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 24

Animorphs 37 reference

I don't know if anybody knows (or cares) about Animorphs anymore (I still do!), but it's worth a shot...

OK, I remember reading the 37th Animorphs book a while ago, which includes chapters about Jake's old relative who fought in the Civil War alongside the Animorphs chapters. In one of the chapters, a battalion of black troops are being trained for battle by this war captain who teaches them to shoot a gun. I thought that chapter was really cool, until I watched Glory for a university class and saw almost the exact same gun-training scene -- the black soldiers are all excited to learn to shoot, one of the soldiers hits one of the tin cans lined up as targets and is praised by his friends, the captain starts yelling at him to reload, and fires into the air while he's yelling, making the black guy jump, there's a lot of tension in the air, then the captain says something like, "when you're on the battlefield, with shots flying all around you, a good solider can shoot three times in one minute and make every shot count." Glory was made in 1989 and the 37th Animorphs book was made in 2000, so... the movie definitely came first. It's just strange how similar it is :-) Would that be copyright infringement, or does copyright not extend to situations, just to actual quotes? Maybe both the movie and the book got it from the same historical event? I do know that this one was likely ghostwritten, as were most of the books past #20.

Jonathan ^talk 02:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright does apply to situations, not just to quotes. The question is one of degree, though; a single semi-similar but still fairly generic scene of a much longer work in a different medium, as in this case, is not going to be remotely enough for copyright infringement to be established in the courts. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 12:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's right, probably unless the scene were copied from Glory quite exactly. How "exactly" the scene needs to resemble the Glory scene in order to infringe the Glory copyrights is unfortunately (for the RD) something for the courts to decide. If the scene idea is the same but the scenes do differ, see Idea-expression divide. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

AS Glory was based on reality,maybe so was Animorphs based on a historical event so no copyrite problem perhaps.Hotclaws (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hitler

Was Hitler a good man or bad man? --MonkeyEditWow (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Both and neither. You have to define "good" and "bad" to answer that question. Neither good or bad is a factual issue by itself. -- kainaw™ 02:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If 99% of people define massacring civilians as bad, then Hitler was bad. StuRat (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur. Not that I'm defending what he did for a micro-second, but even in Hitler's case, how do we make the link "bad deeds = bad person"? We can't. All of us have done what we would call "bad deeds", yet none of us likes to think of himself as a bad person. If there's a distinction between actions and their agent in the case of the vast generality of humanity, why is this no longer the case with the Hitlers of the world? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

By that standard there are no bad people at all. Personally I would say if someone does more bad than good then they are a "bad person". And if less, then they did "bad deeds". Yes, that does require me to judge the quantity of "bad deeds" vs "good deeds", but I'm OK with that requirement. I couldn't calculate a precise number for that, but it is possible to say which was more in Hitler's case. So yes I can say that Hitler was a "bad man". (But he probably did not think that of himself - not sure if that was part of your question.) Ariel. (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you weight "good" and "bad"? Was Jefferson, the slaveholder, a good or a bad man? He owned slaves every day of his adult live, but he only beat them occasionally. In between, he prepared for the ethnocide of native American culture, offering Indians the choice between assimilation, expulsion, and death. Oh, and he wrote some of the most fundamental words on the Rights of Man and founded one of the first secular universities. Very few people perceive themselves as "bad" - they always find some way of justifying their actions, at least in their own mind. It's usually harder, but more fruitful to find out their actual motivations. I really like what Harry Turtledove did with the American Empire and Settling Accounts series, highlighting how "normal", even sympathetic characters developed to be cogs in a machine that did terrible things. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Ariel: OK, maybe there are no "bad" people at all, and likewise no "good" people. The US Declaration of Independence was on to the right idea, with "all men are created equal". Not "some men are bad, but everyone else is good", or whatever. Laws punish people for committing bad acts; the act itself can't be punished, so the next best thing is the person responsible; but no law ever says "The perpetrator of X act is a bad person", or "Those who pay their tax in full and on time are good people". No, the whole notion of personal badness or goodness is something we get fed as children, but adults can do better than that. Even Wikipedia has rules about discussing the behaviour of editors, not the editors personally. Editors can get banned or suspended on the basis of their specific behaviours, not because they are "bad" people. Weighing up a person's deeds and deciding that, on balance, they're either "good" or "bad" people, will never have legs. What if someone just scrapes through - are they "marginally good"? No, that approach can't work. And even then, we cannot possibly know all of anyone's deeds, just the most obvious and visible ones; reducing a person down to a handful of public deeds, as if that was all there was to the person, is doing a VAST disservice to the infinite complexity of humans. So, to the OP I say that we can look at the death and suffering Hitler brought about, and wonder how any human could ever do that, and seek to understand so that it can never happen again, and punish those responsible who are still around to be punished. That's more than enough to be getting on with for the next millenium. We don't need to be sidetracked by questions of whether any of the perpetrators were good or bad, because (a) there will never be universal agreement (witness the rise of the neo-Nazis and latter-day Hitler worshippers), but even if there were, (b) it doesn't change anything and is a waste of time. All it does is allow people like us sit back smugly in our comfy chairs in the knowledge that "we're not like that", while watching massacres and earthquakes and famines on TV and doing not a damn thing to help the victims. Sleep well tonight. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I work every day to avoid any children I can being fed that notion. It is an amazingly unhelpful notion that screws a lot of people up, and you can watch people imposing it on children everywhere you look. Every child is a good child, although they sometimes do wrong things :) Luckily, I get to convey this to a good number of them. 86.166.42.200 (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, we also have to classify Churchill and FDR as "bad people" (Firebombing of Dresden) not to mention Harry Truman (Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). It's very hard to draw an objective bright line good/bad distinction which doesn't put some people on the "wrong" side of it, with people saying "well, yes, I did say those acts made you a bad person, but it doesn't count because he did it for a good reason", which basically kicks the definition back to "good people are ones where I like their actions/motivations, and bad people are those where I dislike them." -- 174.24.194.184 (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Though it has to be noted that the atomic bombs, firebombings, etc., killed maybe a million or so civilians total. That's a lot. But it's a fair number smaller than the death camps. Both of those actions were arguably means to an end (however ineffectual the firebombings may have been in that regard) that would have saved lives in the aggregate, according to their logic. It's very hard to apply that to the Holocaust. Even the Nazis essentially admitted that they were only killing the Jews because transporting them somewhere else was inconvenient for them right at that moment. They had no illusions that killing them all off would somehow win the war or save lives or anything like that. I think I'm willing to go on the record saying that I think Hitler was, on the whole, a "bad man" while Churchill, FDR, and Truman were, at most, "expedient, often inhumane" people. I think there's a pretty significant difference. (I'll bite and put Stalin in the "bad man" category as well, while I'm at it.) I can relate to the kinds of expedient decisions that the Allies made, or even that the Germans made in the context of the actual war (e.g. the V-rockets, Blitz, etc.). I have a hard time relating to the Holocaust, which is just something else entirely. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Which Hitler? LANTZY^TALK 03:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The one with the funny mustache ? StuRat (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, he started his career in silent films. Speaking of films, in the credits of one of the Naked Gun series, there's a credit for "Best Boy", which is a term for a member of the production crew, and then there's a credit for "Worst Boy" which is listed as "Adolf Hitler". Perhaps that will answer the OP's question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

While ultimately Hitler turned out to not very nice at all, some amazingly positive things happened during the earlier years of his time in charge of Germany. The advances in technology were impressive. Anyone who has seen the recently compiled colour movies of Germany from those times has to be impressed by the technical quality. He implemented very aggressive anti-smoking campaigns. Shame about the war. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I hear unanimous sentiment that so-and-so was 'evil' or 'bad' I am inclined to consider the alternate point of view. I find Time magazine's approach to be more respectable -- they named him the Man of the Year in 1938. Vranak (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Him being Time Person of the Year has nothing to do with an "alternate point of view". They choose the person who, "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." Hitler certainly fit that description. If I recall correctly, Osama Bin Laden was on the short list for man of the year in 2001 (beat by Giuliani). Staecker (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And Stalin won it twice, (which humorously is one more time then Obama). Googlemeister (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This entire discussion reminds me of the view a journalist took to sum up Robert McConnell, who was alleged to have committed a series of horrific sectarian killings and bombings in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic: "Robert may have murdered the Reaveys, but to his family he was the man who looked after his sick brother and disabled sister".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan's "A Policeman's Lot" illustrates that this "look for the bright side" concept, toward a seemingly reprehensible individual, is nothing new. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

See Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany and Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. And "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life". ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If Adolf Hitler has left to the human race any important writings or recorded speeches, they can be studied by psychoanalysts and by the general public. Some people might find some of the content to be intellectual "garbage".

—Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that Hitler commanded the greatest number, in modern history, of gatherings of people to hear him speak? {Sorry, cannot find a positive reference among the article pages of Adolf Hitler). MacOfJesus (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hitler was a bad man. Here are 61,500 references, most of them supporting my claim. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He got to power democratically with, I think one vote. He was popular. So if he is seen as bad, is what brought him to power also suspect? MacOfJesus (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The way Germany was treated by the British and the French following WWI created the environment in which it was possible or a Hitler to come to power and to be "popular". If the USA had been as strong and influential in 1918 as it was to become in 1945, maybe there would not have been a "need" for a Hitler. Interestingly, he was such an out-there demagogue that he's easy to demonize, and the Germans have had a tendency, I think, to scapegoat him. He didn't do all his stuff by himself; he had lots and lots of help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well said! I believe that his "monster meetings" in Berlin were the largest of any in modern times, although I cannot find a reference anywhere of this! I think also, we should be sceptical of democracy too, for this was the system that gave him leverage. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, then we should consider whether his grandmothers and grandfathers were evil, because, you know, they caused him to exist, and each of them ended up supplying about 25% of Hitler's DNA. We should also consider whether sauerkraut and schnitzel are evil, because in the end, proteins and carbohydrates from these dubiously foreign foodstuffs composed a significant portion of Hitler's mass. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody else think we've been successfully baited by a troll? --140.180.5.122 (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that the OP has precisely that one entry, very possibly. But it's an interesting question, not especially a troll-like question as I see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Every human person is capable of the greatest good and the greatest evil. This is not necessarly taken from religion but philosophy and psychology. Any action can be good or bad depending on the motivation of the actors involved. Hence, democracy can be used for evil intention. We should begin by defining evil and bad. Who was the philosopher who defined dirt as "matter out of place"? Who said: "There is no such thing as a bad boy"? All of this, I have said, is taken from my study of Philosophy. You will find my answers in Socrates, Aristotle and the pre-Christian Philosophers. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive me for coming in again. The Scholastic Philosophers defined it in as: "privatio boni". This is a fundamental principle. I am sure if you put in privatio boni you will get the evidence. There are a lot of other article pages where this principle was challenged and referred to by great thinkers, but defined it differently. (I have written on one). MacOfJesus (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive me the second time, for coming in on this. I think it important for the record! I think it was Socrates who said: "It is better to be robbed, than to rob!" "It is better to be killed than to kill!". Socrates did not write his words down but his hearers did. (Thanks to all for the opportunity of airing this important point). MacOfJesus (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yuon

Reading about Cambodia, especially in relation to the period of the Pol Pot's regime, I often encountered the word "yuon", used as noun, or adjective. I could find little or no explanation about it on the internet. I think it denotes some group of people considered enemies by the regime. But I'm not sure if it refers to ethnic (khmer of Sino-Vietnamese origin?), cultural, or ideologic distinction; nor if it is a pejorative form (maybe). It is sometimes found in the expression "youn mind in khmer body" -quite a dreadful accuse to be addressed, in khmer rouge's times. I do not know if it is connected with the dissident, former KR, Hou Yuon, too.

Can anybody explain this term? Thanks a lot. --pma 08:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It means "Vietnamese", sometimes perjoratively. Google finds this in the first few hits. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-structural economic model

What is a "semi-structural" model in economics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Might it have something to do with Structuralist economics? --Jayron32 04:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It might also have something to do with applying the Freudian Structural model of psychology to economics... --Jayron32 04:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Or, finally, it could be a data-analysis tool based on Semi-structured models. If you gave some context, it might be easier to nail down what you are asking. --Jayron32 04:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The OP must mean the data analysis one. First you need to understand what structural equation modelling is. I think it is statistical modelling that uses only independent variables that could plausibly have a causal effect on the dependent variable. Then allow some of the constraints on variables to be relaxed, and you have a semi-structural model. You might get a better explanation from the maths reference desk. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct pronounciation of "ICE"

What is the correct way (that is, the way the agency itself pronounces it) to pronounce "ICE", the abbreviation for Immigration and Customs Enforcement? As one word "ice", as in frozen water? Or like "FBI", "DEA", "CIA", etc., as three spelled-out letters, "I-C-E" / "I see ee"? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 11:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a long funeral monologue by the director of the ICE on their web site: eventually, as I expected, he uses the name of the organization. Eventually he says "ice", like frozen water, at which point I stopped listening to the video. You can listen to the whole thing, it's under "videos" on the front page, it's the first video right now: [1]. You could listen to the whole thing to see if he ever says it the other way as well (i.e. that there are two competing pronunciations, even in the same speaker. This is is possible). At the start of the speech he uses the name of the organization in full. 217.136.146.233 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always heard it pronounced ICE, as-in-frozen-water. Seems like their recruitment videos agree. ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:38, 21 Adar I 5771 / 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please answer

I posted a previous thread about Dieter Dengler. If he was captured and held as a prisoner by Pathet Lao, why he was "greeted as a celebrity by the Pathet Lao" after his rescue? No one answered the previous thread, please answer, it will be a great help. Thanks! --Jortonmol (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyone there? --Jortonmol (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Chances are no one knows. Sorry. Schyler! (one language) 14:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) There are plenty of people here, but apparently none that know for sure the answer to your question. I will however suggest a possiblity.

When two countries are in military conflict they may dislike each other as countries, but they, and in particular their military personnel, may retain respect for individuals in the opponent's military forces who display bravery, fortitude and other admirable qualities - military people often feel they have more in common with their military opponents than with their own civilian population, since they share the same situations and hardships (ObOR: a sentiment which my career-soldier father has repeatedly mentioned to me). As a single example out of many possibilities, RAF and Luftwaffe pilots shot down in WW2 were not infrequently entertained to a civilized dinner in the Officers' Mess of their vanquishers before being interrogated and sent to POW Camp.

In Dengler's case, he was captured and escaped in 1966, and was "greeted as a celebrity" on returning to Laos in 1977, eleven years later when (to greatly simplify a complex process) the military (though not political) conflict between the USA and Laos had ended and the Pathet Lao had achieved most of their political aims within Laos. Having in emotional terms 'defeated' his country, the USA, they may no longer have seen him as representing any threat, and felt free to acknowledge his personal achievement in escaping and surviving.

The above may be totally off beam, but perhaps someone with more direct information, and/or access to a relevant reference such as this recent book, will now come along and improve on it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems quite probable to me. 11 years is a long time. Enemies become curious. Robert Oppenheimer was greeted as a celebrity when he visited Japan in the 1960s, as an example. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems probably to me too. Eventually, many US combatants went back to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and were welcomed there. That had hardly begun in 1977, in fact I think US citizens weren't meant to visit Laos. So his visit may have been regarded as a publicity coup by the government there. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mutual Fund vs Index Fund

I know almost nothing about finance, but I'm getting to the age where I should start putting my money in something other than a savings account. Most of the advice I can find (eg | example), says that managed funds are a fool's game, and simple index funds are the way to go. Is this true? Black Carrot (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well some managed funds are quite costly in their fees to you such that you are fighting an uphill battle to get great returns if that is what you mean. Googlemeister (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And comparing mutual funds to index funds leads to the conclusion that the former are not outperforming the market, normally. Although some, like Madoff's fund could outperform the market for a certain time, ... Quest09 (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What you have written is indeed pretty common advice; here's a typical article on the subject from The Motley Fool. However, I would caution you that it's not ever clear on any given day (or in any given month...) that stock investing is "the way to go" at all; you would have lost money if you had invested in index funds immediately before the bursting of the Dot-com bubble in March of 2000, or immediately before the financial crisis (2007–present) of the last few years; and no doubt many of the investment advice blogs and websites and magazines out there would have still been beating the drum of the bulls, egging you on to buy stock index funds. Warren Buffett always recommends the book The Intelligent Investor for beginners, as do I. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You should definitely consult a financial planner (and not one paid on commissions from products he or she sells). If you are middle-age or older, it is quite likely that the majority of your investments should not be in stocks (the classic allocation is to put 100% - your age in equities and the rest in non-equities (bonds and such)). In the long run (25+ years) equities (stocks) have always outperformed bonds. However, in the short run (which here can be up to 10 years) they have lost money, and in the very short run (3 - 5 years) they have lost a LOT of money. The closer you are to retirement, the less volatility you want in your portfolio, because you don't have another decade for your assets to regain the 50% of value they just lost in one bad day of trading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

APY

I'm confused by the numbers I see for insured investment options: | Example Rate Sheet. Wherever I look, things like CDs get at best 1.5%-2% APY, more likely something like 0.2%. Isn't that guaranteed to lose about 1-3% per year to inflation? Black Carrot (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I am not sure of your location, but at least according to the US government, inflation is very low on the order of 1%. Granted they seem to take out all of the items like food and fuel costs, so their estimate is relatively useless to us consumers. Googlemeister (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Black Carrot linked to a US bank, so we're going to assume he or she is in the US. As Googlemeister claimed, the latest inflation figures from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, from a week ago, say that prices (specifically, using the "all items index") over the last 12 months have increased 1.6%. A CD returning 1.6% breaks even for you, and the return is guaranteed, because of the FDIC insurance. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Line-item vetoes and what?

What do we call the legislative tactic that the line-item veto is meant to combat? The article doesn't specify, and rider doesn't quite sound right. In general, I want something similar to the rider — a provision unrelated to the primary subject of the bill that's thrown in to allow it to be passed because the overall bill can't not be passed. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Line-item veto is specifically meant to eliminate riders. There are specific types of riders that it is supposed to stop - commonly the ones referred to as "pork". For example, a bill is passed and sent to the President to save the children (or some other thing that he has to accept or look evil for a veto). A rider is attached to give everyone in Congress a raise. Another rider is added to give free childcare to everyone in Congress. Another rider is added to throw a big party for everyone in Congress. Another rider is added to include free plastic surgery to the many free medical benefits for everyone in Congress. All that pork can get a veto while accepting the main bill. -- kainaw™ 14:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to substitute "Governor" for "President". A number of state constitutions allow the Governor to do line-item vetoes. There is no such provision at the federal level. The President either accepts the entire bill, or none of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I assumed that the questioner was asking about an area where line-item veto does not exist - otherwise it wouldn't be in debate. There's a continual debate that the President should have a line-item veto, but it cannot happen in the current U.S. government. -- kainaw™ 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I assumed the OP was asking what the purpose of line-item veto is, and you answered it well. I was just pointing out that it's only certain state governors that can do this. The U.S. President is not allowed to. I can't speak to non-U.S. governments' rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Presidential use of the line-item veto is not an open and shut case. While the common consensus is that the President can not use a line-item veto, the Constitution does not explicitly forbid it. Thus there are a few scholars who believe that the President could use it if he wanted to. It has never been tested, and thus never ruled on by the court. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has been ruled by the Supreme Court and District Courts. Most recently in 1998. It violates the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Constitution must be amended for the President to have line-item veto. -- kainaw™ 16:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Clinton v. City of New York covers the Supreme Court's ruling against line-item vetos in 1998. -- kainaw™ 16:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was not aware of Clinton v NYC. Thanks for the link. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple social classes?

Is there a "multiple social classes" sociology model? Dividing the society in two or three social classes, according to income, seems not to catch the diversity of modern societies. A more accurate view would have to include dichotomies like educated-uneducated, national-foreigner, race, and many other factors. Quest09 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't three "multiple"? Have you had a look at social class for the various models? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No, three is not multiple. Multiple means many for me. The article does not talk about multiple social classes. It is focuses on the traditional 2-3 class model, with subdivisions. Today, people interact in a more complex way, change from one society to the other (and come back) and have multiple identities in different situations. Quest09 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"Multiple" means "more than one". Even two is multiple. --Tango (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Geodemographic segmentation is based on the more complex classification you describe. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I like that. Quest09 (talk)

There are a number of different models. Marx' theory, for instance, posits multiple classes of people interacting dynamically (in fact, the modern 'upper/lower' economic split is an overly-simplified derivative of his more sophisticated system). sociologists and anthropologists often theorize complex structures in which economic, racial, geographical, cultural, and religious 'classes' interact in very complex ways. The simple economic dichotomy, however, is easier to understand, and often used for low-level academic instruction and journalistic purposes. --Ludwigs2 17:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding stagflation despite oil price increases

1) Is stagflation worse than inflation? 2) Is it possible for economists and central bankers to stimulate the economy so that unemployment decreases despite eg increases in oil prices? How would they do it? Thanks 92.15.14.192 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) Yes, stagnation plus inflation is worse than inflation alone, at least if the rate of inflation is given. (2) Yes, but there may be a price to pay in terms of inflation. The basic way for central bankers to stimulate the economy is by increasing the amount of money in circulation, either by lending it at low interest rates or by having the government buy stuff -- but increasing the amount of money in circulation is intrinsically inflationary. Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The only known solution to stagflation is the monetarist one as used by Paul Volcker in the US in the late 70s/early 80s and by Margaret Thatcher's government in the UK. This involves raising interest rates and optionally cutting government spending, thus restricting the money supply, and lowering inflation at the cost of unemployment and reduced economic growth. Getting rid of stagflation in a painless way seems very difficult. It is uncertain if Keynesian deficit spending can really end a period of stagflation (it failed in the UK and USA in the late 70s): governments will find it hard to borrow money and therefore may be forced to raise interest rates anyway. The current British government is using the monetarist approach of slashing state spending with increased pressure to raise interest rates as well; Obama seems caught in a position where he's unable to do anything.[2][3][4][5] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If stagflaton is worse than inflation, then wouldnt more quantitative easing be the way to go? Particularly since the big debts from propping up the banks would be automatically reduced by inflation. The number of people who really live off their cash savings in a bank must be tiny, so most people would welcome having the real value of their debts reduced. Perhaps the arguement for maintaining almost zero inflation is that it encourages real production rather than speculation, but it seems so easy to slip across the line into deflation, recession, and depression. 92.29.115.47 (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Royal lineage of Alimi's royal family from Ilorin in Kwara State

The following is a repost from Wikipedia Help Desk:

Am a young man of 36 years old, am sure to be a Nigerian but not sure of my state. I lost my dad two years ago but the unfortunate thing was that he did not complete the story be he died but from the little I know General Yakubu Gowon can be of great help. MY STORY : According to my Dad, my grand father was from a royal family from Ilorin in Kwara State to be specific from Alimi's Family then there was an issue of royal title concerning who will the next Emir of Ilorin then which my father claimed should be the turn of his dad but was turned down by then head of state General Yakubu Gowon as a result of this my Dad decided to disclaim Ilorin. Am only using this medium to plead with Yakubu Gowon to please assit me to locate my family from Alimi's family from Ilorin since my dad did not allow any of his children to associate with Ilorin though have been to Ilorin but that was before he told me the story. -- Bolarge (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Royal family connections usually have a place in Wikipedia. Yakubu Gowon was the Head of State of Nigeria 1 August 1966 – 29 July 1975 and User:Bolarge's grandfather, who was part of the Alimi royal family from Ilorin, Nigeria, was in line to be a next Emir of Ilorin some time during 1 August 1966 – 29 July 1975. In 1974, the 9th Emir of Ilorin was Alhaji (Dr) Zulkarnaini Gambari. So, the grandfather was in line to be perhaps the 7th, 8th, or 9th Emir of Ilorin. Any help you can offer in figuring out the royal family connection between Alimi's family from Ilorin and the grandchildren of the above noted grandfather would be most appreciated. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

High-speed train in the US (or lack thereof)

Why are high-speed trains much more common in Europe than in the US? It is clear to me that linking LA to NYC would be an engineering tour-de-force. However, the area NYC-Boston-Chicago-Toronto is densely populated, with a high income per capita, wouldn't they want to avoid the sexual harassment of the airport security controls and push for high-speed trains? 77.231.17.82 (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: How often people do people travel from LA to NYC? --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

310,856 per month fly between New York JFK airport and Los Angeles, per World's busiest passenger air routes or about 10,200 per day, in 60 flights per day. The flight time is about 5 hours, per [6]. Early checkin for TSA groping and travel times to airports far from downtowns make actual door to door times quite a bit longer. Rail terminals are often in downtown areas. If a small percentage chose high speed rail, it could fill a daily train or trains. Google maps says the 2800 mile trip could be driven in 44 hours, implying an average speed of 63.4 mph (good luck with that). A 300 mph train would take 9.3 hours excepting scheduled stops. A 90 mph train would take 31 hours. Edison (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the US Train network is less extensive than Europe's. It is also much more a Freight transportation network than a public transport network, whereas (again) in Europe there is Freight but also a hell of a lot of passengers. (will try find something to back these claims up!!) ny156uk (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Europeans don't run their trains on their traditional train network, but they've built a new high-speed network, so it's not an issue if the US train network is less extensive. The question remains: why didn't the US build a high-speed train network and put high-speed trains on it? 77.231.17.82 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is the Acela Express, which goes from Boston to DC. The problem there is that the service is expensive and the demand is fairly low. It's not a lot cheaper than taking a plane, and not a lot faster than taking a bus or a car. It is not exactly the most assuring story for enthusiasts of high speed US rail. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Acela is high speed for the US, but as high speed goes compared to Europe, it is about as fast as molasses. I think it has an average speed of around 65 mph (105 kph). Of course that is fast compared to the rest of passenger city-city rail. My last Amtrak trip was 700 miles and took 36 hours. Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, an article on everything -- High-speed rail in the United States.

Our article doesn't answer some of the questions. There are two main reasons why we don't have much in the way of high-speed rail in the United States, and several lesser reasons. First, European high-speed rail stations connect high-speed trains with dense local transit networks that cover virtually all urbanized areas in western Europe, allowing a traveler to use high-speed rail to reach virtually any destination in urbanized western Europe conveniently without driving. This convenience boosts demand for high-speed trains, and the increased volume of travel on the high-speed infrastructure minimizes overhead costs per ticket, keeping the cost of high-speed rail travel in Europe down. By contrast, even in the highly urbanized Northeast of the United States, large areas are virtually inaccessible by public transportation, or served only by infrequent and inconvenient bus routes. Only the urban cores of a few cities, such as Boston, New York, and Washington in the Northeast, San Francisco on the West Coast, and Chicago in the Midwest, have public transportation infrastructures that would allow high-speed rail travelers to reach a reasonable range of destinations without driving. Even in the New York urban area, because of sprawl and dispersed location patterns, a majority of residents and businesses are in suburban locations without convenient and frequent public transit connections. As a result, most potential high-speed rail travelers in the northeastern United States will have to drive to and/or from the high-speed rail station, which, however, is inevitably located in a congested urban core without convenient or inexpensive parking. Then, there is the problem of arranging car transportation when the traveler arrives at the remote high-speed terminal. As a result, even in the Northeast, most travelers either drive, since this allows them to have needed car transportation at both ends of their trip, or fly and rent a car at the remote airport. The second main reason follows from the first. Because there is such a small constituency for high-speed rail travel even in the most urbanized and densely populated parts of the United States, its cost per passenger is high, and there is limited political support even in these regions for the subsidies that would be required to make high-speed rail price-competitive with car, bus, or air travel. The complete unviability of high-speed rail in most parts of the United States means that there is a lack of political support for such subsidies at the national level. Lesser reasons why high-speed rail hardly exists in the United States include popular and political cultures that prioritize individual car and air travel and an aversion to taxation for the construction of infrastructure such as the high-speed networks that governments in Europe have built. Marco polo (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A major reason has to do with simple political decision-making. In the 1950s, the U.S., largely for defense reasons, made highway-building a major national priority. No similar prioritization was made for passenger rail, and passenger-rail subsidies have remained low in the U.S., both compared to other countries and compared to spending on road and air travel. Obama has made a big push for high-speed rail but has run into objections from right-wing state administrations that have rejected the money allocated for their states. Conservatives seem to argue that viable passenger rail is some kind of airy-fairy pipe dream. Another argument is that passenger rail is a "19th-century technology," which kind of ignores the fact that the internal-combustion engine is as well. Europeans have maintained passenger rail as a priority and also heavily taxed gasoline, making auto travel a less-attractive alternative. One can argue, as Macro polo has, that passenger rail is not viable in the U.S. for geographic reasons, and I don't mean to start a debate, but it is largely a chicken-and-egg thing. U.S. cities have developed in an auto-centric manner largely because of highway-building and land-use policies that have encouraged such development. If cities were linked with appropriate forms of rail transport, accompanied by land-use policies encouraging dense development around stations, a larger market for rail travel would develop. Even without those widespread changes, it's hard to argue that high-speed rail, if funded at the kind of levels road and air travel are, wouldn't be popular for heavily traveled medium-distance routes like Chicago-to-Detroit or Tampa-to-Miami that are annoying to drive but not worth the hassle and expense of flying. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If rail travel were to become a primary mode of transportation, it's a good bet that security clearance lines would be set up just as they are for airplanes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to object that comment. I recently rode THSR, (Taiwan, no terror) and there was not the slightest bit of security. Japan has frequent suicides on train tracks–the Toei Shinjuku Line was temporarily shut down for that. Shinkansen trains rarely have that kind of indecent. I'm tempted to put infor that comment because I'm not entirely sure But since the US is now a "target" for terrorism, it just might happen. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It is actually rather difficult to drive a hijacked train anywhere other than the intended destination, so I suspect security concerns would be a little lower. As Mwalcoff says, this is a chicken-and-egg situation, and the US seems to have had a brief period when the railroads united the country, followed by decades of neglect. I suspect that rising fuel prices may again make rail travel more attractive. Also, if one takes into account the overall journey time, rather than just the time 'in the air', a system that gets you from A to B a little slower than one that gets you from 10 miles outside A to 15 miles outside B may actually be quicker overall - and a darned sight less stressful. Time for a rethink? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, in Germany I go through full security at the airport, but I just turn up at the train station with an open ticket (only because I'm not poor enough and/or too stupid to plan my travel times to get one of the heavily discounted train-bound tickets), walk to the platform, and into the train to find a seat. No lines (though there may be clumps or queues (yeah, sure, as if we were British ;-) at the doors in times of heavy occupancy). Some neighboring countries like Belgium or France require seat reservations for high speed trains, but those are anonymous and again checked during the ride, not when boarding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On the Eurostar, which I imagine has tougher security checks than most trains because (1) it is an international train line, (2) is high profile and (2) uses a key piece of international infrastructure the disabling of which would have a potentially large impact -- there is security in the form of bag x-rays and airport security doors. However, the security is only to check for explosives and firearms, and not for knives, forks, nail clippers or bottled water.

Travelling by rail rather than air also has the added advantage that you are not subject to moronic luggage piece restrictions. I once had to put three small bags into a huge canvas bag to go through Heathrow airport just because the powers that be decided one large bag is less likely to contain a bomb than three small ones. On the same trip I had to dismantle my carry on bag and rearrange the contents into a standardised rectangular prism because the powers that be decided that a rectangular prism was less likely to contain a bomb than a backpack shaped like, um, a backpack. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I used to work for Eurostar, we had a lot of people who would make bookings and then ask how big a car they could bring. I always told them that so long as it they could lift it unaided they shouldn't have any problems. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

God forbid traveling by air might be more efficient... put a bird on it. Shadowjams (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always suspected that the fragmented ownership of the tracks in the USA was an impediment to investment in high speed trains. In most European countries the trck has been owned by a single body for a considerable time, making investment in the sort of track and signalling upgrades needed for HST easier than when tracks are owned by a multitude of competing companies. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ya, fragmented ownership, aka free markets... is a super pain in the ass for government run ventures. Shadowjams (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)`

The "single body" in most European countries is the government. I believe the people who pay for it should have the money riding on it. I'm not so sure that's the case in the areas you're talking about. Shadowjams (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think high-speed rail is wonderful, and I wish that the United States had it. However, I don't think that you can reject my argument by saying it's a chicken-egg issue. It might have been a chicken-egg issue about 100 years ago, when US urbanization patterns began to diverge from European urbanization patterns with the introduction of mass automobile ownership in the US and development policies based on auto transport. (Mass auto ownership didn't reach Europe until 40 years later, but even then European development policies favored rail and compact, clustered development patterns.) However, given the very different urban geography of the United States and western Europe and the complete dependence of US urban development on private auto transport, there is no way that high-speed rail can be as economical or successful as it is in Europe. The only way to make high-speed rail work in the United States as it does in Europe would be to bulldoze much of the US suburban environment, build a much denser urban landscape clustered around nodes supplied with an extensive transit infrastructure feeding the high-speed train stations, and force people to relocate. This would cost literally trillions of dollars that the United States doesn't have and would require a degree of coercion that is impossible under our present political system. I wish that high-speed rail made sense in the United States today, but I'm afraid that it doesn't. A much greater priority would be to first build a much more extensive local and regional transit infrastructure and enact policies favoring denser, transit-centered development. After such policies have been allowed to work for 30 or 40 years, then the United States might be ready for high-speed rail that would make economic and transportation sense. Marco polo (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts: Acela really doesn't get to stay at high speeds. It even has to slow down to 60 miles an hour at times. The US train infrastructure isn't really developed–and like other countries, we've "adapted" to our cars, like the Brits are use their buses a lot. I recently checked my news ticker: high-speed rail rejected in Florida. Low ridership is an established concern in the U.S., after all, Acela's daily boardings total to only 8,000. Taiwan High Speed Rail is successful because it's needed as there's no quick way to travel around the country state (I am forced to change "country" to state: see political status of Taiwan. Before that, there was only the Taiwan Railway Administration, a bunch of slow trains. I recently rode the THSR from Hsinchu to Kaohsiung–a trip of 270 miles, took and hour, cost about $US30 per person. Acela is expensive, yet it's one of Amtrak's only profitable services. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Air travel: Air travel is more expensive, but quicker that HSR. However, HSR is slower than air travel. THSR beat out all the major intercity routes in Taiwan. In Japan, the E5 Series Shinkansen train tickets were booked out in 10 seconds, which is something you don't see in the U.S. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Because of the security checks et al, isn't the usual idea that air travel is only quicker if the time for the trip by HSR is over 3-4 hours? Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken several long distance Amtrak trips, and noted that there were frequent slowdowns since they use track maintained by numerous railroads for freight traffic. The passenger trains sometimes had to wait on a siding for a freight train, which had higher priority. US passenger trains in the 1930's and 1940s could go much faster than today, with 70 or 90 mph speed limits back then. I am horrified by discussion of grade level "Emerging High-Speed Rail" with highway traffic crossing tracks at grade crossings. No "advanced crossing gate" can remove a truck stopped in the crossing. Crossings are too close together and speeds (110 mph proposed) are too fast to allow a train to stop in time, unless the engineer has video of the crossings ahead and the crossings are cleared in time to allow a stopping of the train when there is an obstacle present. I have seen an Amtrak come to a screeching halt from 60 mph or so when they spotted a truck loaded with steel which was stopped in the crossing. At proposed US "high speed," the train would have inevitably hit the truck and likely killed everyone on the train. Only elevated tracks, with level separation from cars and trucks, makes the least sense for truly high speed rail. Similarly, a saboteur or terrorist could easily disturb the ground level tracks approaching a railroad bridge, with readily available devices, without being observed and kill everyone on a 110 or 150 mph high speed train, far more easily than he could bring down a jet. It would be easier to monitor an elevated train structure for intruders. Edison (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, THSR is almost always elevated or underground. It avoids all roads, tunnels through mountains and goes on 10-mile bridges, but never at-grade. The idea of at-grade crossings into highways is horrid. Next-Gen High-Speed Rail, (PDF can be found at [7]) is reasonable to use a route where trains on that route don't run. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Being European I find strange the associations Americans make regarding high-speed train - only 100 mph, at-grade crossing, hijacking... Maybe these are the reasons why Americans don't have high-speed. Quest09 (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

People seem to have a strange idea of the lack of survivability of a high-speed train crash. Last Wednesday was the 4th anniversary of the Grayrigg derailment when a Pendolino train came off the track at 96 mph - despite the train being a write-off, only one person was killed out of the 105 people on the train. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What version of the bible would Inazo Nitobe likely have used?

I'm doing some work on Nitobe's Bushido, and there is a section (on disembowelment, whodathunkit?) where he quotes a string of passages from the bible where the word "bowel" or "bowels" are used in the sense of the spiritual center of man, like "the offspring of your bowels" and similar examples. I found that modern versions of the bible have amended the use of "bowel" in this sense and none of the examples use the word anymore. Nitobe is using too few words for me to figure out exactly which translation of the bible he was using (he's just quoting phrases, essentially), but in the interest of exactness (granted, bordering on nitpicking) I'd like to know exactly what bible translation he was using. Does anyone know? It could possibly be figured out from the strain of Christianity he would have followed (he was apparently converted by a Methodist Episcopal missionary from the US), but I can make no head or tails of the myriad offshoots of Christianity in the US or of their taste in holy book translations. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, the King James Version, as Nitobe predates most "modern" translations. For the use of "bowels" therein, see these search results. The American Standard Version is also a possibility, as it retains "bowels" in most, if not all, of those uses; but it was much less widely used. Deor (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I imagined it would probably be KJV, knowing little else about the US offshoots of Christianity other than they seem to have a heavy KJV fetish. I just wanted to make sure, and as I said, it's really not that important for the project I'm doing, I'm borderline nitpicking anyway. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Square

Behind Lenin's tomb in Red Square, and behind the line of very famous Soviet leaders, is a line of plaques that mark the cremations (I believe) of important Soviet-era people. They do, however, appear to stop when the death date is 1975 or 1976. Was there a particular reason? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Kremlin Wall Necropolis, they didn't end then but that is when it became a protected monument and there were only a few after. meltBanana 22:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

February 25

Makkin wor Cheryl tak proper like

This article in British pseudo-newspaper The Daily Mail alleges that "geordie songbird" Cheryl Cole's Newcastle accent could breach US broadcasting (I assume FCC) regulations, saying "if viewers in the U.S. can't understand what she's saying, the show will be in breach of strict U.S. TV regulations." While I appreciate that network executives might ask Ms. Cole to Atlanticise her speech somewhat, would her occasional dialectical excursions really be "illegal"; or is this merely the Mail's usual febrile view of "foreigners" as some admixture of stupid and evil? 90.220.118.193 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen subtitles used on American TV for English people who are far easier to understand than Cheryl Cole. They could do the same for her. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt there is any FCC rule like this. If it were illegal to air someone with a thick regional British accent, both PBS and BBC America would have been shut years ago. Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the usual Daily Mail 'anything for a story to justify the pictures' article - clearly there isn't anything important for a newspaper to report on at the moment (yeah, right...). Actually, Ms Cole's Geordie accent isn't that difficult, even for a wet southern b******d like me, so I doubt our transatlantic cousins will find her totally unintelligible - whether she ever says anything important enough to be worth understanding is another issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Brian Johnson's Geordie accent is just as thick and incomphensible, and he's been heard on American TV and radio for years. The U.S. broadcasting rules aren't nearly as strict as they were in the past (after about 10 PM most of the seven deadly words can be heard freely, some even during the daytime), though being "incomprehensible" has never been, AFAIK, a reason for censoring someone, even under the strictest rules. The Daily Mail appears to be practicing the time-honored journalistic tradition known as "making shit up." --Jayron32 04:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have little idea of who she is, so I looked her up on YouTube to find a clip of her speaking. I, for one, can understand her without any problem at all, so I don't see what issue any US broadcaster would have. That's assuming the story in the Daily Mail is correct, which it isn't. I've also seen native Americans (small "N") such as those from the South with thick marble-mouthed accents get subtitles because the producers of the show felt that other Americans might have a hard time understanding them. Dismas|^(talk) 04:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Americans certainly didn't find it hard to comprehend John Lennon's scouse accent when he made his famous "Jesus remark".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bigger than Jesus comment appeared in print, in more-or-less standard English. Anyway, I don't think many Americans understood the bit about the thick and ordinary disciples being the ones who ruined it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

They weren't allowed to think for themselves after the media took it completely out of context and all the fundamentalist churchmen pounced on it as an excuse to crucify the "devil-driven and devil-begotten" rock and roll.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And of course they all immediately turned their backs on rock and roll and it is generally loathed in the USA to this day. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course they did not. My parents continued to criticise the antics of Mick Jagger on the Ed Sullivan show (whilst not switching the channel, mind) in the meanwhile giving me money to buy their records. Then again, my parents were NOT fundamentalists and we lived among the palm trees of Venice in fantastic LA.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Americans are allowed to think for themselves, it's just a sizeable (and very loud) minority of them find it easier not to. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Lennon's comment is that the media did not bother to print his entire statement. I wonder how much they are to blame for fundamentalist Mark David Chapman's later obsession with Lennon?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The line in the original article: "A source said: 'If audiences and contestants can't understand her, it is actually a regulatory offence.'" As stated above, this is nonsense; there is no such FCC rule. A search of the FCC website suggested they're more concerned that their own directives are understandable than whether broadcasters are understandable (which is all as it should be IMO). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If this is the "Cheryl Cole" who has Youtube videos of "Fight for this love," "Parachute," and "Three words" then everything she says would be perfectly intelligible to the average midwestern US listener. More so in fact than many videos by minority US residents.The clip cited above of her speaking rather than singing does have quite an accent: "Sōmetāmes..." rather than "Sometimes...(with a diphthong i)" and "Wok" instead of "Whack." In the US years ago we had actor Jim Nabors who spoke with a hick/rural/Gomer Pyle accent, but sang with no accent. Edison (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

āā

Old motto of the University of Bologna?

According to University of Bologna, the university changed its motto in 2000. What was the old motto? I can't find it in the article history or the talk page, and Google gives me absolutely nothing at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried Google Books and a few different ones came up; "Libertas", although that may have been the motto of the city itself, "Petrus ubique pater, legum Bononia mater" ("St. Peter is the father of laws, Bologna the mother" - since Bologna was famous for its legal school), "alma mater studiorum" ("nourishing mother of studies"), or "Bononia docet" ("Bologna teaches"). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Mullah compaign by Khaksar movement not mentioned in the article.

Allamah Mashriqi had written a lot against the Mullah or Mowlvi. A pamphalet titled 'Mowlvi ka Mazhab' was published by the Khaksar Party and sold in public places at a price of a 'Taka' (a two-paisa coin then prevalent) with an interesting catchphrase 'Mowlvi ka Mazhab, Takey Takey'. But nothing is mentioned about it in the article. I would like to read that pamphlet if any body can provide it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.142.11 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a request for more information to be added to Khaksars. Have you looked at all the references and external links in that article? There are quite a lot of them and they should be able to take you to further information. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Could it perhaps be listed as "Maulvi Ka Ghalat Mazhab" in Allama Mashriqi's works? WikiDao ☯ 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

seed capital demand curve

If you were an investor considering a hotshot team who was pitching an idea that they say they are in a position to grow to a valuation of approximately $2.6billion within 5 years (Internet company) and are currently seeking seed capital from you, then if you believe their claim as to the potential of the company, what seed amoutn:

• Would you consider too low to invest seed money in
• Would you consider a good value for the opportunity presented
• Consider somewhat pricy for being only a seed investmnet
• Consider an overpriced request.

These are very general metrics, and of course you can price in whatever risk discount etc. you want. The point is, you believe the team, so that if they don't get the capital from you, but from someone else, you are not surprised if the whole company is sold to google for $2b three years from now (after further rounds of funding of course!). Given that underlying assumption, I am interested in vague answers to the above four questions. Please don't tell me "that is impossible to answer". If it were impossible to answer, then the following anjswers would not be wrong:

“

• If the team were asking for $7.50 (seven dollars and fifty cents), then you would not take them seriously. However, over seven dollars of investment sought is a serious seed investment request.
• $1,000 would be a good value, if they can really turn it into $2.6B.
• If the two person team is asking for over $1billion in seed money, that is is somewhat pricy.
• $4billion in investment for a valuation at $2.6billion would be an overpriced request. $3 billion for the chance to lose 0.4 billion over three years is, however, not necessarily out of the question.

”

The above answers are obviously wrong. So, if they're obviously wrong, that means you cannot reply by saying "it is impossible to give any kind of range." So, in light of the fact that it is not impossible, it is therefore possible for you to give me general answers to my questions.

Thanks. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

One possible way of estimating the upper limit of what you should invest would be to estimate what interest rate you would require for such a high risk investment, and then calculate the NPV of the money you expect to recieve in the future. The lower limit could be whatever you can get awayu with. But they should have shown you a business plan that shows you the amount of money they need. If they havnt done so then they are either con-artistes or incompetent. Be warned, most of these kind of things lose money. 92.29.115.47 (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm on the other side of the table actually. I want to know, if I have an idea that is worth $2.6B within three years, then what is the lowest amount of SEED (not first-round) capital I can get away with asking? Obviously it's not $5,000 - it has to be more. How much more? (approx.) 109.128.175.163 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So you are the "hotshot team"? You should have a business plan which details exactly what you are going to spend the money on. It seems odd that you seem to think you could use any amount, rather than the amount that was needed. If you only need a few thousand to get your billion-dollar business going, then you would raise the money yourself rather than giving away billions of pounds in the future for peanuts now. If you didnt do that, then an investor would think you were not committed or fraudulent. If Dragon's Den is available in your part of the world (Wow! I never expected they'd have a version in Afghanistan of all places, unless that's vandalism), then I would watch that to see the mistakes people make when pitching to investors. I'm not aware of any difference between "seed" or "first round" money - its all money. 92.24.188.45 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "raise it myself"? I am able to build up a billion dollar company by working 120 hours and sleeping 6. All day and all night I code. If I did anything less than that, I would have nothing. So, there is no option to do both. Either I code day and night with seed money, or I don't make this project. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You can raise money by a variety of methods including: credit cards, savings, borrowing from friends and relatives, remortgaging, selling possessions, and so on. Doing this would not take much time. If you believe you are going to make billions, then it is surely a no-brainer, since it would be dumb to give away a large proportion of that future billionaire income for a few thousand now. Not raising the money yourself suggests that you do not really beieve it will work. It is expected that people would use their own equity before asking others for money. 92.28.247.68 (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason it's impossible to answer is that you haven't given us any information about the venture or about the levels of risk involved. Because you have not, both of the answers below are reasonable:

• An investor would never invest under $2.15 billion in this venture, because you're in the conventional milling business, and no miller has ever made more than a 5% return, compounded annually, and if you ask for less, then you are showing that you are an idiot.
• An investor would never invest over $50,000 in this venture, because your plan is to finally create a cold fusion reactor out of materials you can buy at the local grocery store, and if you ask for more, then because it's obvious you don't need the money to buy distilled water and baking soda, you're planning to just fleece the investor, who's showing he's an idiot if he gambles away more than $50,000 of his pocket money.

Without more information, the only answer that can be given definitively is the rather useless-to-you answer that you can't ask them for more than $2.498 billion, because 100% of investors would instead choose to just pop the money in 1% money market funds and have a sky-high probability they will have $2.6 million in five years. I also have to echo 92 that the fact you are going about this backwards indicates that you probably don't have a very good plan in place, and need some advice from an expert (rather than strangers on the Reference Desk). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The most important factor is going to be the risk involved, which will be added to the nominal Discount_rate. Assume I will receive 2.6B from an annuity in 3 years, with no risk of default, and can expect to earn 5% annual (hey, I'm optimistic) on my investments during this period. There's no risk, so the discount rate just accounts for inflation. The continous discount factor is 0.8607, so the money is worth 2.24B today. I will purchase the annuity for less than this amount, and not purchase it for more than this amount. Now assume a low risk of default (say 5%), so my discount rate totals 10%. Now I'll only pay 1.93B for the annuity. Since taking a company from shoestring to 2.6B in just 3 years will involve a (cough) fair amount of risk, the rate you should use would be even greater.

I think an investor would expect at the very least a 50%, 100%, 1000% or more return per year for this kind of thing, since most of the time they will lose their money. (There is a financial formula which calculates the interest rate when defaults occur - I forget the details but its used to determine credit card interest rates for example). The OP really needs to write a business plan and work out exactly the amount of money needed; and then if you are so sure its a winner, then raise that money yourself before turning to an investor. The chances of turning a few thousand into billions in five years must be less than one in a thousand, perhaps one in a million. 92.28.247.68 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

People here don't seem to get that the question is about seed funding. The chances of turning a "few thousand" into a project that will get a sizeable first round of funding, which can be leveraged into a company that will get an even more sizeable second round of funding, which can be leveraged into growth and revenue resulting in a third round of funding, or even IPO, that is close to the amount in question, are NOT as bad as all that. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

. Obviously you think it's a good chance: it's your pet project. Marnanel (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

One in a million was perhaps too great a figure. Of those projects that actually get off the ground and are fully implemented - a tiny proportion of those thought about - then a proportion of them were worth doing, and the rest of them would be valuable lessons for the next project. So certainly do do your project rather than just thinking about it - which puts you ahead of almost everybody - and good luck. 92.15.3.182 (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

King's College and the police

Last night, Cambridgeshire police followed two people into King's College and made two forcible arrests. An official of the College was quoted as saying: "The police were told by the Vice-Provost, the Admissions Tutor, and numerous porters that they had absolutely not been given permission to be on college property. The police willfully disregarded everything that they said."

Why do King's have the ability to tell the police to leave? None of the reports explain this point. Suggestions I have heard so far include:

1. it is a right King's have particularly because of their royal foundation
2. it is the same as the right I would have to tell the police to leave my house in the absence of a warrant
3. there are areas under the jurisdiction of the Cambridge University Constabulary which are not under the jurisdiction of Cambridgeshire police

None of these came with any citations to back them, and I was rather curious. So I thought I would ask you lot. Any clues? Marnanel (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't give you any citations, but I know that when my dad was at Oxford, the police were not allowed onto college property without permission. Offences within the university were dealt with by the university. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge University Constabulary and proctor have some more information. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, even if those two people were crossing an official country border, police would not stop following them and arresting them. A complete different scenario would be entering a private premise to investigate something. Quest09 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the right of hot pursuit which is relevant to issues of jurisdiction. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been reported in the local press (Coventry, Warwickshire) that police from Coventry have to stop chasing criminals when they cross the county boundary because they are leaving the West Midlands Police force area and are no longer their responsibility. I have no idea how accurate this is, but as a resident of Warwickshire I have to say it wouldn't surprise me. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Our article Town and gown may be of interest in this matter. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also seen such cases of police officers stopping at a boundary. However, only in fiction. Otherwise, criminals would have an easy game: steal on one side and flee to the other. 212.169.184.39 (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What country would allow foreign police to enter without permission and arrest people they were chasing? The US, Mexico, and Canada have never acknowledged such a right, and I can't think of reported cases of such cross-national border hot pursuit in the 20th century or later, except for military actions such as the US army chasing Pancho Villa, or certain drug interdiction agreements between the US and Mexico. The pursuit is not taken as an innate right of the pursuing nation, and diplomatic protest would be likely. It would likely be protested as a border violation and kidnapping by the country whose sovereignty was slighted. Police from one country in the Western Hemisphere are usually accompanied by local police to make an arrest, because the visitors lack arrest powers in another country. Administrative subdivisions within a country are less problematic, since there are likely to be agreements between US states, or state laws permitting police from one city or county to continue pursuit into the neighboring one. Has the EU might have set up such agreements between neighbor countries? Edison (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the EU does have such an agreement, it's Article 41 of the Schengen Convention (if you want to look it up!). There are restrictions, which basically boil down to having to let the local police handle it if at all possible, but were necessary it is allowed. --Tango (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the situation in Britain, but in the US every law enforcement entity has a territorial jurisdiction, and cannot make arrests outside it. Problems arise from this very frequently, not just in fiction. Looie496 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The US does have laws allowing hot pursuit, though, does it? Perhaps the police outside their jurisdiction would have to just detain the suspect(s) until the local police arrive, but you certainly can't escape the police just by crossing a state line as they do in the movies. --Tango (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Police officers in Home Office forces in England and Wales have jurisdiction throughout England and Wales (section 30(1) of the Police Act 1996). They are entitled to enter police areas other than their own and exercise their powers in those areas (and often do so - in particular the City of London Police often operate outside the City of London, and officers of the Metropolitan Police in the departments that operate nationally regularly exercise powers outside London). The main police powers of entry without warrant are the common law power to enter to prevent a breach of the peace and those under section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The latter grants power to enter premises, amongst other things, to arrest a person for an indictable offence or for certain other specified offences. It's not clear from the limited facts given what offences the police might have been considering, so it's difficult to say whether they were acting within these provisions. But I can't think of any reason why the college authorities would feel they have the power simply to deny the police entry if they're exercising these powers. (Perhaps there's an informal agreement between the university and Cambridgeshire Constabulary that the officers didn't follow?) Proteus (Talk) 20:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The two universities are governed by their own statutes and charters, and these do include what would be described as "police matters". It is entirely likely that at Cambridge the college or university authorities still have the right to deny entrance to "outsiders", whether in wooden-hats or not. As noted in the town and gown article linked above, universities have something of a tradition as sanctuaries, where "normal" law enforcement does not apply. DuncanHill (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Entirely possibly, but anyone asserting so should really be able to point to the actual statute providing this exemption from the general law, which it seems from the discussion above (and from the discussions that Marnanel seems to have had before asking the question) no one has yet been able to locate. (And I would imagine it would have to be pretty explicit to overrule the wording of an Act of Parliament.) Proteus (Talk) 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through the Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge, but can't find anything relevant. It may be that I just haven't looked in the right section, though. Most of the "law enforcement"-type bits seem to be conferring power to punish members of the university, not excluding the powers of other people. Proteus (Talk) 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

France invading Spain/UK

Would it be easier for France to invade Spain or the UK? In both cases, there is an obvious geographical barrier to be crossed. At a first glance a sea a lessen impediment than a range of mountains. Quest09 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Alps were not an impediment to the armies of King Charles VIII of France when they invaded Italy at the end of the 15th century, and the Pyrenees are not as formidible. The last successful French invasion of England was in 1066.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Historically, you are right, mountains were less of a barrier than seas. But, would that still hold true for a modern army? Quest09 (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In a modern war the invasion would be carried out by massive aerial bombardments, so barriers of mountains or sea become irrelevent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Massive aerial bombardment has failed to be a war-winner many times despite the optomistic claims of air chiefs - see Battle of Britain, Bombings of Germany, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Invasion of Iraq - it's usually boots on the ground that count in the end. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the military/ political objective that one wants to achieve. Offensive air operations can only have a destructive effect, if one wants to exploit territory and natural resources then one must plan to mitigate for that in occupation. Boots on the ground are the only way to take and hold ground although offensive air can have a suppressive effect. A key element of targeteering is identifying how to have a delivery effect that supports the land incursion in a way that's easily rectified once one has taken the ground.

Essentially occupying forces still need power, potable water, sanitation, shelter etc.

ALR (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

France has attempted to invade Spain on a number of occasions (most recently Napoleon's Spanish campaign, King Louis XVIII in 1823, etc.). Never successfully, mind you, but the obstacle presented by the Pyrenees, which are traversed by numerous roads and passes, is much less problematic than the English channel. However, invading England from France is logistically pretty equivalent to D-Day, so it's not impossible. The real question is, why would France even contemplate either scenario today ? --Xuxl (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this not reason enough! English sparkling wine beats French champagne to top title--Aspro (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there would be any motivation for France to invade any other EU country. A less hypothetical question would be: is it easier to invade Libya by sea or by land? As a matter of fact, I think that modern armies are able to deploy complete platoons, with tanks and everything, by air. So, forget about crossing seas, climbing mountains or D-Days. 212.169.184.39 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be extremely difficult to deploy by air. A single division is around 15,000 people. That is 50 flights of large aircraft. Next you will need to bring equipment for them. Sure you might be able to carry one or two tanks on a flight, but an armored division would have hundreds of tanks. Then there is the question of capturing and securing aircraft landing facilities. I just don't see how you could pull it off without using ships or roads, especially when it comes to logistics. I mean flying fuel in for tanks would be a fools errand. Googlemeister (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And how was Afghanistan invaded? Did the US, UK, Germany, & co. deploy their troops by ship? I know that they get supplies via Pakistan, but did they also came there through Pakistan? 212.169.176.233 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

None of these countries is prepared to either invade or defend against the invasion from the others. During the Cold War, Western Europe was set up to defend against a Soviet ground invasion, but since the early 1990s those resources have been put elsewhere (for the most part). None of these countries would have anything to gain from this kind of disastrous expedition, with their closely tied economies and similar social structures, so the likelihood of this happening anytime soon is near zero. The OPs real question (I think) is whether it is easier to mount a modern invasion against a nation with similar military capacity across difficult mountains or sea channels. Both are major barriers to ground combat divisions, which are required to effect a real invasion. (You can bomb form the air all you want, but governments can dig in and wait it out while the international community puts pressure on you to stop killing civilians.) That being said, mountains like the Pyrenees are much easier to cross than something like the English Channel. The Pyrenees have passes and roads which while difficult would still be usable by an invading army. A modern invasion is a very complex thing and would certainly consist (if possible) of air, sea and land routes being used to some degree, regardless of the geography. The UK's lack of a land route means it would be more difficult to invade (all else being equal). For more information on this topic I suggest taking a look at our articles on D-Day, Operation Sea Lion (the proposed Nazi invasion of the UK) and Seven Days to the River Rhine (A Soviet plan to invade Western Germany). If you can find it, I also recommend Sir John Hackett's book The Third Wold War: August 1985, which gives an intersting perspective on invasions in Europe and is actually a pretty decent read. --Daniel 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't relevent to the OP's question but I wanted to add that Eleanor of Aquitaine crossed the Pyrenees on horseback to bring her granddaughter from Spain....at the age of 80!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Her granddaughter was 80? Blimey, how old was Eleanor?! DuncanHill (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it was Eleanor who was 80 years old. Her granddaughter, Blanche of Castile was about 11 or 12, I believe. Eleanor was sent to escort Blanche from Spain to wed Louis VIII of France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It really comes down to a question of control of the sea. You can't get an army across the English channel unless you can at least temporarily control the water there. Historically England has focused its energy on being the strongest at sea, with much less energy going into creating a strong land army. None of the land nations of Europe have had the option of doing that. The thing about the mountain barrier is that the forces required to seize control of it are the same forces required to actually invade the country. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To add to the list of invasions, Caesar invaded Britain from Gaul, as had, presumably, all of the previous inhabitants of the islands. Of course Angles, etc, invaded from the mainland. There were other French invasions after 1066, in 1216 for example, and of course it worked the other way as much of France was occupied by the English during the Hundred Years' War. There were also invasions of Spain across the Pyrenees. Charlemagne did it, and there was large-ish invasion in 1086-87 that never really amounted to anything. I'm not so sure about Spain, but I think neither invasion route is especially difficult, and such invasions are probably more frequent than we realize. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Historically, France fought many times against Spain in wars, but they didn't often fight Spain in Spain, often the great Valois/Hapsburg (and later Bourbon/Hapsburg) conflicts occured in Italy or the Low Countries instead of Spain proper. One interesting invasion of Spain by France occured during the Peninsular War. The French basically snuck into the country under the guise of enforcing the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1807) against Portugal. The Spanish basically let the French in, and once there, Napoleon double crossed the Spanish. It required no actual invasion across the defended Pyrenees, since the French didn't really start the war until after the Spanish had let them in peacefully. The war went really disasterously for Napoleon, as he underestimated how royally pissed the Spanish people would be over the issue. So it has occasionally happened that Franch has invaded Spain proper. But as noted, during the Ancien Regime and prior, these were usually wars against the Hapsburgs and not Spain per se, so there often wasn't much need for France to invade Spain itself. --Jayron32 04:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't just the Spanish that won the Peninsular War - they had some help. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Which also resulted in the invasion of France by Great Britain from Spain.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Literature & fear of death

Who knows literature works which inspire the fear of death, and most of its readers confessed that after that they have more anxiousness about death. Flakture (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Allen Poe? Stephen King? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

References, Bugs? This is a reference desk. He's not just asking for horror authors. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not how I read it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh Lord, there are so many. One that stands out, for me at least, is The Red Badge of Courage. Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bible? Quest09 (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sartres The Wall, about a man awaiting his execution, it sent shivers down my spine when I was reading it the first time. Dostoevskys Crime and Punishment is another classic in the same vein that conveys the impressions of a doomed person pretty forcefully. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess that is a main theme of existentialist literature as Saddhiyama refers to. I also think of The Big Sleep and other works of that genre. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

When I was a young girl, it was Alcott's Little Women prompted by the chapter where Beth March dies. The last book I read which made me fear death was Kafka's The Trial. All of us are eventually dispatched to oblivion with the same nonchalance shown to Josef K. by his executioners.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely recall reading about being buried alive, or concerning ghouls. Anything which suggests that death will be worse than just oblivion. I'm not sure if novels like Dracula or Camus's The Outsider increase the fear of death. 92.28.245.149 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Leonid Andreyev's Lazarus did it for me. Still makes me shudder thirty years later. Karenjc 18:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish idea of the afterlife seems horrible. No heaven, just an undead existence in the grave for ever I think. I suppose the Torah would be the relevant literature for that. 92.15.20.7 (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If only we could look these things up, to check our understanding. 86.166.42.200 (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I got the above idea of the Jewish afterlife from a previous discussion here on the reference desk. It must have been referring to Sheol#Historical_outlook. There seem to be many different contradictory ideas about what the Jewish afterlife is going to be like - make your mind up! I was surprised to read from 86s links that a few even believe in reincarnation. 92.15.3.182 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Gnome in the Lord of the Rings

I'm almost sure, but not completely, that there are no gnomes in the Lord of the Ring. Is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.231.17.82 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There are hobbits, isn't that gnome-like enough? Quest09 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Gnomes are very different from hobbits. Nothing is called a 'gnome' in LoTR, and nothing is even that close, though Tolkien's dwarves do have an affinity for earth and stone. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no place for gnomes. There's no place for gnomes. [tap ruby slippers] Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Gnome, Gnome on the range...--Aspro (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Was this question inspired by two sections above, which mentions the the Gnoman conquest of 1066?--Aspro (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There may be gnomes on the moon however, because Neil Armstrong said he was stepping on where Gnome Man has been before. --Aspro (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, The Lord of the Rings is gnomeless. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Fosters The Complete Guide to Middle-earth contains no entry for "gnome". --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There were gnomes in his earlier writings but he edited them out, probably because gnomes are far sillier than hobbits Noldor#Other versions of the legendarium meltBanana 22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure if one looked hard enough, one could find plenty of gnomes in LOTR. —Angr (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

frankly, I am shocked at the ignominious treatment this question has received. --Ludwigs2 22:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

death

Could you be dead and not know it? 109.128.175.163 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oooooooooooooooo!

If you believe in ghosts, then there is Category:Ghost films, which includes several movies in which at least one ghost does not know they're dead. Strangely, I don't see a category or article Ghosts in fiction for the written counterpart. Category:Ghosts might be of interest, too. Of course, there has never been any evidence that ghosts exist, and if you can prove they do, James Randi has US$1 million ready to hand to you. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)According to the article death it is "the termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism". So scientifically speaking there would not be a situation where you had a "you" beyond death that could question whether you were alive or dead. But there are a lot of religions that dispute this and claim various versions of life after death, so it is not a question that has an unanimous answer. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That assumes the identification of "you" with an "organism". There isn't really any "scientifically speaking" on that question. Science has really nothing to say about what constitutes "you". --Trovatore (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course it has. The scientific understanding of consciousness, is that it is a product of brain activity. When brain activity cease, that is the "termination of the biological functions", then "you" as a function of consciousness cease to exist. The dispute related to this question only really begins on the question of "soul" and "afterlife", concepts that science is not really involved in, as it is not a field that is measurable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The question of phenomenal consciousness, or qualia, is really not accessible to science at all — there is no way to tell if another being has or lacks phenomenal consciousness. All science can really talk about is whether the entity behaves as though conscious. --Trovatore (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they can. Scientific consensus is that consciousness (it links to your phenomenal consciousness) involves physical activity (preferably brain activity), and that is something that can be measured fairly easy. As I said, afterlife is not for science, and the discussion the definition of that is still disputed amongst the various religions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Browsing the article clinical death may be helpful. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are the neurological correlates of consciousness, not phenomenal consciousness itself. Phenomenal consciousness links to consciousness but is more specific — it refers specifically to the subjective experience of consciousness, not to the nerve activity nor to the observable behavior. This is explained further down in the text. --Trovatore (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that you could not possibly be dead. If there is any question, then you are alive. But if "Am I alive?" is not a meaningful question, that means you cannot be dead.

Am I alive -> Yes. Therefore, death is an impossibility. There is no dead state. I cannot die. But that is absurd: of course I can die, and be dead. Therefore, our premise must be flawed, and there must be a possibility that you are dead. Since we have concluded that the answer to the question of whether you are alive is always "yes", therefore the answer is mistaken. In this state, you are dead and do not know it. In fact, every dead person does not know it. Lincoln doesn't realize he's dead. Jefferson doesn't. Plato doesn't. Socrates, nope. Nobody realizes they're dead. I cannot realize I'm dead either. My opinion will simply become false. Here are my opinions over time: t(0): I'm alive (right), t(1) I'm alive (right), t(2) I'm alive (wrong buddy you're dead). See where the death happened? All this is to say that death is no different from simply being mistaken. By extension, Fox News is the living dead. QED. Back to term paper.109.128.175.163 (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

From reading that nonsense I am beginning to suspect you are simply trolling. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you never studied philosophy? I am simply trying to work th eresponses I've gotten so far to their natural conclusion, just as I've seen in philosophy classes. The idea of a "you" or a "me" is already something distinct from the molecules of the body; it is perfectly reasonable to attribute thoughts to you whether you are alive or dead. For example, Socrates has a philosophy. It's his. Einstein has an understanding of the physics of the world. Not that he is practicing it at the moment, as he is quite dead, but the understanding is quite his. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You are not even close to the "philosophy" of either Socrates or Einstein. Busted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That line of reasoning vaguely reminds me of the story of Achilles and the turtle or the discourse on when a white horse is not a horse - i.e. meaningless sophistry, bending of words to achieve a desired verbal goal that one knows differs from actual observed reality. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew a man who had severe heart disease, and who died three times (in hospital settings) before the final irreversible time. He said there was some consciousness while he was dead, with the "white tunnel" and all that has been written about, while he was "dead." I suppose his story would be best interpreted as "He was dead and he DID know it." Charles I probably felt the same way, for a bit, after his head was chopped off. Edison (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, a better interpretation would be that he wasn't really "dead" till he was really dead. This rubbish about people dying X times on the operating table but making a full recovery is just that - rubbish. They can call it "clinical" death or whatever else - but it isn't any form of death (of which there is only one - death) until it's a permanent state of non-existence. If the conventional definition of death has to be altered to conform to my view, so be it. Have the necessary arrangements made, please, Jeeves. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a film starring Bruce Willis based on this. Who knows? We may all be dead and not realise it. It's equally possible reality is merely a dream (or nightmare!) and our dreams reality. I posed the question before regarding parallel time and other possible dimensions. Remember the universe is without limits......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You might also be interested in our article on the notion "Cogito ergo sum" (which suggests that if you know you are dead then you must be mistaken;). WikiDao ☯ 18:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

British military bases in US

How many British military bases are there in the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.75.101 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there were any?AerobicFox (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What? No precautions against the perfidious neighbours to the north? The closest I can find in Category:British Army bases is Warwick Camp (Bermuda). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no British military owned bases in the US. There are a number of British military personnel either on active duty (e.g. the RAF/USAF pilot exchange program) or working as liaisons in various locations (Pentagon, Cheyenne Mountain, USSTRATCOM, AUTEC, those posted to HMS Saker etc). Some arms of the British Armed Forces share areas of American bases (2 piers at Pearl Harbour, shared pens in Submarine bases) and train on US establishments such as Fort Hood. There are also some regiments such as No. 39 Squadron RAF that are based solely in the USA. Nanonic (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"There are no British military owned bases in the US"... that we know of. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

British military bases are not allowed in the US because of that incident of the British military burning down the White House. US bases are allowed in the UK because the US military never burned down Buckingham Palace (or the Houses of Parliament.) Edison (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's blatant bullshit. There are American military bases in the UK because there are American interests in Europe, historically (World War II, Cold War). The US had some very good reasons for wanting its troops and equipment close to Europe, and thus Russia/Soviet Union. The U.K. has no historical enemies in the Americas it needs to keep close to (AFAIK, there is no Anglo-Mexican tension to worry about) so there's really no impending need for the British to have a permanent military presense in the U.S. proper. --Jayron32 03:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you are unable to detect humor. UK bases in the US would actually be highly welcome, since they would help to balance the outflow of currency presently occurring because of the US defending Europe and the UK from whatever might menace them, long after the end of the Soviet threat, at the expense of US taxpayers. It should be noted that Europe and the UK have a far larger population and a larger economy than the US, and should be capable of defending themselves by now. Edison (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You are talking complete nonsense. US military activity in, say, Afganistan, doesn't benefit Europe any more than it does the US. The activity is intended to prevent terrorism, which is as much a threat to the US as anywhere else. --Tango (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also the US is basically broke, but continues to spend vastly more on military that its UK and European friends, The UK, for instance, announced they were getting rid of their last aircraft carrier, so would not be able to respond to crises in the world as they were at the time of the Falklands war. Edison (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the most proximate reason for American bases being on UK soil is that the UK government agreed to them being there. It wasn't as if the US just set them up there because they had good reason. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

True, but the reason that the U.S. asked to put them there in the first place is that they had an interest in doing so. I'm not terribly sure that the U.K. has ever had the need to put a military base in the U.S.; there's none here because a) The U.K. never asked to put one here because b) they have no need to. The agreement between the governments is secondary to the need itself. Yes, the U.K. government allowed it to happen, but the converse (that the U.S. does not allow reciprocal bases for the U.K. on United States soil) isn't necessarily the case; its quite likely that the U.K. has no impending need to have permanent facilities in the U.S. The implied question in this discussion seems to be that there is some inherent unfairness in that the U.S. has military installations in other counties, while other countries do not have installations in the U.S. This is most likely because those countries don't have the need to have installations in the U.S., not because the U.S. refuses to allow them or something like that. Before we can ask "Why does the U.S. think it can have military installations in other countries, but not allow other countries to have military installations in the U.S.?" we need to ask "Why would other countries need military installations in the U.S.?" --Jayron32 04:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor point about US bases in the UK - although US forces are based in the UK all the bases and installations are still British and under British control, hence the main American transport base is RAF Mildenhall and not Mildenhall AFB. MilborneOne (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there not bombing ranges that are used for practice and training by the RAF, certainly in Canada and perhaps in the US also? 92.28.245.149 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Bombing ranges and facilities in the United States are regularly used by NATO and foreign forces not just the RAF. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Notably the Red Flag exercises[8] at Nellis AFB. Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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) [9]. 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)

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[10]. 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"[11], 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

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)

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 [12][13][14], "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)

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)

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" ([15]). 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)

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)

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 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. [16]--Aspro (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That site requires a login. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 1 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[17], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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, probably; although the specific details vary from country to country. From youth's point of view, yes. That's the idea. Yes, by definition. See youth 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)

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

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. Falconus^{p 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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [18]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Is the jewish butchery cruel?

Some people told me the killing by itslef 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 :)]