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 16

T.S. Eliot's word count?

How many words did T.S. Eliot write? I remember reading somewhere that it was very low, but I can't remember the number. Thanks! --Think Fast (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I downloaded the works of T. S. Eliot that are available at Project Gutenberg with T. S. Eliot listed as author, merged them in a Word-document, and did a word count. Result: 38 662 words. This number includes some Project Gutenberg-specific text that was not written by T. S. Eliot (copyright info, disclaimers etc), but still, I doubt that every word written by T. S. Eliot is available in Project Gutenberg, so I consider the word count to be a reasonable estimate. Therefore, a direct answer to your question is, approximately 38,000 words. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed quite low, but then Eliot did not write many essays, or any fiction that I know of, keeping his word count down, and even his poetry and theater output was not particularly prolific. He was very much an author more interested in quality than in quantity, which is relatively rare for a full-time writer who was not cut down in the prime of life. Just about everything he wrote is considered a major work, though. A comparison would be Stéphane Mallarmé, who is considered one of the most important French poets but whose output is tiny, or in another medium, composer Paul Dukas, who has a very small number of compositions to his name, but all of them are considered masterpieces. --Xuxl (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Did TS Eliot never write a note for the milkman, scrawl essays at primary school or jot down an aide-memoire? --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Such questions are obviously intended as enquiries about the number of words he published. It might extend to extant unpublished manuscripts that were originally intended for publication. But nobody gives a damn about Eliot's shopping lists or post-it notes. And stuff he wrote for school assignments hardly count as the works of a writer, although they would be of undoubted interest to scholars and collectors of Eliotiana.

By analogy, if the Collected Works of Jack of Oz were ever published, I doubt they'd include anything I've ever written on Wikipedia or other websites; or stuff I wrote at school, university or work; or private and work emails; or private correspondence with family, friends or service providers; or Facebook messages; or SMS messages; or letters to editors; or Christmas/birthday cards; or bank deposit/withdrawal slips; or Census and other government forms; or autographs for screaming admirers; you name it.

Of course, cutting all that stuff out means it would be a slim volume indeed. (Reminder: Finish tnat damn book, Jack! You still have a shot at the Collected Work of Jack of Oz.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Talleyrand plan

Just a question on the Talleyrand partition plan for Belgium. The article says under Consequences: "The Talleyrand plan was rejected by European powers". Which ones rejected it? Did some accept the plan? And what were the reasons for some of their rejections? Thanks! 64.229.180.189 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

See Treaty of London (1839) for more details on the specific treaty that established it. During the 19th century, Europeans Great Powers met infrequently during meetings known as the "Congress system" or the Concert of Europe. Belgium is usually counted as one of the major outcomes of the Concert system outside of the first Congress of Vienna. The Great Powers are generally taken to mean the main signatories of the Congress of Vienna treaties, being the UK, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and France during the first half of the 19th century. This group of nations was roughly analogous to the "UN Security Council" today. Presumably, since Tallyrand proposed it, France backed it, but the other four nations apparently opposed it. --Jayron32 03:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The main reason for rejecting the plan is that it would have increased the size and power of France. The other European powers were still wary about French ambitions in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars. Another reason is that Britain, then the dominant European power, wanted a strong buffer state on France's border as an impediment to French aggression. At the Congress of Vienna (1815), the territory of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands had been defined to include what would become Belgium precisely to create a relatively strong state on France's northern flank. Even at the time of the Congress of Vienna, France still had troops positioned in the Southern Netherlands and hoped to retain all or part of it, and at the time when Talleyrand proposed his plan, France again had troops in the region Talleyrand proposed to annex to France. Britain and the other powers would have preferred for Belgium and the Netherlands to remain united, but since that was no longer feasible after the Belgian revolution, the next best solution for them was to maximize the size and power of Belgium by including the Flemish-speaking areas. Some of the discussions of this question are detailed in this source. Marco polo (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Most popular delusion

What delusion is believed by the greatest percentage of human beings on earth? 220.239.37.244 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably, that they as an individual mean anything in the grand scheme of things, which is believed by (I would say) 100% of human beings on earth. See Total Perspective Vortex. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

For further insight, read the Dilbert book called The Way of the Weasel. Author Scott Adams says that in addition to being weasels with others, we are also weasels with ourselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Another example would be from this Paul Simon song: "We work our jobs / Collect our pay / Believe we're gliding down the highway / When in fact we're slip-slidding away." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The God Delusion? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Or for that matter, the Atheism Delusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We have an article List of common misconceptions... AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No clear answer can be given. It varies a lot what people consider delusions. Delusion says: "A delusion is a belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence. Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception." PrimeHunter (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The The God Delusion has already been mentioned. Surely all religion fits the definition of "a belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence". (Faith isn't evidence.) Even if you have a religion and don't regard your own as a delusion, without a lot of word twisting and philosophical gymnastics you have to believe that the adherents of other religions are deluded. Can we label all religious people as suffering a pathological condition "(the result of an illness or illness process)"? HiLo48 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

One could make a similar argument regarding avowed atheists, who are blind to anything that disagrees with their "faith" that no God can possibly exist and that religion has no positive value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Heyup, where do you get the idea that atheists believe no religion has positive values? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

, Bugs. Sloppy. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

See New Atheism... AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comparing religious preachers with atheist proselytizers is false analogy because unlike religious preachers, atheist proselytizers use scientific method and deductive logic to criticize religion. But defenders of religion habitually use logical fallacies, and reject scientific method and deductive logic. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That's nice; the actual relevant point was that a number of the new modern up-to-date breed of atheist advocates seem to feel an obligation to be get personally nasty and sneer and jeer and trash anything even remotely connected with religion. They're really not dispassionately logical or Spock-like as you seem to imagine. AnonMoos (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the OP is talking about the clinical concept of a delusion, but the broader, colloquial usage, as Will Rogers said, "...what they know for certain which ain't so." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Religion. It fits that definition perfectly. It's faith, not evidence based, yet many (far too many IMHO) act as if it's known for certain. What I have just said is not an atheistic position. HiLo48 (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that necessarily follows. The atheist-free/relgious-free position is the agnostic one that "no evidence could either prove or disprove the existence of a god(s)". That is to say, religious believers build their belief, as you imply on no evidence. The definition above says "superior evidence": this is implied by the colloquial "what they know for certain which ain't so" quoted. To call religion a delusion would be to show that it "ain't so". I don't think there's ever been any solid evidence that it "ain't so" - my position in the second sentence was that there was no evidence. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I propose the delusion that, as Travis Bickle had it, "one of these days I'm gonna get organizized". It comes in many variants, but at bottom they're all the same.--Rallette (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, we can't really answer. As the previous discussion has demonstrated, no one will ever agree on what is and is not a delusion, so we'll never get anywhere and end up arguing over religion for hours. I'm not convinced that was the purpose of the question. Anyway, we do have a list of hoaxes, which might being to answer the question. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I note that widely held beliefs are generally of the sort which can't be disproved, or at least have not been disproved, the closest we can get to disproved statements are List of common misconceptions. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Christian god delusion followed by the Muslim god delusion. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The every god but my own delusion. They simply can't all be right. HiLo48 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but that doesn't disprove 100% of them. You said above: Surely all religion fits the definition of "a belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence". Just what is this "superior evidence" of which you speak? Where is the evidence that there is no such thing as God? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would humbly submit that the most popular delusion, believed by 100% of humans since shortly after birth, (perhaps I am the world's first and/or only exception) is that there is ever an objective answer to "why", or, in other words, regarding the false misconception of a a cause-effect relationship existing at all. In every language on earth one of the first words anyone would learn is "why" or the answer "because" - and it is, I submit, a delusion. Let's take a simple example. Please read this article, or just the part begining with the third large dropped capital O and reading "On October 30, 1935, at Wright Air Field in Dayton, Ohio, the U.S. Army Air Corps held a flight competition for airplane manufacturers vying to build its next-generation long-range bomber."

Go ahead and read that part if you want. I may spoil it as follows:

!Then it stalled, turned on one wing, and crashed in a fiery explosion. Two of the five crew members died, including the pilot, Major Ployer P. Hill."

This pilot was extremely well-trained. But the article reports "An investigation revealed that nothing mechanical had gone wrong. The crash had been due to “pilot error,” the report said."

So, we can ask a simple question: why did this plane crash. We arrive at a simple answer: pilot error.

But is it so simple?

What about these answers: 1) This type of pilot error should not have been possible. the plane should not have been engineered to start this way. 2) The pilot should have performed a dry run five times in a row on five consecutive days, without taking off. why wasn't this done? 3) the pilot should have taken his methamphetamenes and been chosen for his OCD properties, so that even a procedure 10 times more intricate for starting the plane would have been error-proof.

The third one is outside of our social norms. The first two are OK. So, in my humble opinion, this idea of "cause" or an answer to "why" or statements beginning with "because" is a mass delusion.

I believe there are facts. You can say, the computer had a core temperature of 104 degrees when it crashed. You can say, the patient had a stopped heart shortly before reaching clinical death. I believe that "why" is a mass delusion. Let's say it was diet. Was it McDonald's advertising? The way they were raised? Personal weakness? A poor doctor who was not a good psychologist and got the patient to change habits after the first heart attack?

Thre are no whys, it is a mass delusion. Asking "why doesn't America speak French, Spanish, or Portuguese, as other parts of the Americas, is a delusional question that can be answered simply. this simplification is simply wrong.

i don't believe in causes. even in such a simple case as this: a nurse takes blood from an HIV positive subject to do some blood tests, then pricks herself, and contracts aids. Why did she contract aids?

Here are ten answers off-hand: 1) she shouldn't have been a nurse. with an attentiveness like that, she should be in a different profession. 2) it should not be possible to prick yourself with a used needle after taking blood. the design is flawed.ű 3) HIV patients should not be handled without prick-proof gloves. 4) HIV patients should take their own blood, and do their own tests in specially quarantined equipment. 5) The nurse was overworked and should have worked half as many hours, but there is a nurse shortage due to lack of funding. Major funding is needed to avoid this type of situation. 6) The man should not have had HIV, and if not for stigmatization of gay sex in the sixties and seventies, HIV would not have become a gay pandemic. it could have been stopped extremely quickly. Historically, history will view aids as a failure of ethics and a disease that had as its main vector prejudice and bigotry. 7) If sufficient R and D had been invested in nursing, then hyperdermic needles would have been long-since a thing of the past, an drisk free pneumatic blood drawing would have long-since been the norm. While saving money overall, society does not care about medical costs, as it makes medical companies richer, who lobby for the status quo. 8) HIV would be curable if the medical industry did not have as high vaults as it does, if it were more like math, and readily available online. Due to the restriction on talent, many people with bright ideas in the medical field are unable to participate meaningfully in it, and not only due to lack of laboratories. The nurse who contracted HIV contracted a curable disease whose cure is locked away behind ivory towers operating on medieval structures of study. If the medical industry were like the open-source security industry, there would long-since been real antivirus physical AV hardware that can eliminate aids. The academic closed structure and privatization and lack of openness is the reason 9) the patient was not as important as others to whom the nurse pays more attention, such as celebrities In this case it was a homeless man the nurse wanted to get the procedure over with ASAP. 10) the person should have chosen the less expensive and less error-prone home test-by-mail, but didn't know about it. It would actually have saved him money. The reason he didn't do it this way is lack of information. It's an information problem.

So you see, the most simple occurrence, a nurse pricking herself and contracting HIV, from a patient she knew to be HIV positive, does not have an answer as to why. Why is a human construction, because even more so, and it is a delusion on the grandest scale. Of course, it's easy enough to say: "because she pricked herself" but then, you have to add, with a needle that had HIV, and then you have to add why it had HIV, and why she pricked herself. Pricking herself with a fresh needle doesn't cause the same result.

Also maybe she could have done something afterwards. Maybe thew hole sentence is: "she pricked herself with a needle she should have known had HIV in it, and didnt follow procedure to immediately cleanse as much blood from the pinprick as possible.." etc etc etc ad infinitum... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.254.208 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

But under your explanation almost anything can be dismissed of responsability. Massive accidents (like the Chernobyl nuclear disaster) can be dismissed as just that would/could/should happen. Almost everything has an obvious and logical explanation. Flamarande (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head: responsibility is often the true reason for why/because. You gave a GREAT example of the Chernobyl disaster. As far as I know it (I didn't even read the article, just hearsay) the guys there shut down some emergency system to do some tests, and therefore the emergency system didn't kick in when it should have, and it didn't avoid the meltdown as it should have. That's what I know. It's also completely delusional. 94.27.171.38 (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, not a WP:SOAPBOX for your original research, 80.99. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the poster asked for something that the MOST people believe is a delusion. If literally 100%-but-one of people believe something, with the exception of a sole poster who tells the OP what that something is, then it obviously constitutes original research. Or would you rather, for this particular answer, remove the theoretically possibility of the OP receiving the best answer? (WIth best being something everyone believes, and therefore mentioning that it is a misconception obviously constitutes OR - if it didn't, not everyone would believe it).

I do have to apologize for the lack of formating on the spiel - feel free to reformat it! The linked article also got lost, it's this one: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_gawande

But I think that his lack-of-causes-explanation is interesting. However I must add that I have a friend (here where I live - Portugal) that has a similar approach. I'm a guy that believes in law and order, cause and effect and he is always contradicting me on many issues but he explains me things under another perspective. Sometimes he and I totally disagree, but on many issues I begin to slowly analyse his approach/explanation of certain issues and on some he has indeed changed my opinion because I'm unashamed to tell it he is right after-all. And if the gaining of knowledge is the true goal of Wikipedia then I'm hereby invoking the unofficial Ignore:AllRules because I want to learn. Flamarande (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I should also add that I (the person who added submitted the 'because' or cause-effect answer) also do believe in it. If I'm riding an escalator and it stops, I'm peeved and look around to see why. I see that a child has just pressed the 'stop' button located at intervals on the way up, and now I know why it stopped. But what I "know" isn't really knowledge at all -- it's a total delusion. Sure, it's true enough that if you press the stop button the escalator stops, and sure enough if you eat three week old milk you will have diarrhea. Why do you have diarrhea? Because you ate the three-week-old milk. It's simple enough, it's true, and it's delusional. It's hard to get over this delusion, but it's there. (For my first example, the 'why' is that the mother wasn't watching her kid for a moment, because she just got a phone call, for the second example, the why is that you were very, very drunk and high and drank the milk without thinking. You drank it BECAUSE you were high and drunk, and wouldn't have drunk it otherwise. You got diarrhea as part of a stupid ill-thought-out binge, much as when someone dies in one. Sure the immediate cause of death might be drowning -- but did the person die "because they inhaled water"? Explanations are delusional. 94.27.171.38 (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This question is impossible to answer objectively. A "delusion" is something stupid someone else believes. To a religious person, atheism is a delusion, and vice versa. Anyway, "delusion" is a psychiatric term, and psychiatrists (except for perhaps militant atheists among them) don't consider religious people to all be delusional. This website says the most common form of delusional disorder is the persecutory type. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and some people believe that the Earth is flat, or that the United States is ruled by a cult of amphibians. I humbly suggest that it would not be wrong to categorize those people as "delusional" beyond all reasonable doubt. Ditto with religious people, except their beliefs are even more ridiculous and improbable than the flat-Earth theory, or the amphibian-cult conspiracy theory. --140.180.4.56 (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean the United States isn't ruled by a cult of amphibians? Bus stop (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be France. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The cult of amphibians was in H.P. Lovecraft; the more modern conspiracy theory is Lizard people... AnonMoos (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hang on. Isn't the conviction that (global) economic growth can continue forever a delusion which is believed by most people? 202.177.218.59 (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is "most people"? It can't grow forever, but it can grow for a long, long time: until all the matter in the observable universe is used up. --140.180.4.56 (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The delusion that memory is accurate can be a problematic delusion. Bus stop (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The most popular delusion, beyond question, is that we actually exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Albert Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one". But reality and existence are different things. Mathematicians and scientists deal with unreal or imaginary numbers every day of the week, which would be a rather tall order if they didn't exist. So anyway, what's the difference between an illusion and a delusion? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That if you don't know the answer to a question, you should answer it anyway.Thedoorhinge (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Double ????? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

that's a pretty good one about the economy. most people believe banks lend out money someone else has deposited, or perhaps money they have borrowed at a lower interbank rate. this is not the case. banks lend out money that doesn't fully exist until they've lent it out -- they don't have to borrow the full amount from another bank or the government, nor do they have to have the full amount in deposits from depositors. a pretty popular misconception. most people would be surprised goldman sachs doesn't take deposits at all. 188.157.246.43 (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I am not the only one that thought the OP was probably hinting at the classic book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds? It would indeed be interesting to read an updated edition of that book including more recent examples. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My delusion is that someday we'll get through a week on the RD without a militant atheist chiming in off-topic to bash religion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It could happen. It happened for an entire day recently. There was not one iota of vandalism, trolling, sockpuppetry, or poor good-faith editing on wikipedia. And it made the national news! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Original text for the Oath of Supremacy

Can anyone find the original text for the Oath of Supremacy 1559? Our article on it, which has no sources whatsoever, uses language such as "do utterly testify and declare in my conscience", which is definitely not the way that 16th-century English was spelled. An identical modernisation of the spelling appears (again, without citations) at Act of Supremacy 1558. Looking around on Google produces tons of results that refer to the original text but don't quote it. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The text quoted in our article seems to come from a source published in 1896 and cited here. Whether that is the original spelling, I can't say. Very possibly, the 1896 publication regularized the spelling. There is likely not an exact transcription of the original document available in electronic form and perhaps not even in print. The only way to know the original spelling might be to examine the archival document itself. Marco polo (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The original parliament rolls are available at the National Archives, Kew. Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

February 17

aroused by cartoon characters

Is there a term or label or diagnosis for people who are sexually aroused by cartoon characters? I don't mean the kinds of cartoons that are supposed to be arousing. Rather, characters like Wilma Flintstone or Tinker Bell. 99.250.103.117 (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

False premise. It is difficult to see how either Wilma Flintstone or Tinker Bell could be described as being designed to be anything but arousing, given their scanty attire, overt sexuality etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The premise is nowhere near false. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

See Rule 34. --Jayron32 04:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if there's a name for the fetish, but see hentai. --140.180.4.56 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Two words: Jessica Rabbit :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with AndyTheGrump that Wilma Flintstone and Tinker Bell#Disney version are odd examples. The latter even says: "Some critics have complained that Disney's version of Tinker Bell is too sexually suggestive." PrimeHunter (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Erm, Bugs, I don't think anyone could suggest that Jessica Rabbit wasn't intended to be arousing. I think the real problem is that there is a sliding scale here, on the Hentai - Jessica - Wilma - Elmer Fudd - Simpson's-Cat-Lady vector, where one would go from perfectly acceptable 'normal arousal' to downright 'you what?', but with no clear dividing line. The largest sexual organ we have is the brain, and we are capable of (ab)using it in the strangest of contexts... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Jessica's not actually "bad", she's just drawn that way. :) And it's fair to say that Tinkerbell is hot, and Wilma's nice too. :) Ah, but the real test... Is Wikipe-tan hot? Or is she just cute? Or both? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wilma's alright, but I used to love Betty Rubble when I was a kid :D And not in a childish way :D 92.80.18.189 (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Eroge. I seriously had never, ever come across that word until I was involved in an AfD for one. Really. Never. --Shirt58 (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

defining affinity group or work group as related to the spokes council model

in the spokes council model of organization can an affinity group or working group be comprised of just one person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.211.25 (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what the general opinion (the consensus, if you will) of the group is. Generally I would think the answer would be "no", but it depends on what they decide. Abeg92contribs 18:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Agriculture Innovation Technology Application

Hello, I would like to ask what are the ways to apply a certain agricultural technology? For example I would like to use a technology in South America (pesticides) to be applied in my city's agricultural sector. I am a student in Xiamen, China and my teacher asked me to write a short essay for this. Can anyone give any idea on how agriculture innovations are applied to other countries or agriculture sector? what are the steps for our local farmers to take in applying? thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenzy (talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, because this is an obvious homework question, nobody can answer you directly, but we can point you towards some sources that might help you. You might take a look at these articles: Agriculture, Pesticides, Natural Resources Conservation Service... just a few off the top of my head. I hope your teacher's asking a more specific question because as you've described it the topic is wide open. Shadowjams (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The main points of my essay are explaining the steps of agricultural innovation application. we were also asked to submit our essay to the local farmers and for those of them that wants to apply overseas agricultural technology would have some base idea on how to do so. I've looked at the links provided but still no clear explanation on the process of application of certain agriculture technology. Is there any other in-depth explanation about the process of application on agriculture technology? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenzy (talk • contribs) 10:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In Western countries, including South America, a farm is a business. If the farmer thinks an item of technology will make his farm more profitable, he invests in it (if he can afford it), or obtains a loan from a bank, or clubs together with other farmers to form a cooperative. If her can't finance it, he doesn't use it. In the UK, farmers are able to see the latest products at agricultural shows or in the trade press. There are also associations organised by the farmers themselves that give advice on the latest methods, like The Soil Association or The Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers. Alansplodge (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about legal ethics (conflict of interest)

This is a question about legal ethics, but it's not a request for legal advice. I understand that the legal profession has rules about conflict of interest. Suppose an in-house lawyer of company A leaves the company and later joins company B. If the two companies are later involved in litigation, how does the lawyer previous employment at company A affect his ability to participate in the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.98.94 (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Refer to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Your question is one of some academic interest actually. The specifics vary by state, and while most states use the MRPC, many have modified them, and some have their own version. The general concept you're talking about is called a "Chinese wall", where the new attorney at the firm is withheld from all information related to the case. That may or not be effective depending on the circumstances. Generally speaking conflicts that affect one lawyer are imputed to every other lawyer at the firm (there are some specific exceptions). However there are some caveats, and also some specific to law clerks, and government lawyers. No matter the direct conflict rules, the lawyer can never be in a situation where confidential information they learned in a previous representation can be used adversely against that client, unless the client consents. There are also "non-consentable" situations too.

It has been a while since I reviewed the rules in detail, so I'm not confident enough to give you a great answer, but your question reads a bit like a law exam final. You might want to take a look at the MRPC because they're straighforward enough and may provide you some insight into what you're asking about. Shadowjams (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

613 commandments list only goes to 605

The excellent article on the 613 commandments has a list derived from Maimonides that only goes to number 605. Were some commandments from the list combined without notice or is the list still under construction? it would be possible (but very tedious!) to compare the list in the article with other published lists, including on the Internet, but I hope the editors of the article or someone could provide a short answer.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.27.34 (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out (and for the compliment to this Project). The list was pruned by a vandal some months ago. Perhaps we should tell him or her that Wikipedia is a fruit tree? Thanks to you, I've now fixed the problem. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Catcher in the Rye

In The Catcher in the Rye I believe I remember that Holden once thinks about sombody who went crazy because of too much reading. Who was that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.74.50.52 (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Its been a long time since I read Catcher in the Rye, but I did some searching on Google, and this page indicates that the notion that too much reading can cause insanity was apparently a theory held by Franz Joseph Gall, a neuroanatomist and phrenologist who apparently influenced Horace Mann, the American pedagogical reformer. Given how schooling plays a central part in CITR, I wouldn't be surprised if such notions didn't influence it, or slip in there in some ways. Just an idea; no idea if it relates or not. --Jayron32 15:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is David Stevens?

Who is David Stevens who is quoted saying "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it"? [1][2] --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but it only appears in the last couple of years, and not in any reliable sources. It's very similar to "...truth is true even if everyone denies it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone affirms it", which appears have first been used by Hank Hanegraaff. Warofdreams talk 15:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

GDP (Output) gap & Okun's Law

In Wikipedia's description of GDP (Output) gap, Y* = actual output, Y = potential output. Yet in the description of Okun's Law (immediately following), Y = actual output, Y* = potential output; opposite designations. Is this an error or are these arbitrary designations? I'm confused! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.22.118 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, such designations are always arbitrary. Looked at Okun's Law first & didn't see what you meant, but you're right Output gap, while correct, was confusing, so I fixed it to make the notation internally consistent. Y is now actual, Y* potential throughout the article. Thanks.

The idea is that employment & production are positively correlated, in a roughly stable manner. More people working, will do more work, make more goods, provide more services, and vice versa, if GDP grows, employment will likely grow, unemployment decrease. The negative signs appear here & there because it is usually formulated in terms of UNemployment, not employment.John Z (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Trying to understand coin collecting

I've recently found a coin collection in the Liberian-centered archive where I work, and my supervisor has asked me to attempt to catalogue them. While I'm not a coin collector, I am an active stamp collector, and this flavors the way I'm thinking of this coin collection. Can someone suggest a coin catalogue that's comparable to the Scott catalogues of stamps? Knowing about the collector-oriented nature of the Liberian postal service, I'm under no illusion that these coins are going to be valuable, and I'm somewhat nervous that they'll not be covered by major catalogues simply because so many Liberian coins (like the seen-on-TV "legal tender" $2 coins featuring US presidents) are produced for the US collector market, just like the stamps.

I've searched online and found nothing; searching here at Wikipedia, the only potentially relevant catalogue that I could find is the Standard Catalog of World Coins, which according to WorldCat isn't owned by any libraries near me. Could you suggest any other catalogues that would be (1) standard reference works for US coin collectors, and (2) likely to cover Liberia? I'd particularly appreciate it if you could suggest a catalogue that's owned by my university library; you can go to the online catalogue and search it after clicking the "Guest access" button. Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Standard Catalog is really it, I am afraid (it is often called "Krause's". That being said, I have a copy of it around the place. If you can post an image, I can tell you if it is in the catalog, and what I can about it. My copy is several years old, I should add. If it is not in there, there is a volume called Unusual World Coins. I do not own that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have an old edition (only paid a dollar or two for it) which claims to include all world coins from 1801 down to about 1995. During the second half of the 1970s, the coinage seemed to be devoted to promoting some kind of personality cult of William R. Tolbert, Jr.. Beginning in the late 1980s, there began to be a lot of commemoratives obviously aimed at the international collector (Michael Schumacher, Nolan Ryan, Captains Kirk and Picard, etc.). -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend, if you tell us what they commemorate, and the denominations and year, that is plenty of information. Just make a list and email me or AnonMoos. Incidentally, if it is totally unidentifiable (I doubt it will be), both Coin World and World Coin News run columns where they identify odd items. I suspect they get lots of queries. If I had to guess, I'd bet these are Franklin Mint coins from the 70s.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

For US coins, it's the "Red Book", whose actual title is A Guide Book of United States Coins. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

When I posted the question, I'd not yet looked at individual coins; I'd simply found a group of coins and ensured that they were from Liberia. After posting this request for help, I actually inventoried them, listing for each one the date and denomination. To my surprise, many pre-date the Tubman administration (including two from 1847, the year of independence); most of the remainder were produced before Doe's 1980 coup, and the few exceptions are largely ordinary-looking coins — I couldn't find a single one that appears to appeal to foreign collectors. Even more to my surprise, I've learned that my local public library owns a copy of Krause's (can't imagine why it's not in WorldCat), so I'll consult that first; if it turns out not to include the coins in question, I'll come back and ask either of you who offered to help. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

February 18

Defraud Innkeeper?

I saw an ex-girlfriend in the local arrest section of the newspaper, and she was apparently arrested at Denny's for "defraud innkeeper". What does that mean? Doesn't that mean she defrauded a hotel in some way? 198.228.232.49 (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

According to this [3], "defrauding an inkeeper" also applies to restaurants. That particular law is for Georgia, but other states and countries probably have similar laws. RudolfRed (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The dine and dash seems the most likely offense. (If I were to do that, I'd pick a much nicer restaurant.) :-) StuRat (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you know which Denny's is meant? There could be thousands restaurants called like that in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.66.12 (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Denny's a chain, so yes, there are thousands of restaurants called that (well, our article says "over 1,500" worldwide, so not quite thousands), but they are very similar. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Other jurisdictions call this offence Theft of services. —D. Monack ^talk 01:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Secretariat General of Commonwealth

When it comes to selecting Secretariat General of Commonwealth of Nations, is there an election or the Queen appoints the person to the position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.254 (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Commonwealth Secretary-General#Election. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fetish name

Is there any name for the fetish for bloodless torture? Such a person might enjoy watching someone get tortured on the rack, but doesn't want to see someone get disemboweled with a chainsaw. Is there any film genre specifically relating to this fetish? --140.180.6.154 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadism is enjoying inflicting pain (or watching it), but not necessarily death. While this isn't exactly the same as "bloodless", it's probably as close as you will find. StuRat (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

However, the works of the marquis himself are not bloodless! 140.180.6.154 -- I could coin a word from Latin or Greek roots, but it wouldn't be a standard accepted term. Why not just say "bloodless torture sadism"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

university of kent

anyone here know anything about this university? I'm currently studying the second year of my course and was hoping to transfer there to take the last year (for a variety of reasons, initially I hoped to transfer last year but left it too late). However, I have heard that some universities don't accept new entrants just for the final year. I emailed them to ask about their policies here, but a week later I still have no reply. Anyone know more about this? or is this rule the same across the country? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You really do need to speak to the university. Even if they do accept transfers, it's going to depend on the details of the course you are currently taking and the course you want to transfer to (you would need to show that you have met all the prerequisites for the new course). We're not going to be much help there. If you don't receive a reply soon, make sure you emailed the right person - it's probably better to email someone in the department you want to join rather than a central admissions person since it will probably be a departmental policy. The university website should help you find the right person in the department. --Tango (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You should pick up the telephone and call a human if you are at all serious about this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at their website and found this FAQ. It says you can enter the 2nd year of a course by applying through UCAS, but doesn't mention entering after the 2nd year. --Tango (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I know UK universities don't have half terms, but the children of their staff do, and where I live half term was last week. So it's possible that the member of staff who deals with such matters was on holiday last week. If you haven't heard by Monday afternoon by email, I'd telephone as suggested above. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

From my (admittedly limited and outdated) experience of Universities, it's possible that they don't have an existing policy on this because no-one has asked to do it before now: I can think of three administrational innovations that had to be made at my own University for first cases, two of them involving myself. In case this is so, you might be better off preparing the ground by persuasively making the case to someone in the department you want to join, as Tango suggests, and having them advocate your transfer, rather than presenting it to a general administrator who might find it easier to say "no" to a novel proposal from an outsider. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.63 (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if they don't have a policy on this. Working at a university, I know we get queries about third year entry fairly often. Many universities have a policy that they won't accept the transfer of more than one year's worth of credits, but this isn't universal, so it's well worth asking. Warofdreams talk 12:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

English maternal DNA

I'm curious about the maternal DNA of English people. Did the Anglos and Saxons bring their own women with them or did they marry with the English women already inhabiting England when they settled there? What exact ethnic group did these indigenous women come from? I do know they were pre-Roman and pre-Celtic. I need this info as I'm currently involved in a debate with a friend regarding this. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's a much-debated, contentious and unresolved question. Does Genetic history of the British Isles help? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Bryan Sykes has studied this. As our article states: "There is a difference between the genetic histories of men and women in Britain and Ireland. The matrilineages show a mixture of original Mesolithic inhabitants and later Neolithic arrivals from Iberia, whereas the patrilineages are much more strongly correlated with Iberia. This suggests (though Sykes does not emphasize this point) replacement of much of the original male population by new arrivals with a more powerful social organization.". In other words, the invading men brought some women with them, but also took the time to knock up native women. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's actually the difference between the genetic history of mitochondrial DNA (transmitted from mother to child) and the genetic history of Y-chromosome DNA (transmitted from father to son). Such differences can sometimes provide interesting details relevant to the history of population migrations, but they don't really provide broad comprehensive information on the "genetic histories of men vs. women"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference ? StuRat (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

For any one individual, mitochondrial DNA only provides evidence about his or her mother, mother's mother, mother's mother's mother, etc.; while Y-chromosome DNA only provides information about a man's father, his father's father, his father's father's father, etc. So if a man traces his ancestry back eight-generations, then he can have up to 256 distinct great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, but mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA can only provide information about two of the 256, or less than 1%. As you go further back, the pure matrilineal line and pure patrilineal line become an ever smaller fraction of the ancestor slots in each generation, but there's more and more likelihood that some of the same individuals show up multiple times as ancestors (due to intermarriage). It can be complicated, but the result is that while the results of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome analysis provide interesting information, this information is fragmentary in some ways... AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, although mutations in the Y-chromosome and mitochondria provide some additional info. StuRat (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's true that there was a major influx of males from Iberia, this is still a pre-Roman Conquest event isn't it? The Angles and Saxons came from northern Europe, not Spain. I found these two articles by Stephen Oppenheimer (Britishy geneticist and "a researcher and popular-science writer on human prehistory"): Myths of British ancestry and Myths of British ancestry revisited. Alansplodge (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Also take a look at Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup, especially Haplogroup R (Y-DNA), which is the majority haplogroup type in the Isles. It also has prominence in Iberia as Alansplodge says. Most of these historic migrations are on the order of 10s of thousands of years, so modern history like the Roman Conquest doesn't seem to be as big of an influence as you might think. But I could be wrong about that. Shadowjams (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I take it you mean most of the major migrations to the British Isles, as there were major migrations since then, such as in the last few hundred years to the Americas. StuRat (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, migrations to. North America largely resembles what you'd expect within ethnic groups. I'm reciting what our article, and a lot of other mainstream sources say about it. I might guess that they ask people about their ethnic ancestry, and base it on that. But even still, the British Isles are predominately white and so it seems reasonable to assume the distribution of haplotypes hasn't changed that much. (haplogroup has nothing to do with race either, as there are some Africans with haplotype R as well... but it does suggest that most of the early migration patterns have remained surprisingly consistent). Shadowjams (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Y chromosome and mitochondrial haplogroup DNA evidence has more to do with prehistoric human migration patterns than with any phenotype expression. Indeed there are people that share haplogroups with wildly different ethnicities (and correspondingly wildly different appearances, genetic disease rates, and other phenotypical expressions). In fact these haplogroup analysis work largely because these DNA sections aren't thought to code for any meaningful differences. So it's just random mutations that are passed on without bias. Shadowjams (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Cheddar Man. Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Economic impact of leap year

This year, 2012, is a leap year. As many people are paid a fixed amount monthly it would seem that a large number of extra man-hours are going to be worked "for free" this month. Could this have a detectable economic impact (i.e. a marginal increase in economic productivity)? LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A similar situation happens in other years - if the year starts on a Friday or Saturday, there will be one few working day (assuming a Monday-Friday working week) than if it starts on any other day (due to there being 1 day more than 52 weeks in the year). I don't think that's going to make much difference to anything, though. Productivity is generally equal to consumption (with a few, usually short-term, exceptions) and consumption isn't going to be changed much by this kind of thing (I guess things like food and utilities will get used for one extra day in a leap year, but for most goods and services there won't be any noticeable change). --Tango (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The "noise" of economic data is likely far larger than the 1/366th difference added to the year by a leap year. I can't think of any economic data that pretends to be as precise as one part in 366, so any changes that occur due to a leap year would be washed out in the data set by random fluctuation. --Jayron32 18:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't stop people from talking about the economic impact of an extra bank holiday for a royal wedding, or of lots of people not being able to get to work for one day because of snow. It's rather silly, but it fills column inches. --Tango (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The OP asks if it would lead to "a marginal increase in economic productivity"? Obviously not, but those who are incompetent at Mathematics may think they see one. HiLo48 (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A worker who's paid by the hour should benefit from the extra day. A worker who's paid a fixed salary is effectively being paid "by the year", so they don't get anything extra for that extra day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm paid by the month; it's the same amount regardless of whether the month has 28, 29, 30, or 31 days. Since February is a day longer this year, I get slightly less money per day this February than I did a year ago, but it's still more than I get per day every other month of the year, so I'm not complaining. Pais (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Er, just to clarify, workers don't actually benefit from the extra day in the sense that they still have the same lifetime income, it just gets divided into different sections. (Okay, so there's an effect that there's another 24 hours in their working life, and 24 hours less in their retired life, so their income would be slightly different. But you catch my drift.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, that is a false analysis. This "extra day" furphy needs to be put to rest straight away. The sequence of the days of the week will not be disturbed by this so-called "extra day". There is no "extra day". The 24-hour period that we're going to call "29 February 2012" was always going to be there, regardless of what name we choose to call it. Compared to a standard year, there's an extra date, that's all.

For those whose pay is expressed as an annual salary, what they earn per working day will be a minute fraction smaller this year compared with a standard year, but that applies to every working day this year, not just to 29 February. The number of working days per year varies every year anyway.

And for those who are paid on a monthly basis, what they earn per working day this February might be slightly smaller this month compared to other Februaries - but again, that applies to every working day this month, not just to 29 February (if it's a working day). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

52 weeks and 1 day vs. 52 weeks and 2 days. That's an extra day. And even someone who's paid monthly is still being paid "by the year" if they're on salary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't confuse how a person's emolument is formally expressed in their employment contract (e.g. $25 per hour cf. $50,000 per annum), with how often they receive payment (e.g. weekly cf. fortnightly cf. monthly). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A salaried employee who's "exempt" from overtime gets a fixed amount per year, unless he happens to get a raise at some point. An hourly employee gets paid for how many hours he works during the year, possibly including some overtime, etc. The number of man-hours in a year is typically given as 2080 (40 X 52) for convenience, but it's really 2088 in a normal year and 2096 in a leap year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The man should join a union, and demand some paid holidays... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The paid holidays are included in the 2080/2088/2096 hours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

February 19

Passbook and money market accounts

According to [4], banks can change the interest rate on passbook savings accounts in the United States any time they want, within a 5% reason. Is the same true for money market accounts? Albacore (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Where does the US House of Representatives get the funding for BLAG?

The House of Representatives, through the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, hires outside counsel to represent them in legal battles. Where does the funding come from? Donations from individual representatives? 50/50 from each party's battle chest? Or (and I seriously hope this is not the case) siphoning off their general expense account? 99.245.35.136 (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The BLAG works primarily with the U.S. House Office of General Counsel, see OGC Home Page. According to the rules of the House [5] Rule 2, section 8, the Speaker sets the pay of the employees of the OGC. Being U.S. Government employees, OGC is likely paid out of the same bucket of cash that the rest of the Government is paid from. The existance of the OGC is authorized here in the U.S. Code, Title 2, Section 130f. I have no idea how this applies if the BLAG decides to go outside of the OGC and hire outside counsel; where that cash comes from. Primarily, it seems, the BLAG deals with issues related to legal interests of the House, rather than legal interests of its members, which is a bit of a distinction. It seems that the hiring of outside counsel is very rare, most of what I am seeing indicates the normal course of events is to use the OGC. --Jayron32 04:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just reading our article on DOMA and it said that the house is spending $1.5 million to hire an outside counsel to defend DOMA. Did the House not use the OGC for these cases because they know it's unrelated to the functions of the House? Or is it some other reason? In any case it sounded like it was not the Speaker who was setting the price tag but the contracted law firm itself. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and to correct myself, this outside counsel is technically representing BLAG instead of the House itself. In contrast, the OGC, while controlled by the BLAG, represents the House.99.245.35.136 (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (comments prior to EC) Its a bit messy, and not that simple, because the House claims that it is about the functions of the House, specifically over the conflict between executive privilege and legislative privilege, AFAIK, the House's main claim is that President Obama is not authorized to ignore laws passed by Congress, and the outside counsel's main purpose is argue that. This is neither here-nor-there over whether or not the DOMA is a just piece of legislation, just on the issue of what legal rights and obligations the executive branch has with regards to laws that are already on the books, but which it disagrees with philosophically. I'm not exactly sure what the justification is for using outside counsel in stead of the OGC; nor can I find any information on who is footing the bill in this case. (response to second set of comments) Is it representing the BLAG as a body (which is just the House Leadership), or is it representing the persons who make up the BLAG? --Jayron32 05:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Our article on BLAG says "...attorneys representing the BLAG filed a brief...", but the source link is dead unfortunately. This HuffingtonPost article [6] also use a similar language: "...attorneys representing the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group...". I couldn't find the actual brief so far but I'll keep on trying. If they are not representing the House then I really don't think the House (or more accurately the taxpayers) ought to foot the bill. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of "think ought to" aren't really what the reference desk is about. Again, I have looked and can't find anything one way or another about who is footing the bill. If you are concerned about ought to, then perhaps you should contact your congressperson directly, and ask their office about the matter. Your complaint is likely to go farther there than here. --Jayron32 05:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the sidetracking. I just thought retaining outside counsel was a common thing for the House and thus the answer would be common knowledge. In any case I found the brief [big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/DOMAfiling.pdf] and it's indeed the BLAG being represented, not the House.99.245.35.136 (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

One possibility would be to contact the Huffington Post and ask them; it looks like they have journalists working on the issue, and they may have additional information, or your question may probe them to investigate the issue themselves, if they don't already know. --Jayron32 05:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Call whatever office in the House of Representatives deals with the public and ask them. If you know what law firm, send them a civil email (i.e., don't start with "What right do you have to ...".)--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the House of Representatives is familiar with the UK slang usage of the word blag - to talk one's way out of something, or to obtain by deception/dishonest persuasion. As in "I got caught, but I blagged my way out of it", or "I blagged a free drink by telling them I'm a friend of the owner". Seems rather apposite. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

RP pronunciation of stairs

The OED has an /s/ at the end of backstairs. Is this correct, is it a rhyme for scarce in RP? If so, is stairs also a rhyme, or does it have /z/ as in GA? — kwami (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My accent is broadly RP, and I don't voice the final consonant in any of those words. I do voice it in 'scares', though (which would be a homophone of 'scarce' if not for the different voicing). This question would probably get a better response on the Language, by the way. --Tango (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Your word is good enough, considering the OED already says so! — kwami (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an issue with RP being quite varied. I would say that I speak RP, but I don't speak anything like the Queen, who also definitely speaks RP (the difference being that she learnt to speak RP in elocution lessons in 20's and 30's, while I learnt to speak it organically in the 80's and 90's). I can't say for sure how the Queen pronounces 'stairs'. The same is true of General American, of course. --Tango (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It rhymes with pears fairs and tears (as in tears paper). Kittybrewster ☎ 14:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Tango: do you mean “scares” as a noun or a verb? – b_jonas 16:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I pronounce them the same. --Tango (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

how do I address a Church Elder?

Elder Robert Smith of New Hope Apostolic Church Missouri (Pentecostal Assemblies of the world) ? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have been introduced to him with a specific form of address, I would just call him "Mr. Smith". There are some forms of address that are sufficiently well known that it could be considered an insult not to use them, but how on Earth are you supposed to know how the New Hope Apostolic Church chooses to address its elders? (Unless you are a member of that church, in which case you will have better people to ask than us.) --Tango (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

On the rare occasions I have met well-known people, and conversed with them, I generally toss in a "sir" now and then and leave it at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

How frustrating. Is there a free lookup for tel nos in missouri? Gloristeen Arbuthnot please. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It probably differs depending on whether or not you are a member of the same denomination as him. If you are not, you can't go wrong with "Mr. Smith.", in the U.S. it is universally acceptable in situations where the correct form of address has not already been established. If he prefers a different form, he won't be offended, but will offer a polite alternative. --Jayron32 01:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. When I received your advices I telephoned the number I had for him (I am not a theist) and found it no longer works. Nor can I get a number for his church. So I am stuck. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that any lay elder of a church without a working phone would have to be awfully pretentious to expect to be called anything but "Mister" if male.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He may be retired from the New Hope Apostolic Church Missouri (Pentecostal Assemblies of the world). But I would love to hear from anyone who knows how to get a St Louis tel no. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

See 4-1-1 the US directory enquiries number. There is a different version 1-areacode-555 1212 which may be of more use if calling from outside the US, but you would need to know the area code for St. Louis, Missouri (314 or 636 according to the article). Astronaut (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I got it from zabasearch.com. it is a 314 number. but the telecom machine thinks I am dialling 8 zeros which unsurprisingly is an invalid number. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A full list of countries with death penalty for apostasy

I'm looking for a full list of countries with death penalty for apostasy. I've already read Apostasy#Countries, but I'm not sure if it's the full list. Thanks, Oh, well (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

One complication is going to be that many nations which lack an official death penalty for apostasy will have a tribal justice system that does. These tribes may keep it secret when they execute someone for it. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so what about a list of states in which execution for apostasy is statutory? Thanks, Oh, well (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just my opinion here, but I think that the Iraqi and Afghanistan civilian death toll would be considerably lower if these were Christian countries. So, in my personal ethos I would count each of those deaths (only the difference in civilian death toll, mind you) as an execution for apostasy. 84.2.147.177 (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That depends on the time period. Due to the relative weakness of the Church today, it is unable to execute people for apostasy, but, back when it was at it's peak power, it could, and did. See Spanish Inquisition. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

is it usual or possible to get a ba in music from a conservatory

or does a ba only come from universities?

In the UK only a university can award a bachelor's degree. However, some conservatoires in the UK are departments of a University so can award degrees, usually through that university. I'm thinking of, for example, Birmingham City University which took over Birmingham School of Music (Conservatoire) in the 1980s. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Royal Conservatoire of Scotland awards its own bachelor's degrees (from 1993; before then the degrees were awarded by the University of Glasgow, but it was never a department of the university). Graduate degrees are issued by the University of St Andrews (I don't know why not Glasgow or Strathclyde - I suspect politics). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for this respponse. I'm also interested in other countries! (esp. european ones). I know this is hrder to track down... --80.99.254.208 (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Entrance Hall

Another dumb blonde question: How is "entrance hall" related to Colleges?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have some context for us ? Perhaps it means a hall (large room) where entrance exams are given ? StuRat (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

An obvious answer perhaps but many building have what is termed an entrance hall; I assume that most colleges will also have one. Gurumaister (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I heard it in conversation, however don't remember the exact words. A hall (large room) where entrance exams are given sounds like what I remember in the conversation. From what you gentlemen are saying, it also then fits foyer.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The only circumstances in which I can possibly imagine interpreting "entrance hall" as something to do with an entrance exam would be if I had already had it explained that in the particular institution under discussion had such a naming convention (but I have never heard of such an institution). I would say that you safe in assuming that an entrance hall is a hall (I think Americans would say "lobby") by which one might enter a building. --ColinFine (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And if I was asked what an "entrance hall" was, in general, that's what I would say. However, I was trying to find an answer that specifically related to colleges. StuRat (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, since commencement speeches are given after students have finished their studies, maybe an entrance hall is the place from which they exit the college and go out into the world. I only mean that half-jokingly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sinn Féin's nationalism

Is Sinn Féin's nationalism civic, ethnic or somewhere in between? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think it would be primarily religion based (Catholic), and also somewhat ethnic (but this is complicated by some of the Protestants being English and some Irish). StuRat (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally, the Social Democratic and Labour Party were more civic nationalist and Sinn Féin were very heavily religious/ethnic nationalist. With the weakening of the SDLP as a major force in Northern Irish politics however, Sinn Féin has been picking up more moderate and liberal nationalists. Smurrayinchester 19:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest the ideological division between the SDLP and Sinn Féin was primarily about the correct approach to achieving a united Ireland, respectively by peaceful means or by "armed struggle". (Indeed, the link to the article on Civic (or Liberal) Nationalism quoted by the OP specifically comments that Sinn Féin are liberal nationalists). A brief view of Sinn Féin's policies on Equality displays none of the Blut und Boden style thinking typical of ethnic nationalism. The only Sinn Féin policy which has an element of ethnic nationalism is support for the Irish language, but this is not to the denigration of English [7]. Moreover comments that Sinn Féin are "religion-based" are very wide of the mark. For historical reasons, Irish Catholics have mainly been nationalists and (in the last century or so at least) nationalists have mainly been Catholics, but Sinn Féin's policies are not especially in keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church on social issues; for example they support same-sex marriage [8]. With regard to StuRat's comments, none of the Protestants in Ireland (North or South) are "English" (with the obvious exception of people born in England who have gone to live there). Some are descended from English settlers who settled there several hundred years ago, and at least as many are descended from Scots settlers. However, none are English or Scots now, although those Protestants who are Unionists maintain that they are British (which is no more an ethnicity than American is). Others who are more versed in the subtleties of Irish politics may wish to add more, but I felt a corrective was needed to responses thus far. Valiantis (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

honorary doctorate

Notable author Jane Schmoe receives an honorary doctorate from XYZ University (I'm not sure of the occasion for the doctorate but I think commencement speakers traditionally receive them, so that's one possibility).

To what extent is it expected and/or acceptable to refer to her as "Dr. Schmoe" in her later doings, if she doesn't have any other doctoral degrees besides the honorary one?

Thanks.

67.117.145.9 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not generally expected at all. Some honorary awardees who don't have their own earned degrees insist on being called "Doctor", but most don't. I'd go for the default case unless the person indicates otherwise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

From Debrett's: "In practice, when a well-known figure outside the academic world receives an honorary doctorate, the recipient does not generally adopt the title of 'Doctor', especially when he or she already has other styles or titles, for example a peer, an officer in the Armed Forces, a judge, etc. This, however, is a matter of the recipient's choice." (http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/professions/academics/doctor.aspx) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the person I have in mind is in the academic world. Does that change things? I don't think she refers to herself as Dr. Schmoe though. At least her personal website doesn't mention it as far as I notice. (And that Debretts page says surgeons aren't supposed to be called Dr. That's the first I ever heard of that. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That practice varies from country to country. Some surgeons insist on "Mr", as if being tarred with a common-or-garden "Dr" is somehow beneath them. Reverse snobbery of the worst kind, imo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It's rare, but not unknown; in general, it's only done if the person uses it themselves, cf/ Ian Paisley, in which case it's a matter of personal preference as to whether or not you do. If they don't use it themselves and you still refer to them as Dr. Schmoe in the knowledge that they only have an honorary degree, it's going to seem implicitly sarcastic or mocking - which, of course, may be intended... Shimgray | talk | 22:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I still see see Paisley being referred to as "Dr Ian Paisley" in the press, even though he's been Lord Bannside for nigh on 2 years now. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Most academics, for whom a Masters, Doctorate (PhD) or Habilitation is a "no-ticket-no-start" work qualification, as well as an example of research output, are aware of what a DLitt (Hon.) means, and how it differs from a DLitt. People usually end up judging each other based on quality and quantity of research output. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, this person has an MA (and an honorary doctorate) and is a professor of journalism, and a Wikipedia article mentions her as Dr. So-and-so. I'm wondering whether to ask for it to be changed. Thanks for any advice. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorary_degree#Practical_use has the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ib30 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It might help if you told us which Wikipedia page you're referring to. You could also raise this question on the talk page for that article. RudolfRed (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The page is John Forbes Nash, Jr. The external links section mentions a video by his biographer "Dr. Sylvia Nasar". Prof. Nasar's academic background is in her faculty profile here and the only doctoral degree mentioned is an honorary one from De Paul University. I thought about putting an edit request on the article's talkpage, but decided to ask here first what the usual way to deal with this was. Thanks. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What about Dr. J.? --Jayron32 23:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In this case, it would be correct to refer to her as Sylvia Nasar (or as Professor Nasar). She doesn't use the doctorate herself; I'm guessing this is someone trying to be correct and going a little too far... Shimgray | talk | 13:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Vijay Mallya has an honorary doctorate and uses Dr before his name. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant point of information. Dr (David) Carey had an honorary ecclesiastical doctorate and used it. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

When you say Dr. Carey, do you mean the Archbishop? He had a variety of honorary degrees, but he also had a "real" PhD. (Our article claims it was from Durham, but Who's Who gives London.) Shimgray | talk | 13:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Kitty did specify Dr David Carey, not Archbishop George Carey. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've known a few different D.D. holders in the USA who were typically addressed as "Dr. ___", although they didn't refer to themselves that way. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Mormons abroad and learning native languages

Since Mormons never mission in their own country (apparently), does that mean that there are Mormons in some country who actually sit down and learn Swedish just to go to Sweden and knock doors and speak with people in their native language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard that Mormons don't mission in their own country. I got the impression that most, if not all, are American, but why wouldn't they mission within America? Ib30 (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

LDS church members do have missions in the US. Some go door to door here, as elsewhere, and some serve their missions at various museums and historical sites throughout the US. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We do have an article on the subject if it helps: Mormon missionary. -- œ^™ 23:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I never heard the word "mission" used as a verb before. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And what about it in the gerund form missioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ib30 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This is Swenglish. The Swedish word for 'evangelise' is 'missionera', literally 'to mission'. One of those false friends. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It was discovered recently that they don't operate in Ireland. They're working on correcting this glaring O'Mission. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Very funny. I have a friend who is from a Mormon family (he is not observant, himself), from Utah, and his brother is missioning in Peru.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The ones in France speak French, to varying degrees of fluency, but they always have a native speaker with them. (Actually, I am more amazed that there are native French-speaking Mormons than I am that American Mormons would learn French.) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Some come here to Australia and cope with our version of English. Given the trouble I had ordering a Coke in the US, that's no mean feat. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember the day I had a knock on my door. There were two young men in white shirts and name tags. The first name tag said "Elder Smith". I asked if his friend's name was Goldsbrough Mort, but he just looked blankly at me. True story. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you linked Goldsbrough Mort. I understood the story without the link but otherwise I doubt if anyone but Australians aged over 50 with rural connections would have a clue what you're talking about! HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The story was mainly for your benefit, HiLo. The link was for others.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Mormons certainly do proselytize in the United States. But they may concentrate on cultural environments that are particularly alien to Mormonism. I saw them particularly often when I lived in San Francisco, which they might consider especially in need of salvation. This page suggests that Mormons really do learn Swedish to proselytize in Sweden. Marco polo (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that they proselytize in US, but concentrate in certain areas. College towns, for instance, have a much higher incidence in my experience. As to the confusion on where they will go on mission: I believe there is a strong tradition at least that the mission takes place somewhere else, i.e. not in one's hometown. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds right; I've seen missionaries several times in Bloomington, Indiana, and one of the very few times I've seen them otherwise (and the only time I've talked with them outside of Bloomington) was in West Lafayette, Indiana. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Please don't complain about my willingness to visit Purdue while an IU student :-)

Here's a little bit about how LDS missions work. Each missionary applies to, serve a mission. When you apply you'll indicate things like health problems, languages spoken, time spent in foreign countries, etc. All the applications are then sent to a central office which then responds back with a mission call. The mission call specifies what mission you'll go to and what language you'll speak. So you may be called to go to, for example, San Fransisco, Laotian speaking or to Laos, Laotian speaking or to Sweden, Swedish speaking. You can be called to anywhere in the world, either in your home country or elsewhere, but not to where you currently live. After you accept your mission call (which nearly, but not all, people do) you then report to a Missionary Training Center on a specified date. If you will be speaking your native language, you spend a couple of weeks there before you head out to your assigned mission. If you're learning another language, you'll spend about two months learning the language at the Training Center before you're sent out. The new missionary is then assigned to another missionary and a city or area. Sometimes one or both of them will be native speakers, but often that's not the case. So both of those white shirted missionaries may have never even heard of your language a year ago... Tobyc75 (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The American LDS missionaries I met in Taiwan some 30+ years ago were well-known among the foreign student population for being excellent linguists. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

February 20

How much capabilites does Israel need to attack Iran?

Is the army of Israel ready for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPPaul (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Israel Defense Forces are quite large and, while it's never admitted it, Israel is generally believed to have nuclear weapons (although if it tried to use them against Iran as anything but a retaliation for a nuclear strike by Iran, it would get in rather a lot of trouble with the rest of the world). So, it could give Iran a good fight. What would actually happen depends a lot on how the rest of the world views the conflict - there is a good chance that other countries would get involved (particularly the US), which would make a very big difference. There, we're into the realms of trying to predict the future course of international relations in the Middle East, and I doubt even a crystal ball would help us there! --Tango (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, first off, it probably wouldn't involve the army at all, but rather the Israeli Air Force. Here are some things they would likely need to attack Iran successfully:

1) The right to overfly some Arab nations. Different flight paths are possible, which would travel over different nations. While many of those nations don't want to see Iran get nuclear weapons, and would love to see Israel disrupt their program, they can't politically allow such overflights. So, more likely, Israel would fly over without public support from those nations. They might either get private guarantees of safe conduct or might just take their chances and bet that any half-hearted response from those nations will be ineffective.

2) Mid-air refueling capability. It's a long way to Iran and back to Israel, so they would need to refuel. Again, landing in an Arab nation to refuel is probably not politically possible. Of course, both the need for overflight and refueling would be eliminated by the use of US aircraft carriers, but that's also politically impossible in the current climate, and any situation where it would be possible, such as if Iran engages in full-scale attacks on ships in Persian Gulf, would result in US planes flown from US aircraft carriers.

3) Bunker-buster bombs, made to penetrate to underground labs.

4) Commando teams would be even more effective, but delivering them and extracting them without use of a land base adjacent to Iran is likely impossible.

5) Unmanned aircraft or long-range missiles might eliminate many of the problems, as they could be used one-way to attack, which removes the requirement to refuel, and having their pilots shot down, captured and put on trial would no longer be a concern. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a long article on this very topic in this morning's New York Times. I will just point out that what they are "ready for" depends on what one thinks their goals are. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility is that Israel could use something like their Delilah UAV and cruise missile system to deliver bombs on target with minimal risk. Those 30 kg warheads wouldn't do much damage, but could evoke a response from Iran that brings in the US. As such, that might be the way for Israel to ultimately take out Iranian nuclear capability with minimal risk to themselves. And, if Iran prudently refused to escalate, Israel could still try a more conventional air strike. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

XPPaul -- Israel can do a 5- or 10-plane raid against one narrowly-specific non-hardened target extending over a relatively small area (such as Osirak or Deir ez-Zor) with relatively little problem -- and in fact the Israelis spend a lot of time and effort planning and training to keep up their capability to commit such raids. However, the problem is that an attack on Iran would have to target fairly widely dispersed (and in many cases partially hardened) infrastructure in order to have a good chance of delaying Iran's ability to assemble nuclear weapons by at least five years. (Any attack which set Iran back by less than five years probably wouldn't be worth it for Israel.) This means that it would have to go well beyond a stealth squadron raid, and be more of a full-scale attack, committing a significant fraction of Israel's air forces, leading to some of the logistical/political complications mentioned by others above. AnonMoos (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a fantasy. Israel lacks the airstrike assets to eliminate Iran's nuclear program, since the program is likely widely dispersed, hidden in the basements of hospitals, schools and orphanages, and in hardened sites under mountains. "Bunker busters" were notably unsuccessful in getting rid of Saddam when the US used them in Iraq. A raid by a few planes with a few conventional bombs? Be real. Edison (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A nuclear weapons program doesn't fit in a spider-hole. According to the New York Times article linked to previously by Mr. 98, Iran has 4 main facilities, and their locations are known: "Iran’s four major nuclear sites — the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo, the heavy-water reactor at Arak and the yellowcake-conversion plant at Isfahan". There's no evidence they are using civilian shields. The smaller Israeli bunker busters might not be up to the task, but the huge US bombs are. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is an article that discusses the NYT piece. According to German security expert Hans Rühle, Israel's most powerful bunker buster bomb GBU-28 has the capability to destroy the roof of the hardened nuclear facilities. If the first GBU-28 strike does not eliminate the entire facility, it will be completed by a second GBU-28. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This may be old, but interesting. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sturat:

Obviously, in war, there is no "zbang and we're finished", as Israelis used to say. An enemy can always rebuild what has been destroyed over the long term, if given the opportunity. (Another way one Israeli commander put it is "the can be no Knockout, only a victory on points). The question, as others have said, is about causing a significant setback to the Iranian nuclear program.

1) As to overflying rights, I doubt the countries in the way (Jordan, Syria, and Iraq) have a practical anti-air capacity of the sort which Israel cannot overcome with some clever routing and stealth technology. I'd assume a very limited use for any ground-to-air systems in denying airspace for overflights. You simply fly round them, if you can figure out where they are. And as to engaging air-to-air... the Syrian air force, for one, probably wouldn't even bother trying. Nor would the Iraqi air force, to the degree which it even exists. Jordan may be a more difficult problem, as Israel wouldn't want to damage its' relationship with them if it can help it. Plausible deniability may be enough for the Jordanians to turn a blind eye, though.

2) Israel already has mid-air refueling capability. I doubt Israel has planes designed to land on Aircraft Carriers. Besides, if they use U.S. aircraft carriers, the U.S. might as well do the attacking themselves, as you imply.

3) Does Israel have "Tactical" Nuclear weapons, of the sort which would be useful for localized Bunker-busting, rather than city-razing? Any expert guesses on this question?

4) Israel has used commandos, and we may likely yet see more such operations. Extraction is always risky, and your cover can be blown. That's just the nature of such operations. But Israel got pretty much its' entire team out of Dubai intact after killing Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Such operations make excellent Psychological warfare, as they force Iran to ramp up internal security and counter-infiltration resources. Militarily, though, they likely do rather limited damage. So commandos are presumably an option being used. The target set they can hit is quite limited, though. Each strike is very resource intensive, so they are pretty much drip-drip "spot" operations, not wide-scale ones.

The target set depends on intelligence gathering and overcoming hardened targets. Israel seems to have a surprisingly well-developed human-intelligence network in Iran, as evidenced by the successful killings of Nuclear Scientists. But big challenges likely remain in this area. 58.111.178.170 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why Israel?

couldn't the jews have chosen another place to create a jewish state? Something like a part of Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPPaul (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Vaguely speaking, Israel is the birthplace of Judaism. Most of the significant events described in the Jewish scriptures happened in the region which now makes up the nation of Israel. See Origins of Judaism. Staecker (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

they/we have a bunch of very holy stuff (jewish religious law/its interpretation says jews were 'given' this land) you can't move easily or would lose its holy significance. otherwise i have heard some very good ideas that would be win/win/win/win/win/WIN all around, with israel the biggest winner of all. but you cant rewrite this religious stuff (well you can't, its just outside my personal level of persuation as (not) a religious scholar). 84.2.147.177 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

do note that it should be possible (to reinterpret in the win/win/win/win/win/WIN way): just read the torah and compare it with what is followed literally if you want to know how much leeway is possible. 84.2.147.177 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

See British Uganda Programme, Jewish Autonomous Oblast, and other things mentioned in Proposals for a Jewish state. Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Also see Slattery Report, and the alternate historical fiction, The Yiddish Policemen's Union. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

84.2.147.177 -- See Kamal Salibi for someone who "rewrote this religious stuff" (but it didn't resolve anything). -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And we should also ask "Why Palestine ?". That is, Palestine being such a tiny portion of the Muslim world, the Palestinians could easily be absorbed into neighboring nations, if those nations would allow it. Instead, they prefer to keep the Palestinians on their soil confined to refugee camps permanently. The only thing they seem willing to give the Palestinians is weapons. StuRat (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The alternative to Palestine for Palestinians who want to remain there is ethnic cleansing, which is considered a crime against humanity. Marco polo (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Marco Polo -- there have been a lot of population exchanges during the 20th century (between Turkey and Greece, between Pakistan and India, etc. etc.). Some Israelis consider the decade roughly 1947-1958 to be a de facto population exchange, since slightly more than a million Arabs left territories which became Israel, while slightly less than a million Jews left Arab countries and arrived in Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a rather vague term, meaning everything from genocide down to forced relocation and "no right of return", in this case. And, of course, forced relocation (at the very least) is exactly what the Palestinian goal is for Israeli Jews. Also consider that Jerusalem was Jewish first, and is the holiest city for Jews, while, at best, it's third for Muslims, after Mecca and Medina (perhaps lower for Shia Muslims, who also have holy cities for their own sect, such as Najaf). StuRat (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we please end the soapboxing right here? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

To respond directly to the original question, Zionists chose Palestine as a place to encourage Jewish settlement because, as others have said, Jewish sacred texts said that their god had granted much of that region to Jews. I would point out, though, that archaeology and texts from Egypt and Mesopotamia (as well as the Hebrew Bible itself) demonstrate that Canaan had a long history of occupation by a variety of cultural and religious groups before any group identifiably Israelite (i.e., culturally and perhaps genetically ancestral to Jews) appeared in the region. Even Jerusalem existed as a city long before Israelites or Jews lived there. So it isn't right that Jews were in the region first. Jews were one of a series of cultural groups that lived in the region. They were probably the predominant group in the region from about 1000 BCE until about 300 CE, when Greek and/or Aramaic-speaking Christians (many probably descended from Jews and their pre-Jewish ancestors) began to predominate in the region, though a small group of (Greek and/or Aramaic-speaking) Jews remained in the region. From about 900 CE, until about 1950, several decades after the emergence of Zionism, the region was overwhelmingly Arabic speaking, with a Muslim majority (very likely largely likewise descended from Jews), a large Christian minority and (until the late 1800s) a much smaller, also Arabic-speaking Jewish minority. So it is not as simple as "Jews were there first". Jews and their descendants (among whom are many Palestinians) were not first, but have been there since the emergence of Judaism some way into the region's history. The relatively recent development of a Hebrew-speaking Jewish majority is a consequence of Zionism. Marco polo (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

By "first" I meant "before Muslims", as the presence of ethnic groups there prior to that, which no longer exist, is irrelevant. StuRat (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

But as Marco has said, before the Muslims were there the whole area was Christian. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

To be exact, in 600 AD the majority of the population would have been somewhat-Hellenized Aramaic-speaking Monophysite "Syrians"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, but how is that relevant ? StuRat (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you think that Israel should belong to the people who had it "before the Muslims", then that's the Greek/Syrian Christians. Oh but they don't count, so the people before them...but that's the pagan Greeks/Romans. But before them! Well then you get the Jews, but why stop there? Why not give it back to the descendents of the Phoenicians? If we're not allowed to go back past the Jews, why are we allowed to skip past the groups that lived there immediately before the Muslims? And are modern Jews really the same ethnic group as the Jews who used to live there? (I'm not saying Israel doesn't deserve to exist as a "Jewish state", I'm just saying "they were there before the Muslims" is not a particularly useful argument.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The current conflict is between Muslims and Jews, so only the relative weights of their claims matter. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Arab Christians in the area would object to that formulation... AnonMoos (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And are they trying to create their own nation there ? StuRat (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question actually. Where do Palestinian Christians fit into all this? It's always portrayed as a Jewish-Muslim struggle, when it's obviously much more complicated than that. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

StuRat -- through most of the period from the 1960s to the 1990s, the quasi-"official" Palestinian leadership avoided identifying Palestinian nationalism with Islamism, and Christians like George Habash were some of the biggest terrorists; and after the establishment of the Palestinian authority, Arafat made a point of showing up in in Bethlehem every Christmas, etc. etc. Some of that separation between nationalism and Islamism has now faded somewhat with the rise of Hamas etc., the way that Muslim gunmen used a Christian neighborhood to fire on Gilo, so that it would be the Christians who suffered the brunt of Israeli retaliation, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Marco Polo -- What you've said isn't wrong exactly, but you left out the fact that the reason why Jews lost population predominance in Judea-Galilee was due to the First Jewish Revolt and Second Jewish Revolt, and discriminatory or oppressive Roman and Byzantine policies in the aftermath... AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In summary:

• Judaism, as an originally tribal religion, is to a great extent associated with the "Holy Land," and it had been a dream of the Jews to reclaim it ever since they lost it to the Romans.
• There was already a Jewish population there (the Yishuv).
• The territory is a neutral ground of sorts between the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe and the Mizrahi Jews of the Middle East and North Africa.
• The territory was thought in some sense to be "up for grabs" as it was part of the crumbling Ottoman Empire not generally inhabited by Turks. There was a sense during World War I that there would be all this terra nullius in the formerly Ottoman Middle East for the Allies to carve up how they wished after the war was over. This led the British to issue the Balfour Declaration of 1917 in the hope of getting Jewish support for the war. In fact, the Allies were promising a lot of things to a lot of people while secretly planning to keep everything themselves. Nonetheless, it's easy to see how a Jewish state in the former Ottoman Empire was a lot more practical than putting one in defeated Germany, for instance.
• Ottoman Palestine was thought, rightly or wrongly, to be A land without a people for a people without a land. It was considered (not without reason) underpopulated, and, at the time, there was no real "Palestinian" Arab identity that was separate from Arab identity as a whole. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Mwalcoff -- The "land without a people for a people without a land" slogan was loosely thrown around by 19th-century theoretical Zionists in Europe, but was not very prominently used by Jews actually living in British Mandate Palestine during the 1920s and 1930s. It stemmed more from the fact that many Europeans who visited Ottoman Palestine in the mid 19th century (and were not blinded by Biblical goggles) perceived it to be a pathetic crumbling misgoverned semi-wasteland (see The Innocents Abroad) rather than from any militantly dispossessionist characteristics of Zionist ideology. P.S. The standard accepted word for "pan-Arab nationalism" in the modern Arabic language -- قومية qawmiyya -- most literally means "tribalism"! AnonMoos (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

How did Rastafaris come to believe in Haile Selassie I?

There's a germ of an explanation in Rastafari movement#Emergence, but it still boggles my mind. How did so many people in Jamaica come to think of a seemingly unassuming Ethiopian emperor as a Messiah? The article points out that he was at one point a famous black man in a European-dominated world, received by kings and queens as an equal, the inheritor of the one country in Africa which defied colonization. That I can understand. Still, he was merely succeeding Zewditu I of Ethiopia; so far as I see here he had no written testament that people follow, and he took a decidedly hands-off approach to the religion, which doesn't seem to have penetrated Ethiopia itself, and followed Christianity himself. He was criticized by Marcus Garvey for leaving Ethiopia during Axis occupation, and seems like he should have gotten criticized a lot more for allowing the List of massacres committed during the Eritrean War of Independence. Though I understand his power was waning in favor of Marxist elements in the government, wouldn't a Messiah have done something about that? I mean, by comparison, Emperor Norton I reportedly stopped an anti-Chinese pogrom with the power of a prayer. I just can't see how a few street preachers managed to talk so many people into holding and maintaining a belief in Selassie's divinity. Wnt (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There was some kind of quasi-Garveyite prophecy that a king would be crowned in Aftrica, and Haile Selassie received extremely prominent international news coverage for the incident in 1936, when addressed the League of Nations and warned the democracies that if they didn't effectively act against the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, then sooner or later their own time would come. That was the one moment between the legends of Prester John and "We are the World" when a large number of people in far distant places really concerned themselves with Ethiopia... AnonMoos (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

An article by Garvey about the coronation in 1930 is here. Garvey wrote that: "The Psalmist prophesied that "Princes would come out of Egypt and Ethiopia would stretch forth her hands unto God" (Psalm 68:31). We have no doubt that the time is now come. Ethiopia is now really stretching forth her hands. This great kingdom of the East has been hidden for many centuries, but gradually she is rising to take a leading place in the world and it is for us of the Negro race to assist in every way to hold up the hand of Emperor Ras Tafari." Another key initiator of Rastafarianism was Leonard Howell (Gong Guru Maragh), whose pamphlet The Promise Key - here - says: "Upon His Majesty Ras Tafari’s head are many diadems and on His garments a name written “King of Kings and Lord of Lords", Oh come let us adore him for he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, The Conquering Lion of Judah, The Elect of God and the Light of the World. His Majesty Ras Tafari is the head over all man for he is the Supreme God. His body is the fullness of him that filleth all in all. Now my dear people let this be our goal, forward to the King of Kings must be the cry of our social hope...." See also Grounation Day. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, that article on The Promise Key makes a brief reference to "repatriation" to Ethiopia. I suppose that today, it is hard to picture how utterly appalling and oppressive the race prejudice against black people was back then, and so perhaps the notion of repatriation under a native Ethiopian king, with some degree of scriptural prophecy invoked surrounding it, fell on fertile ground? Yet it still seems hard to understand how it retained its pull as the world changed. Wnt (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

On consideration, I wonder whether a better comparison is to Joan of Arc and Charles VII of France? Perhaps when a nation, or a continent, is invaded and brought to ruin and humiliation, there comes a time when the people will perceive divinity in its remaining authority. Wnt (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want a historical example of a king elevated into the god of a new religion established outside of the territories of his kingdom, then the so-called "mad caliph" Hakim more or less qualifies. In any case, the basic patterns of Rastafarianism seem to have been established long before the Eritrean War of Independence etc... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Map confusion

Red and blue lines (on the bottom, Galicia of Austria-Hungary

Okay, this map is really confusing me. It's of the Eastern Front of World War I. I'm focusing on the blue and red lines with arrows that I assume are troop movements (I could be wrong, the map doesn't verify), and I'm confused as to which lines belong to which sides (allies or central powers). On the Galician theater, it seems as if they're both Russian offences, but as I said I'm not sure. Any help? 64.229.204.143 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Russian troops are marked in blue. Austro-German troops are marked in red. Austro-German start lines are marked in thick dashed red (1 September). Austro-German offensives are marked with small red arrows, following a dashed-small red path, to their stop lines in thick red (20 September). In the South, Austrian forces attacked, and were repulsed in a strong Russian counter-offensive. Russian forces largely deployed without being in contact, ie, without clear "start lines". We can also see the "lightning" movement indicator for the deployment in Eastern Germany / Western Poland of German troops. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. There are a few confusing things about this map:

1) Russia being represented by blue. Of course, this was before they were communist, but still isn't what you'd expect.

2) Like any map showing differences over several dates, this results in one area sometimes being in German hands, and sometimes in Russian. I find a series of maps, one for each date, to be far clearer. Traditionally, they did it all on one map to save space in a book, but, with modern technology, we can have forward and back buttons to allow you to step through frames, or let it run as a movie, without taking up much more space on the page.

3) A clear key/legend would help. StuRat (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

@3 - a lot of these military maps conform, to some extent, to the NATO Military Symbols for Land Based Systems (or to the US MIL STD that preceded it). That's not much help for this image, other than showing unit sizes. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's best not to go by surnames, since Paul von Rennenkampf was a Russian! -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

US Restraurant Reviews

Which website do I go to to find reviews of restraurants in the United States? I'm not a US citizen and I'm visiting the US soon. 202.177.218.59 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge number of review sites out there but one of the biggest is TripAdvisor. It has a section on restaurants (http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurants). ny156uk (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yelp.com, Google Reviews, take your pick. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Zagat's Guide is always reliable if you will be in a particular city or region. Shadowjams (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And there's the Michelin Guide, which, despite the sound, doesn't rate food by how much it resembles car tires in flavor and texture. Here's their guide online, for New York City: [9]. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Urban Spoon (no article?! redirected...) also has ratings and reviews. Many of these have smart phone apps as well if you're wondering. Dismas|^(talk) 04:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Another possible source is Wikitravel, which discusses restaurants in its coverage of some places. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're visiting the US you will need a good general guidebook. Don't just rely on websites. The best is the Rough Guide, which includes short but useful reviews of restaurants in every major city. --Viennese Waltz 06:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

February 21

Specialty hospitals and emergency situations

If EMS responds to an emergency situation like a heart attack where someone has one foot at the Pearly Gates and one foot slipping on a banana peel, or if there's a huge mass casualty, will EMS take the patient(s) to a specialty hospital like a children's hospital (even if the patient is an adult), a VA hospital (even if the patient isn't a veteran), or a cancer hospital to get the patient stabilized assuming that the said facility is the nearest facility and has an emergency room? I do know I've heard of civilians being taken to U.S. Naval hospitals on base in such situations. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

See Mass casualty events; the U.S. military and its regional hospitals, and, to a lesser extent, civilian hospitals, conduct mass casualty training for various scenarios; the response would depend greatly upon the type, scale, and location. Dru of Id (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the scent in The Natural where Robert Redford's character is taken to a maternity hospital because it's the closest one. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fishy to me.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad − academic career

According to his official biography, president Ahmadinejad holds a Ph.D. from Iran University of Science and Technology, "wrote many scientific papers" and "supervised theses of tens of students at MS and Ph.D. levels". Do we have details on his papers and his Ph.D. thesis (titles, contents, journals, publication dates)? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Check coverage from the time of his election, there were many bio articles in the paper. Most were somewhat favorable, which I doubt you'd see much of in a Western paper these days.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hamid Behbahani was his PHD supervisor, according to media reports, of course. However you don't need to be very excited about the fact that Ahmadinejad has a PHD from an Iranian university because many PHD students in Iran write thesis denying Holocaust. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

American education system vs Indian system

My friend who stays in USA visited last week and when he saw my textbooks he said that they are really difficult and education in USA is more easy and there is less burden on students. Is this really true . you can have a idea by last years 12th standard maths Question paper Rahul^{Text me} 11:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)