the same way? (No resale for ______ time). 109.128.222.233 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

sorry, I don't just mean sell them, I also mean giving them away, for example to employees as part of their compensation package.. I am interested in the answer to both questions (selling, givign away). 109.128.222.233 (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Privately held companies can have stock options, sometimes awarded as employee compensation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking about direct shares, specifically whether they can award or sell them with terms that they cannot be resold within a certain time frame. 109.128.222.233 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty common for private companies to issue shares with resale restrictions, although typically they do allow the possibility of at least some sales. John M Baker (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks. could you elaborate? 109.128.222.233 (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are various reasons why resale restrictions may apply. Usually there will be a restriction intended to comply with the Securities Act of 1933: Resale of the shares must be registered under that act or exempt from registration. A holding period may apply, so that the shares will not go into the market too quickly and depress trading values. There may also be a restriction under which the company or other shareholders have a right of first offer or first refusal if you want to sell your shares. Other permutations are possible. John M Baker (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Reason(s) for absence of Historical Buddha scholarship?

The study of Historical Jesus is rich with material and papers, but Wikipedia doesn't even have an article stub for Historical Buddha. All texts present the same basic story of a prince in such-and-such state who renounced his title and became an ascetic. Is there no interest in the historical Buddha? Are there no extant written histories from this period? The Masked Booby (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me return that question right back: what exactly are the reasons for the studies of the historicity of Jesus? If I were to venture a guess it would be that some people mistakenly think that if they can prove that Jesus never existed, that would somehow dispel the power of Christianity, and then there is people on the other side who take the opposite side of the debate. Both, however, miss the point entirely, IMO. So in an analogy, I would guess that there has just not been a movement trying to disarm Buddhism by proving that Buddha never existed, hence no movement to prove he did. Or maybe I am looking at this all too materialistically, all too Western-like, I don't know. TomorrowTime (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're looking at it all too sensitively, to be frank. I'm interested in historical Buddha for the same reasons I'm interested in historical Jesus, they are some of the most influential men in history and I'm quite curious about the non-theological particulars of their lives. The Buddha renounced his title. I'd love to know exactly what that meant -- how wealthy was he? was this sort of thing common or not? how did his family react? did that line of royalty continue for some time known as "the family from whom the Buddha emerged"? There are many interesting questions! I'm sorry you find the asking such a personal invasion/offense. The Masked Booby (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm amused you'd read my comment as "being offended" - I'm an atheist, born and raised :) I just think the whole brouhaha on the historicity of Jesus is misguided, on both sides of the isle - some people find comfort in their belief, so why not just let it be at that? Why drag the sciences (such as history, for one) into it to reinforce/undermine the religious position? Both are wrong and are missing the fundamental point of religion, IMO. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is missing the point, but it's clearly been a concern of Christians since pretty much the beginning that the events really happened. The Gospels and Acts make a big deal about giving the names of people who witnessed things, pretty much saying 'you can ask them yourself', and Luke especially writes that he has 'carefully studied all these matters from their beginning' in order to write an 'orderly account': the earliest Christians clearly cared that these events were real, not that the theology was comforting. 86.162.69.210 (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and as Paul says, if there is no Historical Jesus then we are of all people most to be pitied. Marnanel (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(desmallifying, this branch of the answers has pertinent info as well) Erm, that doesn't say anything about believing whether Jesus was real or not - it talks about believing whether he was resurrected or not, which is an entirely different ballgame. For one, it does not start with the assumption that some people believe Jesus was historical and some do not, it starts out with the assumption that all know he was historical, but some are skeptical about his resurrection. Other than that, the IP gave some hints as to why Christians might have a more pronounced interest in proving Jesus was a real person than Buddhists. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Our article on Buddha suggests that there is some discussion of that point among at least Western scholars:

'The ancient Indians were generally unconcerned with chronologies, being more focused on philosophy. Buddhist texts reflect this tendency, providing a clearer picture of what Gautama may have taught than of the dates of the events in his life. These texts contain descriptions of the culture and daily life of ancient India which can be corroborated from the Jain scriptures, and make the Buddha's time the earliest period in Indian history for which significant accounts exist. Karen Armstrong writes that although there is very little information that can be considered historically sound, we can be reasonably confident that Siddhārtha Gautama did exist as a historical figure. Michael Carrithers goes a bit further by stating that the most general outline of "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death" must be true.'

Karen Armstrong is probably worth reading on that point. WikiDao ☯ 02:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You can also watch this pretty good recent biodoc at pbs.org if you're interested in the traditional answers to the questions you ask above. WikiDao ☯ 02:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

---

The Masked Booby -- Jesus's birth and death dates are known within 5 years or so, and his life can be placed within a rich historical context, filled with securely-known dates and names, by means of the historians of the Roman Empire and Josephus (supplemented by certain passages in Rabbinic writings). By contrast, there's a conventionally-used astrological birth-date for Buddha, but as a matter of pure history the dates of Buddha's life are uncertain by about a century (at least), and much less is known about the historical period in which he lived than about the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius in the Roman empire. In the case of Christianity, the lapse of time between the probable deaths of the last persons who had a clear living memory of Jesus and the date when we know that the books of the New Testament almost certainly existed in basically their current form is a little over a century and a half, while the analogous period for Buddhism would be at least twice that. Also, some tendencies of Mahayana Buddhism to some degree subordinate their interest in the person of the historical Gautama Sakyamuni to a whole series of saviors from past and future cosmological epochs. Unfortunately the phrase "the historical Jesus" (starting with Ernest Renan) was tarnished by a number of people using it to project their own personal preconceptions onto the figure of Jesus... AnonMoos (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, could you clarify what you meant by "the lapse of time between the probable deaths of the last persons who had a clear living memory of Jesus and the date when we know that the books of the New Testament almost certainly existed in basically their current form is a little over a century and a half". Do you mean the time until the date that the books of the New Testament were all gathered together as one canon? Or the time until the date of the first currently surviving original document? Or the date until the last book in the New Testament was written? I'd have thought the dates of the earliest writings in the New Testament were important (Gospel of Mark, Pauline Epistles) to claims of historicity of Jesus, but I can see the earliest surviving documents being important too, or the time until the entire body is assembled. 86.162.69.210 (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

86.162.69.210 -- I was completely avoiding the question of the dates when the books of the New Testament were written, not only because that's a semi-controversial issue in itself, but because it would be very difficult to come up with comparable data between Christianity and Buddhism. Instead I thought loosely somewhat along the following lines: Suppose hypothetically that Jesus died in 30 A.D., and the last prominent witness to Jesus' life was 15 years old in 30 A.D. and died at the age of 75, or in 90 A.D. This is somewhat plausible as pure guesswork (and I don't claim that it's anything more). Then a little more than a century and a half after 90 A.D. would take you to the mid 3rd century. We have very few New Testament manuscripts of mid-3rd-century date, but we have ample quotations from the Church Fathers, evidence of incipient efforts at canonization, etc. which together make it pretty clear that the texts of New Testament books were then in existence without major divergences from the texts we have today (though there was still some uncertainty as to whether to exclude or include a few books, such as the Shepherd of Hermas etc., which is a different matter). Some people might say that a century and a half is longer than necessary, but I was being a little on the conservative side. However you calculate the length of time between the probable deaths of the last persons who had a clear living memory of Jesus or/Buddha and the date when we know that the books of Christian/Buddhist scriptures almost certainly existed in basically their current form, it's clear that the elapsed period would be much longer for Buddhism than for Christianity... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't intended to stir controversy, I just wasn't sure which you meant. 86.162.69.210 (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

there's a difference in focus here as well. The Christian church focused heavily on Jesus being an incarnation of God, and much of their doctrine stems from the idea that God was born and died as a human (it's even in the Micean creed - "..Begotten [i.e. born], not made, one in being with the father...". The issue of Christ's existence as a real human being, thus, is a key point for both believers and skeptics. 'Buddha' on the other hand isn't a person, but a state - the term means 'awakened' - and so Śākyamuni as a person was pretty much irrelevant except that he was the first to reach that state (or at least the first who reached that state who tried to teach it to others). It's just not something that buddhists would worry too much about. --Ludwigs2 10:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's Nicene Creed, not "Micean". Pais (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Also note that while you're correct about Christian doctrine emphasizing Christ's humanity and divinity, Christ's human birth is not what "Begotten, not made" is referencing -- that whole line ("God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.") is about the divine side of the matter; see the next two lines ("was incarnate, was made human,... truly and not in semblance") for the human side. — Lomn 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

sorry, you're right - the Micean creed is the one written for rodents. but I'd quibble on your second point: The Nicene creed is not a statement about belief in the existence of God (which is presupposed) but an assertion of the belief that Christ and God are one in spirit. the verb 'begat' in the bible always refers to birth, so there's no other way to read 'begotten not made' except as 'born of a human mother with God as the father, not created by God out of dust'. but it's a minor point.--Ludwigs2 20:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

...eternally begotten of the Father..., I'm don't see how 'begat' always means 'born of a human mother'. Eternally begotten (not made) of the Father, so he has always existed, always has been begotten, even before he 'became incarnate', but is not a creation. That section is all on the divinity of Christ. 86.162.69.210 (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

read the dictionary definition of 'beget', first, and then indulge in some philosophical musing over the logical truism that the only distinction between Christ and God is that Christ was born as human. plus, 'eternally begotten' seems to me to be a reference to the idea that it was always part of God's plan that Christ should be born, not that christ is eternally being born (which makes no sense, and sounds incredibly annoying). I'm just sayin' --Ludwigs2 17:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is why everything should be left in Latin or Greek, rather than leaving people arguing over English! ;) No matter what you think this should mean, that section of the Nicene Creed is specifically discussing the divinity of Christ, addressing the specific heresy that he was created by God the Father and was of a different substance to him. It is separate from him being made incarnate of the virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit, because this is him being begotten of the Father. Eternally begotten, to address the heresy that he came into existence only when he became incarnate of Mary. Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula. If the English words are not clear enough for you, choose different English words to translate this concept. 86.164.58.36 (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if you are unfamiliar with it, you will probably find Arianism an interesting read. 86.164.58.36 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also also (sorry this is getting long!) you might want to compare the English translation of the Athanasian creed, which uses many of the same terms but goes out of its way to be explicit and hard to misunderstand. 86.164.58.36 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, I was just wondering if Karen Armstrong is actually worth reading for anything at all...Adam Bishop (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but, see, you're a professional historian I believe, Adam, so what's "worth reading" to you is generally going to be different from what's "worth reading" to the rest of us on that subject. I had thought Karen Armstrong was more-or-less reasonably well-respected among actual scholars, though, despite her popularity. I've read a couple of her books and found them worthwhile from a non-professional-historian perspective. WikiDao ☯ 15:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the one about the crusades? I hope not :) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's your particular area of professional interest, right? Stands to reason that you would have problems with a popular account of it. I did indeed read that one, a few years ago, and thought it was very interesting. Have I been outrageously misled? I also read, and found interesting, The Battle for God, but that was a while ago, too. WikiDao ☯ 21:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Emerging from the small text... :-) I think there's also the fact that Buddha was a prince and widely notable even before he became the Buddha. It would be as if Prince Edward started a religion - people might debate the validity of the religion itself but they'd never think to debate his existence, because there would be copious evidence of it. Jesus was (and no disrespect is meant by this) a common, even poor man known to nobody outside his own circle until he entered into his mission. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question

I have two questions: 1. I was browsing the British Library website and found an online image gallery. But I found those images are copyrighted by BL. For example, this image was published in 1848, means it should be in public domain now. So, how BL can claim copyright? 2. Are everything in LOC website in public domain? --Reference Desker (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For the official Wikimedia view, see commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_position_of_the_WMF ... AnonMoos (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is an area of some dispute. In the US, the relevant court case is Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. As the article points out, the UK courts do not agree, but they are also not very clear on the matter. At heart is not essentially (in my mind) a dispute about copyright principles (though there is some of that, but you either believe in the concept of the "public domain" or you don't), but really about the revenue streams of museums. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Practical upshot (from professional picture research experience) - One has to understand the distinction between the actual original image itself, and subsequent images made from it. When you stand in a museum, you see an original painting (say) which itself is out of copyright: when you see that painting online or in a catalogue, you are seeing a reproduction of a photo of that painting, probably made quite recently. Copyright in the photo still resides with the photographer or to whoever he/she has assigned it to (often the museum or other owner of the painting who has commissioned the photographer). If you went to the museum and took your own photo, you would own the copyright of your photo (unless you had agreed otherwise), but because museums or other art owners can and do make money from selling reproductions themselves - for example, postcards, or one-time reproduction rights for books about art - they may and often do prevent you from taking such photographs, which they have the legal right to do. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Only in some countries. In the U.S. under the above-mentioned Bridgeman ruling there is no new copyright created by slavish reproductions. Rmhermen (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. The argument against a photo-of-a-photo having a new copyright is that no new creativity is essentially introduced — especially if, as in the case of professional photos of paintings, there is an argument that the taking of the photo was hard because it had to match the original exactly. The argument for a photo-of-a-photo having a new copyright is essentially "it is hard to do well, and I want to be the owner of the product," or in more baser terms, "this is how I have made my money for a long time, how will I ever make any money again." Which is a serious enough question, but I (and many others) get very irritated when this is made into a matter of intellectual property law, and essentially obliterates the concept of the public domain in the process. (See also Feist v. Rural, of which Bridgeman is a specific application.) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to mention that I was referring specifically to the UK situation (which is where my experience lies) because Reference Desker referred specifically to the British Library. Had his/her question been Americocentric, I would not have ventured to define the US position. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-13/Copyright threat and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-20/Copyright dispute. Nanonic (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy against giving legal advice. Copyright questions are the exception I suppose. The Sistine chapel is copyrighted because the restoration is a modern derivative work. If the British library claims a copyright, it probably has one. Someone did something either to the art work or to the photograph which they consider to be protectable subject matter. I am speaking only in generalities, however. As Justice Brennan once said, "Only rivers of confusion flow from lakes of generalities." Copyright questions are best when based on specific examples, and it is rare to have all the facts available from the internet. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing of Italian copyright law, but if it was under Anglo-American copyright law, the Sistine Chapel should not be copyright just because it has been restored in modern times. Clearly the restorers are aiming to reproduce the work of the original author, and any effor tthey have put into it is more the mechanical or technical effort of unmasking and reproducing the original work, than artistic or creative expression in and of itself. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Street Called Straight

This is a question copied from the talk page, that I couldn't find an answer to, and thought it was interesting. What's the origin of the rather odd phrasing of the street's name in English? Since the Latin can be translated rather straightforwardly as "Straight Street," I'm curious. Is this the name used in the King James Bible, perhaps? Thanks. Yazan (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. "And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus..." Acts of the Apostles Chapter 9, Verse 11[2]. Alansplodge (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The original Greek says "την ρυμην την καλουμενην ευθειαν" which literally means "the street, the one called straight". Pais (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And the Latin Vulgate says "vicum qui vocatur Rectus", which also means "the street called straight". The Latin name mentioned by the article is presumably found in other sources. Pais (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The most important reason is of course fidelity to the original text. However, I have heard this passage read aloud during a lesson, from the New International Version, which does render it "Straight Street"[3], and the reader could hardly continue: it is a proper tongue-twister. Marnanel (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably it runs at a right angle to "Queer Street." (Latin and Greek translations unknown). Edison (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Where they intersect must be an interesting place. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The JB: ""..You must go to Straight Street ..."" Acts 9, v11. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Providinig reference to wikipedia article that is new

Please tell me how to provide a source for the article I have written in wikipedia. I am getting the instruction that a source is needed source is needed. but I am not able to understand how to provide a source for the new article. This is about an article on Sri. Venkannaiah TS which is absolutely genuine but I am unable to site a source for that because in the internet no source could be provided. But as for the books sited in the article they are all available in the market and publisher information can be given. kindly give reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.10.89 (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Citing sources? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And this is reference desk, you should ask this question in Wikipedia:Help desk. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Published books can be excellent sources: you don't need to find something online. Publisher information should indeed be given: Ghmyrtle's link explains how to include this information. You might also want to read wp:reliable sources, to reassure yourself. 86.162.69.210 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Alansplodge's Top Tip... if you're like me and sometimes struggle with these sorts of instructions, try going to another similar article - click on "edit" at the top and copy how it was done there. Good luck. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Information regarding street in Belfast

Pakenham Street, Belfast, 1981

A block of terraced houses in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Would anyone happen to know when Pakenham Street in the Shaftsbury Square district of south Belfast was demolished? It was there in 1981, but I have been told it has since been demolished. Here is an image of the street as it appeared in 1981. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, you didn't link to any image. Pais (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (1990-1999): "4 March 1992: The IRA detonated a massive car-bomb containing over 1,100 lb (500 kg) of explosive in Pakenham Street, Belfast." I don't know if the demolitions were connected to this explosion, but it might be something to explore. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I had heard it was demolished before 1992. There was a UDA club in this street, that I know.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In the photo all the windows appeared to be blocked up, so perhaps it was awaiting demolition even then? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there were still people living there. I stayed in one of the houses in that street; in fact, I took the photo while I was half hanging out from my boyfriend's bedroom window. A few houses were occupied at the time, but they had been condemned as unfit for habitation. I believe it as I remember it was dangerous to even mount the stairs!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes in the UK, whole streets of houses remain semi-derilict and semi-inhabited for years - a condition known as Planning blight - we don't have an article but see Urban decay. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not just in the UK — see the lower picture. The surrounding neighborhood isn't the best, but I wasn't afraid to walk around; however, I was nervous just driving past the block that's in the picture. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Horace Mann(s)

Was the American school reformer Horace Mann the same person who authored the report of the Education Census and Religious Census, an element of the UK 1851 Census? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Per these references [4][5][6], "The task of tabulating the returns was given to a young (28 year old) solicitor, Horace Mann, who published his report in 1854 as one volume of the overall census reports". But the education reformer Horace Mann was born in 1796, which means he was more than 50 years old at that time. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So it is two Horace Manns (Horace Men). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it would be the four Horace Men. It is two Horace Manns.109.128.222.233 (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Then there's Walpole's friend, Sir Horace Mann, 1st Baronet, and his nephew, Horace Mann.--Wetman (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha! So we know the Four Horace Manns of the Apocalypse now! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Anything like National Writing Month?

I'm interested in other "contests" like this one. I see there's a poetry one, but have you come across anything else? 129.3.179.86 (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean National Novel Writing Month? There's also Script Frenzy which is the same kind of thing for plays/screenplays. Shorter events in the same vein include 24-hour Comic Day, Three-Day Novel Contest and 48 Hour Film Project. the wub "?!" 15:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

hitler in conversation

I heard that all recordoings of Hitler are of his speeches, with one exception, a single rare recording of him in conversation. Where can I listen to this online? (Prefereablya youtube link). Thanks. 109.128.222.233 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of the 1942 Mannerheim conversation, see Carl_Gustaf_Emil_Mannerheim#Mannerheim_and_Adolf_Hitler and search youtube for 'hitler mannerheim'. Nanonic (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicely written essay.... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks, that was fast. got what I wanted. 109.128.222.233 (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's Table Talk may be relevant. 92.15.8.168 (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Grand Western Canal - route through Taunton

I initially posted this question on the help desk for guidance on where best to post it. The help desk suggested I might get a better answer either at the reference desk or at the UK Waterways project, so I am posting this again at both (hopefully I am not breaching any cross-posting rules) I am trying to make sense of the route of the Taunton end of the Grand Western Canal. Old Ordnance Survey maps suggest it came into the town across Roughmoor and met the Tone in French Weir. The Wikipedia article on the Grand Western Canal suggests that the Grand Western actually linked direct to the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. The article on the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal suggests that the link with the Grand Western was made by going up the Tone and building a short stretch of canal at French Weir. Both plans however show the link being made with the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. In addition the Map reference given for the Taunton Boat Lift appears odd. It resolves to 81 St Augustine Street which is on the right bank of the Tone whereas all the other canal works are on the left bank of the Tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.222.192 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Although there's a possibility that an editor here may have the detailed knowledge you require, it's worth considering whether you could get more helpful leads through contacting the Somerset museum service or library service, who should be able to point you in the right direction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

PPF - proof that a point is productively inefficient.

Suppose an economy produces only apples and cars, subject to increasing marginal opportunity cost. The economy's maximum production of apples is 2000 tonnes and its maximum production of cars is 1000 cars. Suppose the economy is producing 500 cars and 1000 tonnes of apples - is this production point efficient?

The only proof that I can give that it is not efficient is a mathematical proof rather than an economic proof, i.e. with increasing marginal opportunity cost the graph of the production possibility frontier would be convex, but (500,1000) could only be a point on a linear curve (or a curve which is convex on some points and concave in others) when the intercepts are (1000,0) and (0,2000). Therefore, it must lie strictly inside the PPF. This is possibly not a satisfactory response; is there a way to explain why the point is inefficient in economic terms? Widener (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Maximum production lies on the blue curve, while the point given, A, is at less than that. Simply change the items produced from guns and butter to cars and apples.

This sounds similar to the problem of determining ideal firm size, which depends on both economy of scale and diseconomy of scale. However, you're example only cited "increasing marginal opportunity cost". In the real world, the cost per unit to produce either apples or cars would fall as production rose, up to a point, where wages would start to rise due to a tight labor market, land prices would also rise, due to scarcity, affecting apple prices, and the car component market would also tighten, leading to more expensive cars. On the demand side, a glut of apples or cars would reduce prices that could be charged for each, and thus cut into profit margins, along with increased production costs. So, there would be an ideal production number for both apples and cars.

Now, as to the question, there doesn't seem to be enough info to answer it, as you would need to know the precise cost structure for both apples and cars. I suspect they are looking for a "book answer", though, not a real world answer. Therefore, the answer is that they should be able to produce more cars, apples, or both, if we assume the curve has a shape similar to the one in the diagram. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed the shape that the graph must assume because as stated, the production of apples or cars is subject to increasing marginal opportunity cost. Widener (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, but something seems missing from that statement. Is there an increasing marginal opportunity cost both when you go from 1 car to 2 and when you go from 999 cars to 1000 ? And does it increase by the same amount in each case ? StuRat (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Draw the PPC and you will get your answer. Increasing marginal opportunity cost implies a curved PPC like the one in the image. The point in question would lie on a straight-line PPC between the two maximum production figures. It is clearly inefficient for ANY PPC drawn consistent with increasing marginal opportunity cost.124.148.59.228 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Where do Noahides worship?

Neither our article Noahidism nor some cursory googling has gotten me an answer to something I'm wondering: do practicing Noahides take part in any sort of weekly worship service, and if so, where? I don't mean just anyone who follows the seven Noahide laws, but people who explicitly identify as belonging to the Noahide movement. Are there specific Noahide places of worship, or do people go to synagogues and worship together with Jews on Friday nights and Saturday mornings? —Angr (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You can http://www.asknoah.org/ and aside from sending questions, that site also has a lot of information. I didn't see anything about group worship though, but I do know that Noahides do not go to synagogues. (They could visit, but it wouldn't be appropriate to use the same prayers and rituals, which are specific to Jews and are not required by Gentiles). There doesn't seem to be any formal set of prayers, but rather each person makes their own (similar to how Jews did it during the time of the first temple). Ariel. (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I found this thread there, which suggests that (as with so many questions concerning Judaism) the answer is "some rabbis say it's okay, others say it isn't". —Angr (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Italian citizenship

Just a little curious: My parents emigrated from Naples, Italy to Toronto in 1977 (or something like that). I was born in Toronto in 1983. I am a holder of Canadian citizenship, my parents became naturalised Canucks in 1982. My parents gave up their Italian citizenships when they acquired the Canadian ones. I have now been living in Oslo, Norway for the last 6 years. I have never lived in Italy, I have only been on 3 or 4 family visits in Italy and I have only "decent" Italian skills. (My French is a little better)

What are my chances of obtaining an Italian citizenship? PaoloNapolitano (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read our article Italian nationality law? It says "For those of Italian origin up to the second degree, the applicant must have served in the Italian military or civil service or have resided for two years in Italy after reaching the age of majority." I don't know for sure what "up to the second degree" means, but I assume it would include your parents' children and grandchildren. —Angr (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• You should also research whether you really need Italian citizenship. If you are fairly satisfied with how you've been treated as a Canadian national in Norway, then at least in theory it should be no different in Italy -- even though Norway is not in the EU, it is in the Schengen Area. --M@rēino 16:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm an American citizen, who holds Irish residency. I have been living in Italy for years and am married to an Italian national. I still require a permesso di soggiorno despite having an Italian husband and two children who were born here and hold full Italian citizenship. I have an Australian friend who was born in Sydney to Italain parents, spent his teenage years in Italy and even served with the Italian military. He was still required to obtain a permesso di soggiorno and the authorities had even threatened him with deportataion for not having one!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose your friend didn't have an indefinite permesso di soggiorno, so he would have to renew it if he wanted to stay for more than 90 days. A complete different situation would be if he obtained the Italian citizenship, to which he might be entitled. And EU citizens also have to apply to a Attestazione di Iscrizione. Quest09 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did Attila die?

In the article on Attila, it says that he "returned to his palace across the Danube". It's not quite clear from the text whether Attila also died in that palace. Where was the palace, and where did Attila die? Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this helps, but: while the Attila article says he was buried under a diverted section of river, it's not clear which one. The Tisza article says "Attila the Hun is said to have been buried under a diverted section of the river Tisza." but doesn't cite a source. And the Tisza (Tisa) is nearly 1000km long, so that doesn't get you much further than saying "Southeast Slovakia, Eastern Hungary, or Northern Serbia". -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not really known. Based on the scant description of the journey Priscus took to visit Attila around 452 Attila palace at the time is often located either at modern day Tokaj or maybe Jászberény but as his palace was more a wooden village it could have moved anywhere in the region conceivably. The Jászberény article claims the rumour of his burial site. Also his burial was supposed to have taken place beneath the Tisza so it would be flooded and hidden, then his undertakers were killed to make it undiscoverable. I don't know of any more recent archeology that has been able to locate it with more precision. meltBanana 00:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Memorize music

Hey all. I am a piano student and I have a piece of music that I have to memorize for next week; it is not very long (just the first page of a Bach prelude) but it is hard for me to memorize in such a short span. I have memorized harder pieces before, but these have generally been from practicing for several months. My teacher has recommended that I listen to professional pianists play the piece I'm working on or research its background but that doesn't work for me. I know there's no "right way" to do music but does anyone have tips on how I can memorize this? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have specific tips on memorizing music, but perhaps a few general memorization tips might help:

1) It helps to do the task hands-on. So, in this case, play it rather than just listening to it.

2) Try memorizing a bit at a time. So, in your case, play and memorize the first note, then the first two notes, etc.

3) This could result in wasting too much time repeating early parts which you've already memorized. In this case, you can divide the task (piece of music, in your case) into segments, and go on to the next segment after the current one is memorized. Be sure to perform the entire piece, several times, once the segments are memorized, or you might have trouble with the transitions between the segments.

4) Take breaks. When you get fatigued, your ability to memorize may be reduced.

5) Reward yourself. It doesn't have to be much, just give yourself a grape after you memorize each segment, for example.

6) Make sure you have a good study environment. Silence and a lack of visual distractions is important.

7) Spend the time. Obviously, "practice makes perfect".

8) Sleep on it. There's some evidence that long term memories are constructed from the day's events as we sleep. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's probably too late to try this for this particular task, but I believe some people find it a useful strategy to divide a musical passage (or a poem, speech, etc) into sections as in StuRat's Tip 3) above, and learn the last one first, then the penultimate one, etc. This makes the item as a whole, once learned, increasingly familiar as it progresses, countering the effects of performance stress. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it helps to work backwards: instead of beginning with the first bar, begin with the last. When you have that, start a little further back. This counters the usual pattern of knowing the beginning much better than the end, and also seems to help me make 'links' between the difficult bits in a more fluid way. Instead of starting with a known bit and moving on to unknown territory, you are contantly approaching better known bits. And, of course, put in the practical practice time with plenty of breaks. 86.162.69.210 (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC) (grrr, edit conflict. There's still time to do this, you just have to put in the hours)

As for your teacher's recommendation to do some background research, what I do emphatically recommend, is actually studying, picking apart and thinking about the segments mentioned above, segment by segment. Study and think about how each segment should sound rhythmically, agogically, dynamically, ..., about how you want to finger it, etc. Use your brain while you're playing, while you're practicing. Superficial memorizing (and relying too much on your fingers' and wrists' "muscle memory") can easily go haywire when you're nervous (and I'm always nervous when performing, to this day). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Play 1 measure while looking at the music, play the same measure not looking at the music. Play the next measure looking at the music then again not looking at the music. Play the first two measures looking at the music then again not looking at the music. Repeat with every measure.
Also, seeing the whole composition as one chord progression is enlightening. While the 8-bar phrases may have a progression of their own the whole piece is likely divisible by 8 and therefore is one long progression. Knowing Bach and how he wrote his pieces it is probably an ABA or a I-V-I progression throughout with maybe one or two IVths. Schyler! (one language) 02:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather than memorize one measure at a time, I'd recommend memorizing one phrase (2 to 4 measures) at a time; and instead of starting at the beginning, start at the end. In other words, memorize the last phrase first, then the one before it, then the one before that, and so on until you reach the beginning. When you've got each phrase down, continue playing the previously learned phrases until you reach the end of the piece. That way, you're progressing from newly learned material to more familiar material rather than the other way around. (I see 86.162.69.210 has already recommended this procedure above.) —Angr (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite the piece in a simplified way. (E.g. replace notes with chord notation, and runs with just the first and last note. You can be creative there; the more idiosyncratic, the easier it will be for you to make it your own). Practice by just looking at that, and memorize your simplified version. — Sebastian 04:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Get some blank music paper and copy out your page of score to it. Then do the same thing again, and again, and again. After a while you will remember it. Also, play the piece as well as you can with no keyboard. That is, just make all the finger motions on your desk, audiating the sounds while you "play". 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

March 1

UK Law

What is the UK law that says if your surname is Kent (or a similar idea) you cannot make your son's first name 'Duke' and his middle name 'of' (or something similar)? 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one. UK parents are essentially free to name their children anything they please. I do not have any sources for this, yet, but I will find some. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC Article --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And as for changing of names, the UK Deed Poll Service says that there isn't a law preventing a change of name to Duke/Lord etc (Q22) but they will summarily reject any names that "may result in others believing you have a conferred or inherited honour, title, rank or academic award" ([7]). The overall current law probably relating to this is the Fraud Act 2006 (I am not a lawyer etc..). Nanonic (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That company is covering itself: as it offers a guarantee that its documents will be accepted by the authorities, it will not accept any proposed names that may be rejected by officialdom. Sussexonian (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if this exists, but it seems reasonable that impersonating a peer of the realm would be a crime at common law? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Back in the days when being a peer automatically meant a seat in the House of Lords, I can see such an impersonation being cause for the impersonator to be held in contempt of the Parliament. But peers have no special privileges anymore, so pretending to be one is doing no harm - unless the impersonation was done for the purposes of fraud, which would be a matter of interest to the law, just as impersonating anyone for the purposes of fraud would be. IAN, however, AL. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Being a life peer still entitles one to sit in the House of Lords, and being a hereditary peer entitles one to participate in the selection process by which representatives of hereditary peers are chosen to sit in the House of Lords. But my train of thought was more that impersonating a peer might have been a crime back when being a peer meant something more than just symbolic, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to abolish it. But this is just speculation. I can't say IANAL but for the purpose of this discussion I'm impersonating a non-lawyer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Some wikilinks that may be of indirect interest: Screaming Lord Sutch, Naseem Hamed and Duke McKenzie. --Dweller (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And the marvellously punsome Ted Hankey. --Dweller (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pike river mine NZ

how is it worse than that one with 43 people dead if it only had around 30? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.82.196.91 (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pike River Mine disaster doesn't say that. It says it was the worst such disaster since the one that killed 43. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division (United States)

The first section indicates that the 7th Infantry Division returned to the United States after the Korean War.

First of all, the Korean War has never officially ended. There is merely a truce with ongoing peace talks.

Secondarily, there may be some ambiguity caused by the statement that the 7th returned to the United States after the Korean War. Some would think by that statement that the 7th returned after the truce in 1953. That is not correct. I was with the 7th in 1968-69 along the DMZ as part of a troop build-up following the capture of the USS Pueblo in February, 1968-69.

Something should be in the article about the 7th's participation in a significant increase in hostilities and North Korean infiltration following the capture of the Pueblo. The Army has written books about it ("Low Level Combat") and it's probably available from the GPO.

The article does state accurately that the 7th returned to the U.S. in 1971, but that is several paragraphs down from the statement that the 7th returned to the U.S. following the Korean War. People will be misled by the the opening passage about the 7th returning after the Korean War. The Korean War did not end in 1971, 0r 1953 for that matter.

B. Jerome Wheeler [email address removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.186.74 (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed your email address to protect you from spam. This should be posted on the article's talk page and not here. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you know you can edit Wikipedia articles yourself, to clarify anything misleading like that ? Just pick the edit button at the top of the section in question, and give it a try. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Korean War article uses the ternm "Armistice" which may be the best solution. If you're going to change the details of the movement of the division, you need to have a reliable reference to back it up - see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Alansplodge (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wars de facto end when people stop dying and killing each other, and not when politicians sign a piece of paper. Flamarande (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wars end when one side overwhelms the other. Sometimes they can't, and then situations like Korea and the Middle East go on endlessly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the terms "hot war" and "cold war" are useful here. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Support dog

What assistance can a dog provide to an autistic person? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How interesting. This site says: "Autism assistance dogs can be partnered with autistic children and their families. An autism assistance dog acts as a guide, anchor and continuous focus for the child. This can have a very reassuring and calming effect, enabling autistic children to better make sense of and interact with the world around them.". And there are details here about practical implementation in the UK. Karenjc 11:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain this is done in the USA also. Properly trained dogs have all kinds of therapeutic uses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's Therapy dog article is fairly short, but it has a great collection of external links. The basic idea behind therapy dogs is that dogs are, relative to their mental power, excellent at social cognition. Considering that autism is often described as an impairment of social cognition, it seems likely a fruitful possibility. --M@rēino 16:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We even have an article on the Autism service dog. —Angr (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I should have seen that coming! :) --M@rēino 21:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Casual Detachment?

While reading about Frank Buckles, I at first thought there was a misprint when his article said he belonged to the 1st Fort Riley Casual Detachment, but that appears not to be the case. Anybody have more info on this type of unit? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

According to this page, a "Casual Detachment" is a group of men "detached" or ordered to operate separate from their regiment or company for a specific duty. Looie496 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Flag

http://twitpic.com/4515rt can you post this picture to the site re: Libya? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizzyphus (talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if the photographer releases it under a free license that permits commercial reuse and derivatives. —Angr (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a striking poster, there, isn't it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that the al-qaeda flag? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, see Flag of Libya and Islamic fundamentalism at Flags of the World — Kpalion^(talk) 20:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That website won't work, but you've answered my question. I can see now why Gadaffi is warning the world about what's coming once he falls - and why the rebels don't want foreign intervention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Gaddafi has claimed that al-Qaeda is among the groups responsible for the uprising, but how likely is that? The tricolour flag goes back to the Libyan monarchy, which wasn't really "fundamentalist", they come from a family of Sufi mystics. Gaddafi overthrew the monarchy because of their support for (or at least their passive non-opposition to) Israel, and the all-green flag represents fundamentalist Islam more than the black/red/green one. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I get a bit nervous when I see that moon and star. But it's not like Libya is some great ally of ours anyway. His supporters seem to have conveniently forgotten about Lockerbie, for example. But what I don't get is, what is that "rebel flag" doing in the Libya article? Has the government been overthrown and they forgot to tell us about it? Or could it be (gasp!) POV-pushing on the part of certain editors, who are trying to have wikipedia participate in that overthrow in some small way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs -- the true Islamic extremists think that the star-and-crescent is a medieval cultural symbol, which has nothing to do with the pure Islam of the time of Muhammad or the glorious Arab caliphates before the Seljuk Turkish invasions. That's why there's no star or crescent on the flag of Saudi Arabia, or on the flag of Afghanistan under the Taliban, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and they get a bit nervous when they see that cross with that guy nailed at it. Quest09 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Quest09 -- Which country has a flag with a crucifix (not just a cross) on it?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose none. I was just pointed at the fact that Muslims and Christians can get nervous seeing each other symbols. Quest09 (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean Islamic fundamentalism at Flags of the World, by the way. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Grandiose.— Kpalion^(talk) 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What surprises me is that the anti-Qaddhafi forces in Libya are using the flag of the Kingdom of Libya of the 1950s and '60s. I can hardly believe that means they want the monarchy back, though. —Angr (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It is common for republics to use a royalist flag. The Flag of Russia used after the break-up of the Soviet Union was originally Tsarist. In 1991 Bulgaria re-adopted the old Flag of Bulgaria assocated with the Bulgarian Tsars. Both countries are still republics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you say the name Lucien Febvre?

Lucien Febvre, Jules Michelet- How are these names pronounced? --117.201.241.43 (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My best guesses are [lysjɛ̃ fɛvʁ] and [ʒyl miʃle]. —Angr (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

spl0uf efforts sounds better than mine. [8]--Aspro (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That site requires a login. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not for just listening it doesn't.--Aspro (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Katiba in Benghazi

I've been trying to find the Katiba, which played such an important role in the Battle for Benghazi, in Wikimapia[9], but I didn't see anything by that name (nor named "كتيبة") there. Does anyone know the coordinates of that complex? — Sebastian 19:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, no responses so far. Please don't be discouraged by my asking for coordinates - anything that would indicate the location would be helpful. — Sebastian 04:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, كتيبة is just the Arabic word for "battalion", so maybe the "Katiba compound" mentioned in that article isn't really a proper place name that would be labeled on maps. —Angr (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it perhaps just another name for the Al-Birka Barracks? Nanonic (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

terms fetishism

I know that Jungle Fever refers to either a white woman likes black man or white man likes black woman and yellow fever means that a white man likes Asian woman and/or white woman likes Asian man. So is there term where a white man likes Indian woman or white woman likes Indian man?; a white man likes latina woman or white woman likes latino man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.234 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Was it not you who had asked this question very recently at the Entertainment desk? In any event, see meltBanana's answer there: "Fever fetishism". ---Sluzzelin talk 20:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

65.92.152.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

65.92.149.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yes, both based in Toronto, same service provider. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the same guy who kept asking about ethnic neighbourhoods in Toronto, and about posting erotic ads for Arab girls in Toronto newspapers. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yellow fever is a disease. I don't know about the other stuff. There is a Jungle Fever article, but I haven't looked at it yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also remember that any such terms are steeped in centuries of racial politics, and thus likely to cause offense. --M@rēino 15:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Like when Mr. and Ms. Pac-Man sued for defamation over "Pac-Man Fever". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a youth culture in Afghanistan?

Is there a youth culture in Afghanistan or in other countries associated with extremism? In the West our youth culture means that the young are skeptical and critical of the older culture, and only take it on selectively as they grow up. I'm wondering if the abscence of a youth culture means that society would get stuck in a rut and not be able to grow and adapt. Thanks 92.15.29.32 (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that this is a factor in Iran, where the Islamic fundamentalist youth culture that swept the Shah out in 1979 is now in their 50's and the new youth culture has little use for Muslim extremism. So, give the extremists another 40 years to die off, and I suspect the Iranian government will become less of a pariah and stop funding terrorism. StuRat (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the average age in 'problem' countries is very low. So it would only take a few years before a youth culture had an effect. 92.15.29.32 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we've established what we mean when we refer to a youth culture. Is a youth culture going to contain similarities across widely separated geographical regions of the Earth? What would those similarities be? Is youth culture defined as the culture of young people that is at odds with the culture of an older generation? Is youth culture always a culture that takes exception in some fundamental way with the premises of an older generation? Are we assuming that in the absence of this assumed-to-exist youth culture that young people do not have a culture that they identify as their own? Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Have not you ever been a youth? Please base your ideas on that rather than over-analysing a not very good article. 92.24.178.131 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we've established what "countries associated with extremism" stands for either, for that matter. I mean for pete's sake, there are certain types of extremism I can quite easily associate with the USA, although I'm not certain the OP had that particular country in mind. Or did he? TomorrowTime (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My view of your questions from my memories of my youth culture: Yes. Pop music, fit celebrities, fashion, Hollywood movies, probably; although the specific details vary from country to country. From youth's point of view, yes. That's the idea. Yes, by definition. Edit: I've removed a link to what I thought was a Youth Culture article, as that redirects to a not very good article that is more about counter-culture. 92.15.29.32 (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The first sentences of Youth subculture read:

"A youth subculture is a youth-based subculture with distinct styles, behaviors, and interests. Youth subcultures offer participants an identity outside of that ascribed by social institutions such as family, work, home and school. Youth subcultures that show a systematic hostility to the dominant culture are sometimes described as countercultures.'

That leaves open the possibility of there being "youth cultures" that are simply the ways of young people, and "youth cultures" that "show a systematic hostility to the dominant culture"—those are known as "countercultures".

The question posed above would seem to refer not to "youth culture" in general but specifically to "counterculture". Bus stop (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not refer to counterculture. I wish people would stop putting words into others mouths all the time. The article is over-doing it - listening to pop music does not mean you are an anarchist, does it? Please stop being over-analytical of some dodgy text as if it was gospel. Havnt you ever been youthful? 92.24.178.131 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think Busstop gets the idea. I do not mean any anarchist counterculture as she/he seems to think, but just normal youthfulness in the West, or at least in the UK. You may recall that while being youthful, there was a lot of interest in rather ephemeral things like pop music, fashion, the latest Hollywood movies. That is what I would call youth culture. 92.24.178.131 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase the question: in countries like Afghanistan, do people go straight from being children to having the same interests and tastes as the middle aged? In the UK for example, when youthful, people take an interest in youthful things such as pop-music, fashion, the latest movies. In other words, do young people have the same interests and preferances as their parents generation? 92.24.178.131 (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect to Afghanistan in particular it's very difficult to generalise. Following some 30 years of assorted conflict and interference from certain countries the main focus is just on getting by.

However, there is some clear stratification in the urban areas, less so in the rural areas. The effect of the Hindu Kush is quite compelling with the North being distinctly different from the South.

ALR (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP's question was clear, and we can stick to the topic instead of debating the terminology (I refer to some of the comments above, not all). Youth culture in general depends on affluence. In America, it emerged mainly after the Second World War, when the total value of goods and services, in the space of about 10 years, went up about 250%. Young people started getting allowances from their parents, instead of contributing to the family budget from their own part-time jobs, and the commodities they sought were exactly those that would make them so prominent as a group - cars, jeans, records and the like. As marketers took an interest in them, and as they themselves took an interest in black music (rhythm and blues, which became rock and roll), an identifiable youth culture, and a preliminary generation gap emerged.

Whether there are enough of the necessary conditions in Afghanistan, or whether poverty and a mainly rural population are factors weighing too heavily against social change, I cannot tell. I can talk a little more about Iran, though mainly in the 80s, and it is in keeping with StuRat's answer. That country has always been a special case. From the time of the revolution, it has been an Islamic dictatorship superimposed on a society still reeling from an imposed Shah, against a background of a political culture that was once ready for democracy. This is just my simplistic summary, but dictatorship in Iran does not seem fundamental or natural to the society, from everything my Iranian friends have told me. The country regards students as a national asset, so it is hard for the (usually young, I think) revolutionary guards when their job is to suppress student revolt of any sort (or so I remember seeing on the news some years ago). Consequently, there is certainly a culture of opposition among the youth. There is also, from what I can tell, a thriving middle class, as the country is developing, and not economically backward. As for specific examples, in the 80s, Western bands, though illegal, were highly popular among the youth, and my friends suprised me by being able to discuss artists like Pink Floyd with knowledge and understanding. The interdiction on Western culture of course makes it more popular, whenever it can be smuggled in. The ban on all secular music (at least I think it is all banned) has little effect, with musical instruments routinely being smuggled in to weddings and parties, at some risk to the participants. Somehow, the government is not all-powerful, and the youth will likely be an agent of social change in the future, as the anger and hatred that inspired the revolution become forgotten, and people find they want the better lives that secular and free societies can provide. It's been emotional (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It was said that in the Soviet Union, Western jeans and pop records sold for high prices. Perhaps this desire for Western goods, particularly youth culture goods, eventually resulted in the fall of the Iron Curtain, a process which seems similar to the revolutions in the Arabic world currently. I read once that even Osama Bin Laden and his friends used to listen to collect and exchange audio tapes, so there is a desire for pop-culture goods which can be supplied and encouraged. With alluring cultural choices becoming available, eventually the militant ideology will seem old-fashioned and boring. 92.15.8.168 (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

92.15.8.168—you say, "It was said that in the Soviet Union, Western jeans and pop records sold for high prices. Perhaps this desire for Western goods, particularly youth culture goods, eventually resulted in the fall of the Iron Curtain, a process which seems similar to the revolutions in the Arabic world currently."

Why would "Western jeans and pop records" result in "the fall of the Iron Curtain"? Can you explain to me how that mechanism works? Bus stop (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

People wanted access to the Western lifestyle of consumer goods that communism was not providing. The western lifestyle could be seen in Western tv that was also recieved across the border, and doubtless other things that leaked through. The trickle of people escaping to the west became a flood as the border in one of the Iron Curtain countries opened, and later they all opened. Newsreels showed huge crowds of mostly younger people waiting to cross the border. Communism provided a long waiting list for a Trabant and other scarce basic items, while here in the West we lived in consumer paradise. When you went into a typical Soviet shop there would be few things on the shelves, and it cost many months salary to buy a colour tv. See the Fall Of The Iron Curtain section of Iron_curtain and Revolutions of 1989. 92.24.177.69 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OBL was a westernised Saudi until his early 20s, and later became enamoured of the philosophies of increasingly deviant Islam.

There is an implicit assumption in all of this that "youth culture" implies westernised consumerism. It may be a desire to introduce specific vaariants of Islam or similar.

ALR (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OBL left behind a big collection of audio tapes when he had to suddenly flee from one of his caves. I read a long article online about it. They passed into the possession of some American academic who was studying them. 92.24.177.69 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, do not alter definitions to suit your own purposes. I think the definition of Western youth culture is well known by most people at least. Defining youth culture in some idiosyncratic personal way is going to lead to confusion and pages and pages of verbage from pedants. 92.24.177.69 (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

the question should have been more specific then. If one wishes to look at it from an analytical perspective one would divide ones target audiences in various ways, one of which would be age related. As a result there would be a "youth" category, which may have certain common characteristics. Those characteristics would be manifested in a number of ways. What we see in Afghanistan does vary depending on where one is. There is a sophistication amongst "youth" in some of the cities, with a different flavour to that in, for example, Masar-e-Sharif than that in Herat and in some parts of Kabul. That reflects a number of things, including which community or tribal affiliation is recognised. This Target Audience Analysis would inform ones actions towards them.

The other issue is, as identified above, what one means by "extremism"...

ALR (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I do not want to be over-analytical thanks, it is a dead-end. 92.24.177.69 (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are Native Americans Nations free to not live by federal or state standards and still be funded by the federal and state governments?

Enough.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why when we are broke do we continually support corrupt causes like HUD housing for Native American Nations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.113.225 (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Maybe some sort of reparations? Schyler! (one language) 23:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Historic treaties. The land the reservations are on is Native American land, and is governed by their laws. This is a case of a nation within a nation, like the Sioux Nation. Reservations have their own police, their own laws, their own jurisdiction, etc; which is why they can gamble or follow whatever other laws they like. We support them with HUDD just like how we support all poverty stricken areas with HUDD.AerobicFox (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Note that the autonomy of Native American reservations is rather limited. For example, crimes committed by people living on the reservation, against people outside the reservation, likely would be handled under US law. StuRat (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Why were Native Asian Americans not just made citizens like everyone else and left to buy land like anyone else? Why do people think Native Asian Americans have gotten anything for nature of the times was if you could not pay for something or defend it you did not own it. Why should they be treated so special, even now in America, if you don't pay the taxes you will lose your property. Why were the Indians given anything other than the right to be citizens of the new america? Won't the whole idea of something for nothing ruin our country and this whole Indian thing, just another example of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.113.225 (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC) This is a really weird question. Because Native American's had their own nations, that's why they weren't made citizens of the U.S. Most native Americans did not want to be U.S. citizens or live in the U.S., the U.S. government took their land, and told them to leave their land and go somewhere else that was vastly less desirable. Eventually they assimilated with America and became U.S. citizens, but they haven't really been given anything apart from recent affirmative action measures. Keep in mind that Native American reservations have some of the highest suicide rates and alcohol abuse rates in the country.AerobicFox (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I also don't understand your use of the word "Asian" in the question. It's true that most Native Americans are descendants of people who came from Asia thousands of years ago, but since then they've changed rather dramatically, so I certainly wouldn't call them "Asian". StuRat (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Dear 76.178.113.225 -- The category of "Indians not taxed" mentioned in the U.S. Constitution has been obsolete and non-existent since at least 1924. The policy of breaking up reservations and allocating each individual Indian family "40 acres and a mule" to set them up as self-sufficient farmers, while cutting them loose from any legal collective tribal identity or special continuing government aid (beyond a few years of transitional agricultural assistance) has been followed during several periods (most recently during the Eisenhower administration), but really has not been a great overall success any time it was tried -- see Dawes Act, etc... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 40 acres and a mule was never an Indian policy or any other kind of policy or promise ever. A U.S. general gave some ex-slaves 40 acres and gave some ex-slaves some "excess-to-purposes" Army mules but the land was taken back soon after and no law was ever passed about it. The Dawes Act gave 160 acres to the head of family and 40 acres to each minor - but no mules at all. 75.41.110.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC). I was being metaphorical, which is why I enclosed it within quote marks. The Dawes Act was well-intentioned on the part of some who advocated for it, but it did rather little to create a class of self-reliant independent Indian yeoman farmers who had abandoned their traditional culture and were socially accepted by whites and well-integrated into "mainstream" American society -- which was its professed goal. AnonMoos (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC) The US forefathers came and stole the land, often murdering those who lived on it. We tried the tack of making them "good cultured Christianized Americans" and it failed miserably, so now often they don't really have their original culture or American culture, the effects of which cause a whole lot of problems (I am reading a book called Lakota Woman by Mary Crow Dog). Essentially, the reservations are the plots of land which the US forefathers didn't want, and forced the Native Americans to live there. To tell them that they need to be taxpaying Americans at this point is morally (in my mind) just like me coming to your house, killing your family, seizing your land, forcing you to sign a treaty to live and work in the outhouse, and then on top of all that, requiring you to pay me for my services (after all, I have to give you food, because you can no longer make ends meet). Rather than worrying about "something for nothing" here, I am far more concerned about the fact that the entire origin of my country is genocide, stealing land, and coercion. "Won't the whole idea of something for nothing ruin our country and this whole Indian thing, just another example of it?" Well, the US government has a history of making sure that the Native Americans cannot be self sufficient (for example, in "The Beautiful and the Dangerous" by Tedlock, the Bureau of Indian Affairs limited the number of sheep that the men could herd, thus destroying a vital part of the tribe's livelihood). That's my take on it, somebody will disagree, I am sure. Falconusp t c 05:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC) That's a little one sided. I suppose you aren't familiar with the common native American raids against settlers and people in the west. There was back-stabbing and broken treaties by the native Americans as well, and to be frank, if Native Americans were stronger they probably would've wiped us out also.AerobicFox (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC) It may be a little one-sided, but I think that if invaders were moving in toward my land, I would do something about it before they were on my land. I believe that a US History teacher at my high school said that there is not a treaty with the Native Americans that the US has honored. Again, I know people will disagree, but the fact that the Native Americans weren't as strong as the Europeans doesn't mean that they should have been wiped out. Falconusp t c 16:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Indians were pretty good at killing each other also. The invading Americans weren't saints, but neither were the native Americans. It's unfortunate that they couldn't figure out a way to coexist peacefully, but that's show biz. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Yes, but because there are warring factions in a foreign land doesn't mean that somebody needs to invade and obliterate them. Falconusp t c 16:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC) And just because a group of people got pushed off their traditional homeland 100 years before I was born doesn't mean that somebody needs to try and make me feel guilty about it. Googlemeister (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Of course not. I can take no responsibility for what my ancestors did. Nevertheless, it is important, and is highly relevant to today, and to the question of why we don't just tell them to become tax-paying Americans, though admittedly we are drifting from that question, which is in large part my fault. Falconusp t c 17:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Only if you unfairly profit from it. How long until stolen property belongs to the thiefs? Or their heirs? This is only partially a rhetorical question - how to deal with historical injustices is a genuinely hard question. If you believe you have a right to inherited advantages, you also have to accept the attached responsibilities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2

PhD thesis/science article being cited

It is certainly more common that a science article gets cited than a PhD thesis. However, how often do PhD thesis are cited? Quest09 (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In what field(s)? I ask because I imagine the answer will differ a lot. In the humanities it is extremely uncommon unless the thesis is not turned into a book (and turning a thesis into a book is an expected practice), though there is considerable lag time between the thesis and the book, which can account for theses being cited probably more than in the sciences. In the sciences, it is common to turn the thesis into an article, which is then the thing to be cited (or even the other way around — write an article, submit it as part of the thesis), and the lag time is a lot less (months not years), so you'd expect far fewer citations of theses, a priori, I believe. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about PhD in law. However, the question is valid for every science. I suppose the proportions apply to each relationship. Quest09 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't hazard to guess about law. I don't think it would be the same answer for every field — they each have different dynamics of citation and publication, what a thesis means to them. My experience leads me to think that citations of theses are fairly rare in the hard sciences these days, though it is not uncommon for maybe three or four citations in a history book to be from dissertations. I'm not sure where law would fall on that spectrum — it's a somewhat more odd field as it has somewhat separate academic vs. professional sides. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In theoretical linguistics, Ph.D. dissertations get cited all the time. Some people's dissertations are so influential that they remain the author's best known work well into the author's career as an academic. —Angr (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, in maths and science you often publish several papers while doing your PhD. Your thesis would, in large part, be made up of already published material so people wanting to cite that material would cite the first version. --Tango (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That happens in linguistics too, but people are more likely to cite the dissertation because it's the more refined, more fully developed version. What appears in your diss isn't usually an exact copy of the previously published paper, but a revision of it. —Angr (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of Arctic Convoys when alternatives existed

During World War 2, from September 1941 onwards the Allied Powers could transport supplies to Soviet Russia via the Trans-Iranian Railway, and Soviet shipping could also transport supplies from the USA to Vladivostock until August 1945. Despite this, the Allies chose to send 78 Arctic convoys between August 1941 and May 1945 to deliver supplies to Russia's northern ports instead. This was in some senses a more direct route, but did that convenience (and the relatively undeveloped nature of the Iranian and far east Soviet rail links) really justify the loss of eighty-five merchant ships and sixteen Royal Navy ships, and the commitment of many more merchant ships and warships, when the merchant ships were desperately needed for the Battle of the Atlantic and the warships in many other theatres of battle? Or were there some other factors that made it seem worthwhile? Our article mentions the continuation of the convoys being increasingly for symbolic reasons and at Stalin's insistence, but was that all? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're shipping a truck from the U.S. Eastern Seaboard to Russia, then to send it through Iran, the cargo ship carrying it has to go all the way around Africa, and the truck has to be unloaded and put on a train for several hundred miles before it ever even gets to Russia. To send it through Vladivostok means that it has to travel by train across the U.S. to the west coast before being loaded on a ship, and then transit through choke points highly vulnerable to Japanese naval attack -- and that route would have violated the implicit Japanese-Soviet truce. AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Does doubling (tripling) the length of the journey from the USA mean that it instead becomes worth the risk of the truck (and the ship transporting it) ending up at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean? I'm not sure I understand your second point - Soviet ships were not vulnerable to Japanese naval attack until a state of war existed, and the Soviets importing supplies for their own use would not seem an act of aggression against Japan. Not all of the supplies would've originated on the U.S. eastern seaboard anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the Suez canal? 71.141.88.54 (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Suez route wasn't a practical option prior to the invasion of the Italian mainland. This is an interesting question though. I'm sure that the limitations of the trans-Siberian railway may have been a factor, but I wonder if one reason for keeping the convoys running was to tie up a significant part of German resources - the logistics of maintaining anti-convoy operations may have been a real drain on manpower etc that could otherwise have been better used elsewhere. Much the same thing has been said about the allied bomber campaign - it wasn't the direct military effect that mattered, so much as the consequences for German military resource allocation. Someone (possibly Stalin) described WWII as a 'battle of factories', and in such circumstances where you fight battles is less significant than the effect such battles have on your enemy's ability to continue the fight elsewhere. It probably isn't much comfort to some poor sailor facing U-Boats off northern Norway to realise that he is there in order to divert enemy resources from Kursk or Rome, and that whether he actually gets through is of secondary importance, but war is like that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Russia's life-saver: lend-lease aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II By Albert Loren Weeks (available in part in Google Books) gives comparative statistics for the various routes used: 8.4 Mt to Soviet Far East (Vladivostok, Nikolayevsk-on-Amur, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky), 4.2 Mt via Iran, 4 Mt to NW Russia via north atlantic (Murmansk, Archangel, Severodvinsk), 0.7 Mt to Black Sea (via Mediterranean), 0.4 Mt via Arctic Ocean (I think this means westward from CONUS to Archangel in the summer). The same source says most liberty ships were US registered, but for those that were Soviet this article says the Japanese did not always respect their neutrality. The trouble with putting more to Vladivostok is the Trans-sib - it's a double track most of the way with no alternate (so a problem halts everyone), with antiquated signalling and horrible weather, and the only land conduit for internal traffic (minerals, coal, wood) from eastern and central siberia. Plus such a long route requires many times as much rolling stock to properly service it. 87.112.36.212 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Baikal Amur Mainline notes the Soviets' fevered attempts later in the war to built this alternate to the eastern transsib, picking up the efforts of Bamlag and Amurlag the decade before. 87.112.36.212 (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A Liberty ship had a capacity of about 10000 tons DWT. It could carry e.g. 440 light tanks or 2800 jeeps, with a crew of around 40 people. A standard freight car can carry maybe 20 tons. So you need several 100 train car loads to move the load of one ship. Bringing that over a long-distance train connection through very undeveloped territory is very hard. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Romantic movies with non-stereotypical portrayal of scientists

Are there any romantic movies with non-stereotypical portrayal of scientists? I just discussed this with a Physics major friend and we both can't recall any. Just curious. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the Indiana Jones movies might be 'non-stereotypical', but Indy is hardly your typical archaeologist (he shaves, for a start). If you want to see scientists portrayed as more rounded characters, you are probably better off looking at TV series - even CSI and its spin-offs seems to make the scientists vaguely human - though it doesn't do much for an accurate representation of forensic science. Sadly, the typical Hollywood blockbuster has little time for character development, and male characters in 'romantic' movies are usually portrayed as socially inept, rather than technically proficient. Stereotypes make the script-writing simpler. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it depends on which clichés or stereotypes Lenticel is thinking about too. It could be argued that Indiana Jones is a very stereotypical Adventurer Archaelogist. ---Sluzzelin talk

Yes, that stereotype goes back at least as far as Professor Challenger (don't you love the name ?), in The Lost World, published in 1912. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Something the Lord Made, although they are more doctors/inventors, than scientists, and romance is only a small portion of the movie. You might also consider non-fiction, such as the portrayal of scientists couples like Marie and Pierre Curie, or Marie-Anne and Antoine Lavoisier, or this biography on Albert Einstein and his first wife: Mileva Maric: [10]. StuRat (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Archaelogists aren't scientists.
Sleigh (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Our archaeology article disagrees with you: "Because archaeology employs a wide range of different procedures, it can be considered to be both a science and a humanity". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Archaelogists don't use the scientific method so they aren't scientists.
Sleigh (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think archaeologists don't use the scientific method? —Angr (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly because they don't conduct experiments, but then neither do paleontologists or cosmologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colapeninsula (talk • contribs) 12:38, 2 March 2011

They don't conduct experiments, but they can still test their hypotheses, e.g. by acquiring additional data. —Angr (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Proof, possibly? Although granted, I don't remember the movie well enough to be able to say with certainty if it fits the romantic movie criterion. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the question means by "romantic movie" - one featuring a love affair? A romantic comedy? One full of adventure and swashbuckling, like Arthurian Romance/Romance (genre)? Or something following that classic Romantic text Frankenstein?

Sean Penn's portrayal of a mathematician in 21 Grams isn't very traditional, and it's certainly a film about relationships including romantic relationships. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Young Frankenstein. 92.15.8.168 (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A Beautiful Mind (film)? --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Weird Science's depiction of the lead "scientists" definitely isn't stereotypical!!! --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can count mathematicians as scientists, I would go with Goodwill Hunting. Googlemeister (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a reason the words "Good" and "Will" were separated in the title of Good Will Hunting - Matt Damon's character was named Will Hunting. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Solaris is (among other things) a love story between two scientists, and the fact that they're orbiting an alien planet and one of them is dead goes some way toward avoiding stereotypes, so there's one film for you – two really, since there's also the Tarkovsky original. Another way to escape the usual image of the scientist would be to look among historicals. In Angels & Insects the hero is a Victorian naturalist, and in the Patrice Leconte film Ridicule the heroine is an 18th century Frenchwoman given to conducting experiments in physics. --Antiquary (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Creation, about the Darwins? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... the examples here are interesting especially the real life ones such as the Curies and Lavoisier. Well it would be interesting if somebody would do a romantic comedy about scientists.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple more: Splice, a horror about two geneticists in a romantic relationship that comes under strain as they produce freakish creatures. Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley play the leads, wear cool clothes, listen to various critically-acclaimed rock music such as Holy Fuck, and rebel against their corporate masters. Also sort of romantic is Jeff Goldblum in The Fly (1986 film). Less convincing: Keanu Reeves as a motorbike-riding physicist in action movie Chain Reaction (film). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How much of the Fairtrade premium makes it back to the growers

And why is this information apparently so hard to find? On the Fairtrade article there is one example which the Economist found which was 10%, but surely there is some broader data than that? 130.88.162.13 (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many different "fair trade" organizations and certification authorities. Each can set their own rules on what they consider "fair", and it will vary by product and market. --Sean 14:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough (no pun intended), but surely we can find an average, or at least a national average? And isn't there one official FairTrade, at least per country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.162.13 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering this too, since it seems to me I should be able to deduct this amount from my taxes as a charitable contribution. Ariel. (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No you can't, since the growers are not a registered charity. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Skip bombing

Why didn't skip bombing (amazing photo in that article) result in all the bombs detonating as soon as they hit the water? The article seems to mention this happened sometimes, but I'm surprised that it didn't happen all of the time. Our articles bomb, aerial bomb, gravity bomb, and detonator are all silent on what caused the detonation of a WW2 gravity bomb; I had assumed it was "contact with something hard". Comet Tuttle (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The skip bombing article says they were set off by a time delay fuse.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppose the article fuze deals with those aspects of how a bomb works.--Aspro (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally missed that on my reading. Thanks, Shantavira. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

And contact fuse is what causes the detonation of an aerially dropped bomb. I'll add mentions of it to a couple of the articles above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting that the design of such fuses could still have significant failings (although for a variety of reasons) nearly forty years later; the majority of the bombs dropped by the Argentine forces in the Battle of San Carlos (1982) failed to explode. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the jewish butchery (Kosher slaughter) cruel?

Some people told me the killing by itself isn't causing pain to the animal, but I have heard that some countries want to make it illegal. I'd like to know if there was a true scientific research, and what was its result. Thanks in advance! [There are probably grammar mistakes; sorry about that :)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.106.79 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Shechita is the article on Jewish ritual slaughter, though it doesn't offer any information on whether the animal feels pain, or on controversies around the practice. Legal aspects of ritual slaughter has some info on shechita. It is banned in Switzerland, Sweden, and some other countries. It's a murky issue because opposition to various forms of ritual slaughter (not confined to one religion) is often proposed from anti-semitism, anti-islamic feeling, or even opposition to Santeria, rather than concern for animal rights. PETA claim it is cruel[11], but you may say "they would". --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

For additional context, PETA also believes all pet ownership is cruel and should be avoided. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Professor Schulze and Dr. Hazem of the University of Hanover have done some comparative studies . They employed EEG to determine brain changes. The section Scientific data on traditional slaughter, religious slaughter and religious slaughter with preliminary stunning starts on page 16. Benefits of religious slaughter without stunning for animals and humans. There may be follow up on google scholar but I haven't looked. --Aspro (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Temple Grandin is a leading figure in animal ethics, and specifically an authority on humane animal slaughter. See her web page here [12] for detailed discussion of Shechita and Halal ritual slaughter. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that captive bolts fail to stun the animal about 5% to 10% of the time[13]. And when it does fail the animal experiences severe pain. Ariel. (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

---

By the way, Jewish animal-slaughtering is almost exactly the same as Muslim animal-slaughtering and vice-versa... AnonMoos (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

De facto UVF leader

Who was the de facto Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) leader while Gusty Spence was in prison? I know it had a Brigade Staff, but somebody had to have been in charge during Spence's absence. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As Spence wasn't in solitary confinement, there's no reason he couldn't have been in full charge of the UVF while in prison. Indeed, his article claims that he became commander while in the Maze. Warofdreams talk 17:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been hard to smuggle out orders from the Maze, that's for sure. I wonder who his second in command was though, the man who made sure his orders were carried out?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

recent movements in middle east and the role of western countries

Hi, I live in Iran and there are a lot of anti-western comments about the recent democratic movements in middle east and north of africa. they say that western countries are causing these "conflicts" to sell weapons in order to be able to stand against the recent economic crisis. they even claimed that Britain has sold weapons to libia last year. I personaly don't believe these claims, but since I see no other alternative explanation for this BIG SUDDEN changes, I also think I'm being brainwashed. so how much are these claims true( or false)?--Irrational number (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"They" are often wrong. For one thing, these changes are not very sudden. They have been building for many years, bubbling under the surface. The events in Tunisia was the spark, but hardly the cause. 17:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Government propaganda is often constructed on a foundation of a few out-of-context truths.EU arms exports to Libya: who armed Gaddafi?--Aspro (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is talking about arming Gaddafi, which would tend to suppress revolution, while Iran presumably is claiming that Western nations have armed the rebels, thus promoting revolution. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand the OP, they are suggesting that "the West" is supporting the insurgency, presumably to sell weapons to both sides. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, but the article Aspro linked to doesn't mention that, only selling weapons to Gaddafi. StuRat (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(E/C) I don't think the revolutionaries (whoever they are, exactly) have millions of Euros to spare. Nor do I see how successful removal of a dictator promotes future weapon sales. Perhaps the theory is that we're supposed to have sold weapons to both sides, carefully keeping a balance to prolong the conflict so that we can continue selling weapons. The rapid toppling of various regimes would therefore be explained by, um ... the revolutionaries being brave, noble and fearless and secret admirers of the Iranian government, according the the Iranian government and so naturally winning anyway. The other other thing the various EU countries behind this evil scheme failed to foresee was that sanctions against Libya, banning weapons sales, would be agreed by, um, the EU. 81.131.24.232 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that the great majority of those UK sales, in terms of price (€26.1m out of €27.2m), are sales of "electronic equipment". Not sure what to understand that as. 81.131.24.232 (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The spark appears to have been the Wikileaks revelations, which included some rather damaging facts about many Arab nations, leading to protests and then revolution. Additionally, the Internet has now spread to such a degree that repressive regimes are finding it difficult to control the movement of information, such as when and where the next protest was scheduled, which is vital to repression of revolution.

Also note that these revolutions aren't necessarily democratic or in the interest of Western nations. In Egypt, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an Islamic fundamentalist organization, stands to gain power, and there is concern that Egypt may no longer honor it's peace treaty with Israel.

Finally, the idea that the West could solve it's economic problems by selling weapons is rather absurd, as that would be several orders of magnitude below the amount of cash needed to make a difference. They might as well argue that the way to solve their economic problems is by selling off potted plants in government offices. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph is true. But the third is a non sequitur. Every little bit helps. And arms exports are, in general, not insignificant, if only for the reason that every petty dictator buys them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Put another way, making a million dollars in weapons sales by causing a revolution, then losing a billion dollars due to higher gasoline prices, and maybe a trillion dollars if it becomes necessary to invade some of those countries to restore a stable government, makes zero sense as a strategy. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The internet might not have helped as much as we would like to think it did - see here: Internet Revolution? Mubrarak switched Egypt's internet off, which seemed to have the effect of making more people get angry and leave the comfort of their homes. (It might have a similar effect on me.) 81.131.24.232 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

They just waited too long. Had they cut it off before the movement started, they would have had more success. StuRat (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that these claims are silly. The USA has consistently preferred "low oil prices" to "representative government" or "human rights" for fifty years in its dealings with oil-exporting nations, as has been seen by its support over the decades of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, and many other examples. Revolts or revolutions that endanger US-friendly autocrats will, at minimum, cause a jump in oil prices due to uncertainty (this has already occurred) and, at maximum, could cause a new government to nationalize oil production, or even embargo oil sales to the US (yes, that damages both countries, but it's a possibility). Even if the US's clandestine services were as powerful and competent as they would need to be to cause multiple revolts and revolutions in the region, this could be very harmful to the US economy; so the claims you cite seem to defy reason. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Israel gave up the occupied Sinai Peninsula in exchange for Egypt's recognition and statement of it's right to exist. If those are withdrawn, should Israel retake the Sinai ? This could particularly be an issue if an Islamic Brotherhood led government decides to arm terrorists in the Gaza Strip, which borders the Sinai. StuRat (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Egypt possibly not honouring its treaty (which doesn't seem too likely, commentators seem to be suggesting) or an Islamist party gaining more power makes it less democratic. It seems hypocritical to promote democracy on the one hand but then denounce the resulting, democratically elected regime just because it disagrees with your standpoint.

If the people of Egypt democratically decided they wanted to stop being friends with Israel (again, this does not seem to be the case), then that is part of their democratic right, and the decision is no less democratic just because Israel doesn't like it. In fact, if this were to happen (despite the slim chance of it actually happening) then Israel has no-one to blame but itself for antagonising everyone except for tyrants like Mubarak. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Being democratically elected is no guarantee that a government will be good, and no reason why Western nations should be friendly with them. After all, the Nazi Party came to power as a result of democratic elections, under the Weimar Republic of Germany. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

An Islamic state where the people have freedom? Are there any in existence at present? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bosnia. It has its problems, but it's a free country with a democratically elected government. Also, Indonesia. But then, those probably don't count in your eyes since they fail to reinforce your stereotypes. TomorrowTime (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Are Bosnia and Indonesia actually Islamic states? They're not mentioned in our article on the topic. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those nations are described as "Islamic Republic" in their articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, a government where laws come from God seems fundamentally incompatible to one where they come from the people. In the first case a group of religious "experts" would be used to determine the "will of God", (which, of course, turns out to be whatever improves the lives of the "experts") and what the people want is entirely irrelevant, if in conflicts. This seems to be how Iran operates, with a few symbolic and/or rigged elections tossed in, to appear democratic. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, my post above was a response to StuRat's post above: Also note that these revolutions aren't necessarily democratic or in the interest of Western nations. In Egypt, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an Islamic fundamentalist organization, stands to gain power, and there is concern that Egypt may no longer honor it's peace treaty with Israel.

My point was that parts of this paragraph reads like a non-sequitur. "Not being friendly to Israel" and "Islamist political figures being elected" do not mean "undemocratic". There are many reasons why a people may choose not to be friendly to Israel, such as Israel's treatment of Palestinians, its hostile attitude towards its neighbours (justified or not), its secret nuclear weapons program, and historical territorial disputes. Indeed, just as western nations are (perhaps justifiably) alarmed at the prospect of an Islamist government in Egypt, it wouldn't be surprising that people find the influence of Judaism on Israeli law and government to be alarming too. However, none of these make Israel any less of a democracy than it is, and similarly, corresponding attributes in a future Egyptian government would not make it any less democratic than it is.

As to Sinai, Israel illegally occupied Sinai, and if Egypt traded recognition for the territory, that is only because it had no practical way of enforcing its legal right to the territory. It's like offering a reward "no questions asked" for the return of a wallet - you are not doing it because you are legally obliged to pay a thief to retrieve your wallet, you are doing it out of practical necessity because the contents of the wallet are more important to you than the money and you have no realistic way of finding and prosecuting the thief. If the thief returned the wallet but you withheld payment of the reward, they can't sue you for it since they had no title to the wallet in the first place. Likewise, for Israel to re-occupy Sinai would be just as illegal as the first instance, even if Egypt were to withdraw its side of the bargain. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

See Third Wave Democracy and The Third Wave of Democratization. You might also read Sultanistic Regimes by Juan Linz. Iran and Iraq are discussed in that book as well as several other authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, both historical and current. Experts have thoroughly discussed the matter already. Gx872op (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Series of Shinkansen

Which series of shinkansen is this picture? --Posted on 18:20 on 2 March in 2011 (UTC) by Highspeedrailguy 18:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an E3, see also the category on Commons. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing special

Discussion closed

Should everyone in the United Kingdom leave their country so the original inhabitants who were ran off or killed,have their homeland back?76.178.113.225 (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Whaaaaaaat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Although there is a certain sense of justice in the repatriation idea, this is not the way that any country or people resolves the ethical consequences of "unjust" military invasion from decades or centuries ago. The typical way it's resolved is by the victor saying "Too bad". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC) (ec) Depending on your definition of "original", the descendants of many of the original inhabitants are in the United Kingdom, and it seems quite redundant to deport all of these people and then re-import them again. As for any original inhabitants who were killed - it's a terrible thing but we don't have any reliable way of resurrecting them so there are some technical difficulties with them "having their homeland back". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC) We're still here, you know. We're quite a tolerant lot really. If you keep your head down and put up with the newbies, it really does get better! (From someone who has traced their ancestry back beyond the Norman Conquest, you know)--TammyMoet (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC) The UK was first inhabited by humans over 10,000 years ago. All the original inhabitants are long dead... If you mean the descendants of the original inhabitants, then we're already here. Most (if not all) people in the UK today will have some ancestors that were in the UK 10,000 years ago. Either that, or nobody alive today has such ancestors (if the original inhabitants all died out). See Identical ancestors point for more information.. --Tango (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC) We could also talk about cultures, rather than genes, and suggest reviving old cultures which have been unjustly shoved aside ... apart from the fact that these cultures, like the genes, were mostly assimilated rather than destroyed (despite the elitism of the Normans), and that nobody knows what the most ancient ones were like anyway (who were the Picts, really? Would the most original inhabitants have had a culture a bit like the Sami people?), and that the upshot would just be that we gave undeserved privileges to neopagans. 81.131.24.232 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Something is fishy about the last paragraph of your Identical ancestors point article. Don't genes get mixed up so that you can pass on more than 2^23 different possible offspring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.96.10 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I am closing this discussion as it comes from the same user who keeps asking pointed questions about "Native Asian Americans" against whom he seems to have a grudge. The reference desk is not the place to air one's grievances. —Angr (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources for closing of Air France ticket office

Hi! I found on a forum thread that an Air France ticket office in New York City closed after December 31, 2010: http://nycaviation.com/forum/threads/38631-Air-France-Closing-NY-Ticket-Office-new-A380-Service

But I need a reliable source. I tried searching the Air France website and news.google.com and couldn't find any hits. Would anyone know a good place to look for RSes about ticket offices closing? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

March 3

Americans Accepting Foreign Honors

The United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 9) states:

"9.8 No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

Aside from that narrow restriction, I know of no other law regarding the acceptance of say, a Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth (via her government or not). Many Americans have been awarded and have accepted Knighthoods, including Alan Greenspan, Norman Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Caspar Weinberger, and a whole slew of American entertainers. And while it’s a widely held view that they may not use the title “Sir” in their names, I know of no law which prohibits it.

So my question is why do most people (including journalists) believe that say, Colin Powell cannot style himself "Sir Colin Powell?" —Preceding Old Rogue comment added by 173.53.170.111 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

He can call himself whatever he likes, but it's not recognized in the USA. If those folks were knighted while still in office, it's theoretically against the law, for the obvious reason that it could be a bribe attempt. So from the legal standpoint, accepting a knighthood has about as much significance as if the queen sent the guy a postcard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The journalists are correct. British knighthoods held by those who are not subjects of the Crown are honorary and do not carry the title "Sir". This is because of the honorary nature of the knighthood, not any matter of American law. See Debrett's on the matter. Marnanel (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't stop Powell from calling himself "Sir Colin" if he wanted to. In America, you can call yourself pretty much whatever you want. That doesn't mean the press has to buy into it. And Powell, being an honorable sort, wouldn't do something like that anyway. But by making it only "honorary", it is indeed roughly the value of getting a postcard from the queen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. There's nothing stopping him calling himself "Sir Colin", and there's nothing stopping me calling myself "Sir Marnanel", and it's about as meaningless either way. The point is that he has no reason he should be called "Sir Colin", since he doesn't hold a substantive knighthood. Marnanel (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's spot on. The only American I've ever heard of who is sometimes seriously referred to as "Sir" by virtue of a knighthood from a foreign power is the conductor Gilbert Levine. Despite being Jewish, he is the recipient of 2 papal knighthoods. Pope Benedict XVI in his wisdom called him "Sir Gilbert Levine", although such a title has never been promulgated for any papal knighthood. This was either a mistake or a joke - but for some people, the pope's word is law and they duly insist on calling Levine "Sir Gilbert". His talk page is pretty much all about this issue. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It must be very frustrating to make jokes as the Pope, since everyone apparently takes it literally. I've heard a couple of accounts of the current Pope saying something that was clearly a joke (the most obvious being a comment about dogs in the crowd when he visited the UK being "Catholic dogs"), and there's always been some people regarding the stories terribly solemnly. 86.163.4.134 (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Embassy/Consulate in Salzburg, Austria

Reading through Nazi denaturalization cases, I found out that in the 1940s and 1950s, the US had an embassy/consulate in Salzburg, Austria, but that embassy/consulate has apparently closed. What happened to it? 98.116.108.191 (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Salzburg Consulate General closed in 1993, a Consular Agent was put in place which remained until the Summer of 2005 and was closed as part of cost cutting measures, all consular services transferred to U.S. Embassy, Vienna. Nanonic (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

US Court outcomes

Is there a way to track US court outcomes? I'm trying to find out how this lawsuit ended. It was filed in the Manhattan Federal Court, if that helps. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

typeface or not

I've seen Silver Streak. The opening and closing credits featured certain font styles. I asked someone on YouTube about them. The user told me the font styles were Serpentine Series. What I'm trying to ask is are there really Serpentine Series font styles? Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Just Google "serpentine font" and you will find plenty.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent educated Man fears losing connection with teenage Son & seeks scientific approach

I am not apposed to opinions but feel science holds the help I need. My Son lives almost 2 hours away by car. I'm in the process of trying to obtain residency in his school district so we can be together a few days a week. I won't get into Family politics because I don't think this is the proper forum. I will focus on facts. Please allow me a quick introduction before I state what help I'm asking for;

I need my Son to be well for me to be well & happy. My Son is basically well. Well adjusted,an honer student,outgoing,friendly & on his high school football team which is a AAA (triple A) division. We hope to regain our AAAA ranking this next season. (sorry, I like to brag about my Son). We are not able to connect well on the phone. I just started driving out to take him to dinner once a week. I can not afford to do this every week & strongly feel my Son needs more. I'm a self employed contractor & struggling. The area he lives in will be harder. I have calculated my savings & feel I may be able to hang on until he graduates high school in June 2012. I don't mind if this leaves me broke & obviously it will surely yield a difficult beginning to paying for his college. I have a contingency plan for college I won't get into at the moment. I have moved to be closer to him once before & was able to stay 2 years. Now he lives in a more economically challenged area that may surprise me with prosperity. My interest is in investing in my Son not my bank account.

Here is my request for help;

I don't know how to handle negative influences in his life. Significant people to him that love him & care well for him but are not honest. I do not discuss this with him unless he brings it to me. He has only brought it to me a few times. I feel attempting to bring this up with him would be crossing a boundary & put him in the middle of something he doesn't need or deserve. I know I play a part in this but can't see what it is. I am too close to this situation. I have & continue to try & find someone I can talk to who can give me professional scientific help. I have done some reading but need direction.

I'm open to suggestions please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Pinter (talk • contribs) 08:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. You say you need professional scientific help, you may well be right but unfortunately this is not really the place to get such help. I think you really need to contact a professional counsellor or therapist in your local area whom you can talk to about this. Don't just pick the first one you find in the Yellow Pages, contact the state or national association of counsellors (sorry I don't know what exact body that would be, someone else here may know) and find someone reliable and reputable. You may have to pay for their time but such things don't come free. Good luck. --Viennese Waltz 09:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What state, country? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this true?

Is this true? If so, in what states? http://www.ratemyfunnypictures.com/index.php/6033/rate-my-valid-stop-signs/ Reticuli88 (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked with SC and IN. In both states, this is complete BS. As I typed this, got a reply from MO. Again, complete BS. So, feel free to run a stop sign and then try to explain to the judge that you saw a picture on the Internet that said you didn't have to stop at the stop sign. I'm sure it will get a good laugh. -- kainaw™ 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, you don't stop at stop signs because it's "the law." You do so because if people ran stop signs all of the time, we'd have a lot more pointless automobile accidents. People in my neighborhood routinely run a number of stop signs (why, I have no idea) and it creates an incredibly dangerous situation for other drivers, pedestrians, even the people running the stop signs themselves. I'm often tempted to yell (if I were someone who yelled at other cars), "if we were both as dumb as you are, we'd both be dead by now!" after narrowly avoiding one of these yahoos. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)