Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

September 12

Edward G. Robinson + feeding pigs = in what film ?

Hello L.H. (Learned Humanitarians) ! In Chief of Hearts (The Simpsons, 2010) , I saw the great EGR as a cameo, associated with pigs feeding from some unidentified cruor in a shed : what film does it refer to ? Thanks beforehand for your answers. Arapaima (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big Simpsons fan, though I don't recall any Robinson film with Pigs (that doesn't mean there wasn't any) could it just be a inside joke with the Simpsons, possibly just ridiculing the fact that Robinson is an immigrant from Eastern Europe and could have easily grown up as a poor pig farmer? Just guessing here. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The montage shows scenes which remind Homer of Clancy. Clancy resembles Robinson, and, unfortunately (due to the slang word "pig" meaning a police man) he also resembles a pig. See the last sentence in the 2nd to last paragraph here: [1]. I don't believe there is any real movie with both Robinson and pigs. StuRat (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly to all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.73.201 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. Are you Arapaima ? If so, may we mark this Q resolved ? StuRat (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could be The Red House (film), where he plays a farmer.John Z (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. I thought there'd be some hint at a film, since The Simpson's cultural references are sometimes deliciously far-fetched...BTW, yes, it was me, riding one of my old iMacs (these dear old hags, with their OS 9 or X, don't know how to log in, but they are so sweet to use...). T.Y. , Arapaima (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International waters on the Great Lakes?

It is 12 Nautical miles but also 3 nautical miles for civil law? Each North American Great Lake spans more than that. Or does the 3 and 12 only apply to saltwater? Marketdiamond (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes. The Great Lakes are split right down the middle between the US and Canada, except in places with special provisions (for islands and such), so there are no international waters there. StuRat (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know thanks for the quick reply! Marketdiamond (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. The actual border shows up on any good map. I'll mark this Q resolved. StuRat (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "Pretty much, yes." to what? Is that answering the first or the second question asked? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had to think about that for a second, but the last question, and StuRats context explains it further. If I have it right no part of any Great Lake is not at least claimed by either the U.S. or Canada, the borders are "right down the middle" usually. Referencing maps also confirmed, RATS to my Casino boat out of Cleveland idea ala SunCruz Casinos no wonder Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis had to move to Florida from Toronto to do it, lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least in this case, the international waters rule does not apply. I suspect it's not so much that the water isn't salty, but that you would have to travel through the territory of one nation or the other to get there that makes this ineligible to be international waters. For example, the Great Salt Lake is 28 miles wide at parts, but I believe it's still entirely US territory. The whole idea of international waters is to allow safe conduct of vessels which might otherwise be molested by the navies of the nations which claim them. However, in the Great Lakes, nobody has any business being there without the permission of the US or Canada, since there is no place to go on them other than the US or Canada. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

For the curious, a little historical context is here. Alansplodge (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's a small triangle of water between Alaska and BC which each side wants to pawn off on the other. Is that where poisonous jellyfish hang out, or what ? :-) StuRat (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we just want to have our own Bir Tawil underwater. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice link Alansplodge! Marketdiamond (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to find a little more about the boundary commission, whom I imagine sitting in a rowing boat with a map and compass arguing about where the border line should go; however it's more likely that they used a pencil and ruler in a well heated office somewhere. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heard they sometimes just use darts and blindfolds after a long night of drinking, would explain the non-logic of some border areas. lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do most republics have ceremonial presidents?

I've wondered why there are several republics have presidents who have mostly ceremonial roles. I can understand a monarchy where the head of state has limited powers, as usually they are monarchies for tradition or tourism, but why republics? Wouldn't it be more logical for republics to have presidential systems where the president is both head of state and head of government, or even a semi-presidential system like in Russia or France where the prime minister is more or less an assistant to the president and is basically a more powerful vice president? Why is this the case in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One answer grounded in realism, but without a source: A ceremonial head of state can be tasked with doing all sorts of time-consuming ceremonial things that a head of government would rather not spend the time on. Some potential examples can be seen in Head_of_state#Symbolic_role. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Having a ceremonial figurehead helps by having someone go to state dinners, state funerals, etc., leaving the real leader free to spend his time doing more useful things. StuRat (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec2) Having a president with limited political power allows him/her to be more impartial in representing the nation. The president doesn't need to be involved in campaigning or mud-throwing. Similar to a monarch, such a president can be somewhat neutral figure that facilitates stable foreign relations. - Lindert (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a historical context too. Countries that have changed from a monarchy to a republic can keep the same apparatus of government by giving the president a similar role to the displaced monarch. Greece is an example of this, who deposed King Constantine and established the Third Hellenic Republic in a referendum in 1973. In post WWI Germany and Austria, the new presidents had less power than the emperors that they replaced, but otherwise the system remained the same. In the Republic of Ireland, where there had previously been no self-governance, they were able to adopt system based on the Westminster model that they were familiar with, with the president replacing the role of the king. In the post-colonial period, many Commonwealth countries were actively encouraged by Britain to go down this line, if they didn't want to retain the Queen as head of State. See also Westminster system#Role of head of state. Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a mistake in the answer above - Ireland first became independent as the Irish Free State which had Dominion status. The head of state was still the king, who appointed a Governor-General on the advice of the Irish cabinet. This continued until 1937 when the office of President of Ireland was created to take over the powers of the Governor-General. India had a similar but shorter transitional phase as a dominion. Alansplodge (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russian patronyms

How do you say the patronyms "son of Louis" or "daughter of Louis" in Russian?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Slavic naming customs has some background. It doesn't list any cognates of Louis/Lewis/Ludwig in Russian, but Louis (given name) has an interlanguage link to the Russian wikipedia, so you could combine that with the standard patronymic rules from Russian and work out a reasonable answer. --Jayron32 16:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian equivalent to Louis is Людовик (Lyudovik), which doesn't seem to be a particularly popular name in Russia. The patronymics are Людовикович (Lyudovikovich), e.g. Пётр Людовикович Драверт, and Людовиковна (Lyudovikovna), e.g. Лела Людовиковна Цурцумия. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to transliterate (those of us who are completely familiar with Cyrillic easily forget exactly how confusing those look to people who don't), those two very long names that Kpalion posted are Pyotr Lyudovikovich Dravert and Lela Lyudovikovna Tsurtsumiya. --Mr.98 (talk)

And in case anyone is interested, Dravert is a Russian scientist, poet and writer; and Lela Tsurtsumia is "the most popular" Georgian pop/folk singer. Astronaut (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is a Greek Orthodox country. There is no reason for a French Catholic name to be popular there. In imperial Russia, the name Louis was usually changed to Ludwig. The surname "Lyudvigovich" is reasonably well known. See Otto Lyudvigovich Struve, for instance. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious police in Saudi Arabia, do they carry firearms?

Do they carry firearms? are they uniformed? Thank you. Timothy. Timothyhere (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on getting some more direct references to answer your question, but in the meantime, the article Legal system of Saudi Arabia has some background information you may find related to your inquiry. --Jayron32 17:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found more. The so-called "religious police" are officially known as the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice or the Mutaween and according to the Wikipedia article, they are currently unarmed, but previously carried wooden canes as weapons. That article, and the related article Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia has some more background as well. --Jayron32 17:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Timothyhere (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the economy a "renewable resource"?

Hi. While arguing spastically one day my mind conjured up this unusual question. Basically, what I think my question means is: can an economy return its net revenue toward creating more resources that in turn generate more revenue? I'm not considering "pulling money out of thin air", though wind energy could work if more efficient; I'm hoping someone will make sense of my question. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 17:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, you are simply describing the concept of investment. But maybe I have misunderstood you. Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economies can re-invest the money generated in ways that return more investment. There are limits to growth, however (at an absolute physical end, there's the Second Law of Thermodynamics but practical human economies are going to hit that limit long before that). Even renewable resources have finite energy outputs — there is a limited amount of wind energy to be harnessed for example — we're nowhere near it, obviously, and it's a very large number, but it's completely finite. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "net revenue"? Economies are usually measured in terms of production (GDP). Pretty much everything that is produced is then consumed, so the net is essentially zero (there is some investment, which is basically defering consumption until later, and there is some international trade, which involves the production and consumption happening in different countries, but everything gets consumed somewhere in the end). You're basically talking about economic growth, though, so that article may be useful. --Tango (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Nash 's "Over the top" : what precise date ?

Hello L.H. . At what date in 1918 did the Artists Rifles's 1° Battallion scramble over the top to attack towards Marcoing, near Cambrai ? The picture can be seen here : File:NashOverTheTop.jpg. Thanks a lot beforehand. signé Arapaima (I'm using an iMac, & the old miss doesn't know how to log in...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.73.201 (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The full title is "'Over The Top': First Artists' Rifles at Marcoing, 30 December 1917", do you have a reason to doubt that date is correct?—eric 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This particular battle is more often referred to as the "Action at Welsh Ridge"[2], in which the Germans attacked across snow covered ground wearing white camouflage suits, and penetrated a British salient in the line near Cambrai. The 1st Battalion, the Artists' Rifles was ordered to counter-attack. A fuller account can be read in The Regimental Roll of Honour and War Record of the Artists' Rifles (1/28th, 2/28th and 3/28th battalions, the London Regiment T. F.) page xxvi. The modern descendant of the Artists Rifles is 21 Special Air Service Regiment. Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks awfully ! I added the right date to World War I in popular culture & John Nash (artist). Alan, thanks +++ for your excellent docs. Ghastly...My grand-parents owned a farm in that region, & my father (born in 1910) told me that, while playing as a 12 years old boy in the fields with his pals, they would find here and there some half-buried skeleton. And it was to come back 21 years later ! ..T.y. Arapaima (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What were the methods of collecting public housing rent in the 1960s/70s in the UK?

Public housing in the UK in the 50s and 60s was owned by the government or by non-profit organisations. My question is: how did the councils collect these rents? Today, tenants can pay it online, for example. But 60-odd years ago did you have to go to the council with a rent book? Specifically I'd like to know whether or not members of the local council did the rounds collecting the rents from tenants in government properties. I'm thinking about the UK, specifically Glasgow. Thank you! - Kiskispal

Kiskispal (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal knowledge, based on having worked on old housing files: Tenants could pay at a local rent office (of which there would have been many more than there are today) and there were also, certainly in the earlier part of the period, council workers who would call at properties and collect the rent. A rent card or rent book was used to keep a record of payments. DuncanHill (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the Black Country we had a rentman come round every week, then every fortnight after about 1965. This happened to my knowledge right up until the 1990s in that case. I also had a friend in South Yorkshire who was the rent lady for large parts of Rotherham in the 1990s. (My parents kept every single rent book by the way. They paid rent for a total of 48 years.) --TammyMoet (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. We had a rent collector (and insurance collector, and the baker, and the coalman, and the laundryman, and the paperboy, and the milkman....) coming round to every house in my village in the 1950s, and of course all the housewives would usually be at home to deal with them.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the Burnley Express in 2005: "Frank Edwards, one of the country's last council rent collectors, has hung up his cash bag after 17 years." Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From enquiry. Paying rent could be a problem for a single working person. Time needed to be taken off work to go to the rent office to pay in cash there. Easier if you had a housewife. ~~.~

Wasn't the rent payable at the post office back in the late 60s early 70s? I remember going to the post office to pick up my grannies pension and it seems to me that sometimes my friends who lived in public housing being there to put in the rent money. Don't forget that the post office would have been open on Saturday and could be visited during the lunch hour instead of taking time off. Would the rent office have been open on a Saturday too? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this last night for some time. Many utilities (gas, electric, water) had offices/showrooms in towns for people to go to and pay over the counter, and they would be open until at least 1pm on Saturdays (how generous!). Try as I might, I cannot remember my parents ever going anywhere to pay their rent, and can only assume that, if they missed the visit of the rent collector, it would have been my mother going to our nearest council offices during her lunch break. Maybe CBW's right about the post office. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for more information and discovered that you can pay at the post office today. Curious, TammyMoet, but was Saturday half day closing common to all shops? I just can't recall anywhere that closed at 1 pm on Saturdays. Ours was on a Wednesday. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I paid gas, electricity and telephone bills in the way Tammy describes until the mid-1990s. The shops, selling appliances, were open all Saturday afternoon, but the counter at the back where bill payments could be made did indeed close at about 1pm. I also paid Community charge and then Council tax by this method at the counter of my local council's payments office (now closed), where I queued with people waiting to pay their council rent. This office too was open until Saturday lunchtime. (These days, efficiency savings mean direct rent payments are taken by the local sports centre seven days a week, taking advantage of their longer opening hours.) - Ka renjc 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBW I'm a generation removed from all this, being a child of the 50s, but to my recollection Saturday was half-day closing as well as a day in the week (Wednesday or Thursday). Factories in the industrial West Midlands worked a 5 and a half day week AFAIK, and they would then disgorge the men into football grounds. The 2 day "weekend" only became common during the 70s, as did shops being open past 1 pm. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shops in London were open all day on Saturdays in the 1960s, but my father had to work on Saturday mornings at his factory. Banks and offices had a 5-day week though. Not far outside London, shops in small towns and villages were still closing at 3pm on a Saturday in the 1990s. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, everyone. Some interesting facts and recollections, and now I know that the rent collectors did exist. Thanks again! Kiskispal (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Euro/US dollar comparison

Why is saving the euro such a daunting task? Imagine that Texas or California starts increasing their public debt to the highs of Greece or Portugal, would that have any effect on the dollar? I don't see why public debt matters so much. If EU countries had independent currencies, they could devalue their currency and improve their competitiveness. But, US states also have different economies, and are tied by one single currency, why is that not a problem? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European national economies vary more than US state economies. For example, the age of retirement varies more. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the answer may be that a US State cannot legally go bankrupt. Municipalities and certain public entities can go bankrupt under Chapter 9, Title 11, United States Code, but a state cannot declare bankruptcy, and there is no legal path for a state to simply be absolved of its debts. And so while creditors of a state may certainly have doubt as to when they will be payed back, they can have confidence that they will be eventually. So I guess to answer your question, public debt matters because Eurozone members are sovereign states and get to decide what they do with their public debt, whereas US states are stuck obeying a common set of financial regulations. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason states can't go bankrupt is sovereign immunity. Accordingly their recourse is to simply not pay, if they choose. There is no guarantee that state creditors will be paid. The federal government can do the same. The better answer is AnonMoos below. Shadowjams (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see I have grossly misapplied the rule on exceptions to the rule. Municipalities have a bankruptcy procedure precisely because higher forms of government don't need one. But does their immunity truly exist, though? From a legal perspective. Under the Tucker Act, the US Federal government can be sued for monetary damages that stem from a contract with to which the government was a party. Is there no similar law(s) regarding state liabilities? Of course it's questionable whether any government can be compelled to pay a debt by its own courts, so there is still no lack of guarantee. I notice that in our sovereign default, it is suggested that no US state has defaulted on its debts in over 100 years. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Tucker Act is much like the Federal Tort Claims Act in that the government consents to being sued, usually with reservation. There are similar laws in most if not all States. The obvious reason being that nobody's going to contract with you if they can't ensure you will follow through with your end of the deal. And the tort equivalents are based around political considerations. Chapter 9 is rife with constitutional issues too related to this, that were only fixed by a consent process that's built into it. Shadowjams (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OsmanRF34 -- the Eurozone's situation falls awkwardly between a true economic union (where there would be a central treasury, uniform interest rates, centralized control over banks etc.) and separate nations with separate currencies (where in a crisis an individual nation can independently allow currency devaluation etc. to prepare itself for eventual recovery). The Eurozone doesn't really have the necessary tools to deal with an overall crisis, but the existence of a currency union precludes steps that individual nations could take to deal with crises within their own borders. With respect to Greece, the EU has undertaken a long series of temporary stop-gap measures which don't really solve the problem (but just postpone it for several months), combined with relentless demands for austerity which contracts the Greek economy without providing any near-term or medium-term prospect for recovery. The Greeks have had problems with collecting taxes, controlling budgets, etc., but it's not clear how temporary stop-gap bailouts plus contracting depressionary economy really fixes anything... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, excellent answer, AnonMoos. The US Federal government can't "do the same", as Shadowjams said though. It has constitutional obligations to perform the very easy action of "paying" its debts, as a lot of case law before & after the 14th amendment prohibition of questioning the validity of the public debt. There is no doubt that the courts would rule in favor of a defrauded creditor of the USA.

On the other hand, the Eurozone's problems are intrinsic to the Euro & basic features of the treaties creating it, which could only have been concocted during a dark age of (macro)economics, and which were predicted, but dismissed, from the outset. Essentially, rational, ordinary common sense actions by the states & the ECB are superstitiously prohibited, while suicidal absurdities are institutionalized. The real problem of the Euro states is that they have saddled themselves with enormous debts, from the inception of the Euro. They are equivalent to US states, but with the exception of Luxemburg, they are all far more indebted than any US state has ever been. And above all, since these debts are in a foreign currency that they cannot create, they can become unpayable, just as US states, households or firms can have unpayable debts, and the Eurozone superstition/structure acts to forestall necessary central action to help the beleaguered Euro states. If they had their own currencies, as the USA does & the US states do not, then they could pay any of their interest bearing debt with ease, by printing up the money or by allowing matured bonds to be used to pay taxes. In a normal country, OsmanRF34 is right, public debt matters hardly at all. If anything, the National Debt is too small in the US, UK etc.

This security of issuing debt with a stable nominal value, at a controllable interest rate, allows normal states to issue as much currency or bond debt (they're really the same thing) as they please, and to achieve full employment by fiscal policy. Whether or not this devalues the currency or makes the country's exports more competitive is secondary; could be good, could be bad. The European Central Bank is the only actor which can create Euros universally accepted in the Eurozone, so it has enormous quasi-fiscal, quasi-sovereign powers. Following innumerable similar stopgap measures, it has very recently exercised them, over some German objections, to support members' bonds & interest rates. This would be a good thing, but it only does so if the institutionalized superstitions are obeyed, if the periphery engages in purely destructive austerity, which raises unemployment and inefficiency, and thereby makes their debts higher and more unpayable, the opposite of the purported aim of austerity. Essentially, seeing that the Euro as designed cannot work, but seeing that it is a great engine of destruction of European welfare states and the prosperity and security of the lower 99%, the periphery nations are kept alive in the Euro system which is wrecking their economies and will continue to wreck more and more of them. It gives them a transfusion, so that they can be bled longer.

But, US states also have different economies, and are tied by one single currency, why is that not a problem? In the USA, the federal government provides an enormous equalizing role, in many ways, by e.g. military spending - which Congress has directed to every county in the USA, by pensions like Social Security, by conceiving of high unemployment as a national problem - federal spending on unemployment insurance, by any sort of federal spending. Banking is controlled federally by the Federal Reserve System & banks' deposit liabilities backed by the FDIC, not the individual states, so banking crises do not bankrupt & wreck whole state economies, as they have in Spain & Ireland. Different US states have different balance of payments with each other. Some have dollars flow out, some flow in. But because there is a stable currency issuing government over all, hardly anybody keeps track of or thinks about such things. These "fiscal transfers" serve to counterbalance flows of money the other way. In the old days, say, spending in the South would enable it to continue to buy goods from the industrialized North, to the benefit of both sections of the country - the South would get more real wealth, the North would accumulate more money, both get higher employment.John Z (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is 0 constitutional obligation for the U.S. federal government to "pay its debts" as you describe it. And if you disagree, please point me to the decision / Constitutional provision that says otherwise. Your first paragraph answer displays a remarkable ignorance of basic constitutional law, that a quick reading of Hans should hopefully fix.... I actually can't even name a federal sovereign immunity case offhand (long day), and I don't have the resources available right now to look it up, but the fact is so basic that our article doesn't even list an appellate case. Perhaps I'll revisit this later, but the point is painfully obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 14th Amendment's public debt clause (noted above) & even before the Civil War, the 5th amendment's taking's clause have been so interpreted (very naturally) to protect bondholders. The general principle that Congress has the power to create obligations that can bind future Congresses (unlike, say, the UK Parliament) because they are constitutionally protected, and include above all, US debt, has been stated in a long line of cases up to the 2004 (?) Cherokee Nation case (iirc the 1995 Winstar (?) Corp case has a brief historical review & comparison to the UK ). Perry v US enforced the principle by breaching it concerning redeemability for gold. E.g. "Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations." Yes, the government could forestall the courts, but politically there is nil probability that it would for such a suicidal purpose; it never has for such financial cases, afaik. Perry was the closest, and there are no gold clauses any more.John Z (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking some text that popped up during the debt ceiling debacle over a year ago and running with it. While a few believe the public debt clause works like you describe it (they don't make the 5th amendment leap you do though), many others do not (http://www.volokh.com/2011/07/03/is-the-debt-limit-constitutional-part-deux there's a list). For one, who actually gets to sue under section 4? There's never been a case where the Court has ruled section 4 has abrogated sovereign immunity, standing, or political question doctrine. Moreover, default does not necessarily equal repudiation. Section 4 was as much about rejecting Confederate debts as it was validating Union ones. As far as I know section 4 has never even come up in a Supreme Court case. You're right, my 0 mention quip is wrong... however it's far from a settled issue. Your interpretation of the 5th amendment too is outright wrong. Flemming (363 U.S. 603) speaks to both of these issues quite clearly. Anyway, I don't have access to lexis or anymore time to waste on this tangent. Shadowjams (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 5th Amendment & the 14th amendment sec 4 arguments are in Perry. I do not argue that it would supersede sovereign immunity, etc, although my first too-brief statement wrongly implied this. I would argue that politics & common sense even more, the interests of rich people, dictate that there will be no insane, purposeless, destructive & immoral default, and if there were, the courts would step in & save the day & the government would not use its power to keep them out of it. Although there may be more theater to come.John Z (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the problems in the Eurozone is that you have a disconnect between Monetary policy and Fiscal policy. In a country with its own currency, the two policies work together. For example, if a country has fiscal problems (i.e. it spends more than it takes in), it can correct for those issues partially with monetary policy (by controlling the flow of cash). The problem with Europe (and I can't believe that all those smart economists didn't see this shitstorm coming decades ago) is that monetary policy is handled at the continent-wide level, while fiscal policy is handled by the individual countries. Thus, when Greece gets itself into fiscal trouble, it has no monetary relief. Greece can't control its own money supply to ammeliorate its fiscal problems, so it is fooked. In the U.S., the federal government handles a LOT of the big expenses the states don't have to, things like the military, and it heavily subsidizes the responsibilities the states have, like education and infrastructure, which gives some cushion to the states. In Europe, there isn't an effective system of doing so. In the U.S. the individual states have limited internal sovereignty, but the greater sovereignty lies with the Federal government. The Eurozone flips that relationship; the individual nation states have full sovereignty, excepting for the parts they have ceded to the ECB and European Parliament, which isn't enough to get them out of the mess they are in. At least, that's my understanding. --Jayron32 02:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it there - the federal government does try to give money to states unequally to favor those that fall behind, by virtue of programs targeted at the poor and so forth. But I think there's also an element that people move very freely in the U.S. - there are no language barriers and there's nothing unusual about crossing the country for work or education. Even so, there are definitely regions that get the shit end of the stick, such as East St. Louis or Camden, New Jersey - the twins of big cities reserved to a very poor population that can't support taxes. And the worst turn of the screw is reserved for the Pine Ridge Reservation and such, little zones under America's ever quaint system of Indian affairs which has provided the perfect preserve for corruption, censorship, murder, and Third World poverty. Wnt (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you get down to the granular level, the U.S. does have its failures, at least in meeting the needs of all of its people, and that is well documented. It is also well outside of the scope of the discussion, which is about why the U.S. economic system works well enough to prevent the sort of precarious problems Europe is experiencing right now. It's a macroeconomic issue, and it boils down to the fact that Federalism in the U.S. works for supporting a single currency, whereas it appears that Federalism in Europe is too skewed towards having too much sovereignty among the individual countries. That is, the Eurozone is playing a dangerous game: Greece has enough sovereignty to get itself into trouble, but has surrendered those parts of its sovereignty that could help itself. In the U.S., the balance is skewed in the other direction; certainly the states can get themselves into trouble (witness: California since about 2002), but on the balance the states don't have the sovereignty issues that Europe does. If you really want to over simplify it: Oregonians and New Jerseyites and North Carolinians are still Americans first, so the ways that money flows between U.S. states doesn't generate a lot of questions about the sovereignty of each state. Greeks and Germans and Belgians are not "Europeans first", in either a cultural or legal sense, so there are serious cultural, social, and legal hurdles towards the Eurozone efficiently shuffling money around to deal with problems as America does. --Jayron32 04:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protestants majority nations

Which Caribbean nations are Protestants majority? I ask that because the map of Protestant world by country didn't make sense or confusing. Also, which Oceania nations are Protestants-majority nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.66.95 (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic majority nations

Which Caribbean and Oceania nations are Roman Catholic majority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.66.95 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For this and the Q above, I suggest you do some research at the CIA Factbook: [3]. To get you started, here's their info on Aruba: [4]. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you find a better source than the CIA Factbook if you want to do research on the topic - the CIA has neither the mandate nor the means to actually find such data themselves, and seems to be remarkably inconsistent in how it presents what they do have. Find scholarly sources instead. 23:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, do you have an example of this inconsistency ? (One possibility is that they rely on local surveys, which will tend to vary in quality. However, I doubt if any ref source actually is able to do the surveys themself in every nation.) StuRat (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of CIA Factbook inconsistancy regarding religion in the Caribbean:

CUBA: "nominally Roman Catholic 85%, Protestant, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jewish, Santeria. note: prior to CASTRO assuming power" - rather out of date, I'd suggest?

HAITI: "Roman Catholic 80%, Protestant 16% (Baptist 10%, Pentecostal 4%, Adventist 1%, other 1%), none 1%, other 3%. note: roughly half of the population practices voodoo" - so is voodoo a religion or not? If it is, one would assume that any useful data would include an indication of any correlation between the voodoo and other religions, and if it isn't, why mention it?

JAMAICA: "Protestant 62.5% (Seventh-Day Adventist 10.8%, Pentecostal 9.5%, Other Church of God 8.3%, Baptist 7.2%, New Testament Church of God 6.3%, Church of God in Jamaica 4.8%, Church of God of Prophecy 4.3%, Anglican 3.6%, other Christian 7.7%), Roman Catholic 2.6%, other or unspecified 14.2%, none 20.9%, (2001 census)" - No mention of Rastafarianism?

SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS: "Anglican, other Protestant, Roman Catholic" - no percentages.

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES: "Protestant 75% (Anglican 47%, Methodist 28%), Roman Catholic 13%, other (includes Hindu, Seventh-Day Adventist, other Protestant) 12%" - does anyone have a clue what the difference is between 'Protestant' and 'other Protestant', and what makes them 'other'?

Having looked at the abysmal mess the CIA Factbook made trying to report on ethnicity in Latin America, I'd suggest that they are actually doing marginally better here - but they still fail to mention their sources more often than not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when someone talks of a source's inconsistency, and spells it "- ency/ent" in one place and "-ancy/ant" in another place. Giggle. Sorry. Please continue. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Ooops! Mea culpa, peccavi, etc, etc - though in my defence, I'll point out that seeking consistency (or even consistancy) in spelling is a recent phenomenon, and probably a passing fad. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fascinating how many other sources use the CIA data, though. It's cited on our article Religious demographics and another main source cited there, Association of Religion Data Archives, notes it used CIA data (see the entry for Haiti, which also doesn't mention voudou). The apparently most scholarly source in the references section of our article, this paper, used CIA data as one of its four sources (and I'm not even certain the other three sources it checked are independent of the CIA data). The UN doesn't seem to collect religious info. Where else can the OP look? Our article Religion in North America doesn't even include the Caribbean. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the 'SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES' case, other Protestant includes anyone who isn't 'Anglican' or 'Methodist'. Note that 47+28=75. As to why they are seperated this way, I can't say but it may be what's done in that country. Given the apparently small size of any other protestant groups, it may be if you say protestant everyone assumes you're either Anglican or Methodist. Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to trying to answer the question... Oceania has many definitions, so it's not clear what's included, but I'd suggest that to find the Catholic "nations" (another issue in itself) you couldn't do much better than picking those with French background, i.e. New Caledonia, French Polynesia, and Wallis and Futuna, but I'll admit I'm guessing. A broader definition of Oceania might include the Philippines which is pretty strongly Catholic. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antigua and Barbuda government census - see page 42 for religous data. 94% religious. 10% Roman Catholic. 26% Anglican. 56% other Christian protestant denominations. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

Hanging Gardens of Babylon

In the "Scholarship and controversy" section, there is a sentence: "There is also no mention of Nebuchadnezzar's wife Amyitis (or any other wives), although a political marriage to a Median or Persian would not have been unusual." If we didn't know if Nebuchadnezzar had a wife or not then why this article confirms Amytis of Media was indeed his wife. The article also gave a birth date and dead date of Amytis, I wonder if they are actual real information or made up.Pendragon5 (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to "lack of documentation in contemporaneous Babylonian sources", leaving open sources outside Babylon, and/or later sources. For example, later sources could have been based on "contemporaneous Babylonian sources", which have since been lost. Unfortunately, the farther back you go, the more difficult it is to tell fact from myth, and we must rely on second-hand or third-hand sources, or even worse. StuRat (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page summarises most of the sources that deal with the hanging gardens. Many of them are lost or fragmentary but the story was repeated by later historians. The whole period was a complicated mess of competing empires and it is likely there were several gardens including one by Semiramis 200 years before Nebuchadnezzar. Calling Amyitis the wife of Nebuchadnezzar seems to originate, long after, in Eusebius who got his information from Abydenus who in turn seems to use Berossus. The information from Berossus is quoted (probably via Polyhistor) by Josephus but the queen is not named. Ctesias on the other hand mentions Amytis (note single I) as the wife of Cyrus the Great and Ctesias is the one who places the garden earlier with Semiramis. Both Amyitis and Amytis could be the same person, a remarried widow, or two women confused. No idea where the dates come from, they seem little more than a plausible guess. The whole subject of the gardens is a romantic legend and any truth there may be is blurred behind the stories the later historians embroidered from it. The wikipedia article is just the latest in a long line of texts misusing sources and presenting conjecture as truth. meltBanana 15:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think some enterprising person would make hanging gardens, in a place they would call Babylon, just so they could say "Even if the original was a myth, we have the real thing now !". A Las Vegas casino named Babylon comes to mind. StuRat (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Personal attack removed
Thanks, i'd almost forgotten how moronic this site and its inhabitants were. meltBanana 22:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

compositional balance vs composition

What is the difference between "compositional balance" and "composition"?Smallman12q (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context please ? StuRat (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compositional balance is an aspect of composition -- it means having a composition that is balanced. Composition is the way that items in the scene are arranged -- balance means that they are distributed so as to create a center of interest, similarly to the way that massive objects can be distributed to create a center of mass. Looie496 (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about photography, writing, or something else ? StuRat (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– I was thinking of art...Smallman12q (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be Regarded as a Philosopher being an Autodidact?

close oft repeated req for opinion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please give a straight forward answer and seriously and briefly explain. Thank You very much!

Being an autodidact in philosophy while academically undertaking a Major in Political Science can I be considered and regarded as a philosopher not by just mere entitlement but by the notion that one creates and studies philosophical world view as anybody of such field does regardless of academic degrees? I am so disturbed with some comments that it is only through credentials that one becomes a philosopher I would would like to defy and counter this confined notion by proving that it is not the only means, thus I require supporting views of this topic so once again, can I be considered and regarded a philosopher being an autodidact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BT-7A (talk • contribs) 02:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been posted repeatedly, the inquirer knows the consensus on this, but requests that we provide a different answer--we do not do opinion here. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baja California and the Mexican-American War

Why did the U.S. choose to draw the line at the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the point that it did? Why not attempt to go a little farther, and say, ask for Baja California or other Mexican territories? Futurist110 (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again with the "Why didn't" questions. The terms of the treaty are explained in quite some good detail in the article you describe. The article states that the U.S. had considered asking for Baja California, but when one considers that the ultimate goal of the treaty was to secure a workable Pacific coastline for the U.S., there wasn't much impetus to get Baja California: there weren't any good ports or mineral resources the U.S. coveted. The line was picked somewhat arbitrarily, but the mechanism for picking it is described exactly in the article: The U.S. wanted San Diego. Through Arizona, the Gila River made a convenient natural boundary, but west of where the Gila empties into the Colorado, there's not a convenient boundary, so the just dropped a ruler on the map and drew one giving the U.S. the port of San Diego. After the Mexican War, there were some putative attempts to grab additional Mexican territories, essentially by soldiers of fortune who had no connection to the U.S. government. See William Walker and Republic of Sonora. Nothing much came of that. But to your original counterfactual question, what about Baja California did the U.S. Government really want or need? They wanted San Diego and San Francisco, and they got that. There's just nothing in Baja that they needed. --Jayron32 05:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baja California had a huge amount of coastline which would be used for vacation resorts as well as for secure military base locations. Futurist110 (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the debate in congress (I studied it years ago) was population, even though New Mexico and California had some Mexican population you had American (white) immigrants in NM and Cali as well as present day Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Texas. Part of the debate in congress was the feasibility of somehow assimilating and governing huge wide swaths of territory in the mid 1840s, Baja had virtually no white or American immigrant factor and the the extreme southern parts of it actually had larger Mexican populations then NM and Cali combined at that time. Though not in the Congressional debates per se Bajas long and very close coastline to large population centers (relative to back then) in Mexico may not have been desirable, I say this because it was a common theme in the congressional speeches to place the border west of Texas in the middle of "no mans land" basically to draw the line in desert parts away from natural population centers or potential population centers as much as possible. Remember this is an era where the Southern politicians with slavery as the norm thought in terms of racial politics and even purity and northern politicians were weary of taking more and more Mexican territory that could one day out vote the north on issues concerning slavery and abolition, this actually was a local issue in Arizona and New Mexico even parts of southern California in the late 1850s and early 1860s and is the reason Nevada was redrawn to include its southern tip (most maps had Nevada's southern border aligned with Utah's and present day Clark County etc. in Arizona). Arizona had some pro-slavery rumblings in the 1850s so free slave state controlled Congress shrunk it down. Imagine Bloody Kansas and the Missouri Compromise being compounded with Baja North and Baja South or even other Mexican border states seeking admission as "slave states". Was this really a realistic fear for northerners? Was the lack of any history or tradition of "white" immigration into Baja like there was in 1830s and 1840s Cali and NM really a realistic "race mixing" fear of Southern politicians? Doesn't really matter except that it was the pressure cooker and the real "ends" to the annexation "means" that these decisions were hammered out in. Plus after the Louisiana Purchase in the 1810s, East and West Florida in the 1820s, Oregon and now Texas and the Southwest, you would have been laughed off Capitol Hill if you suggested we wouldn't be taking over Mexico, Cuba, etc. in the next 50 years anyway, who knew then that it was pretty much the last major expansion (aside from non-contigious Alaska, Hawaii, PR, VI, Guam).Marketdiamond (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good summation. Thanks for providing that insight. Directly answering Futurist's questions regarding the vacation and military significance of Baja. To put it simply: in the 1840s, neither was a concern at all. People didn't take vacations, at least in the modern sense, so having a place for spring breakers to go and get drunk and laid just wasn't in the thinking. And there also wasn't anything like a "standing army" that the U.S. maintained in times of peace. The modern practice of establishing permanent military bases, either at home or abroad, is a 20th century innovation. Marketdiamond hints at the race politics issues involved in dealing with the Mexican cession, a good read regarding that particular issue is Wilmot Proviso, and the long debate over how to handle the Mexican Cession was one of the direct political causes of the civil war. --Jayron32 12:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wrote a thesis on the Mexican-American war. MarketDiamond's got the main issue, the North did not want to spend lives and money on territory which would presumably be settled by Southerners and increase the slave state vote. See also Manifest Destiny and History_of_Cuba#The_possibility_of_annexation. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all your responses. Yeah, the distance from large population centers, the fear of more slave states, and the lack of whites in Baja California combined seem to make sense and be good factors for this. Futurist110 (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This thread might be resolved, but I can't help adding a bit to it. As usual for me I want to draw on Donald W. Meinig's "geographical history" The Shaping of America (vol. 2 in this case, quotes from pp. 146-154). He devotes a good number of pages to the question of how much of Mexico to annex after Mexico's surrender. Baja California was definitely on the annexation table and desired by some. Early on "a large part of the American public", with "some vociferous supporters in Congress", wanted to annex all of Mexico, but this fizzled, as did the idea of establishing a military protectorate over the whole of Mexico. The main issues for Polk and his cabinet were the Nueces strip (required because the war began over who had sovereignty there), San Francisco Bay and "a broad Pacific frontage". There was no question about the bay, and Mexico yieled it in the first round of negotiations, proposing 37°N. The US wanted a lot more than that though.

"Polk and several of cabinet members wanted to annex both Californias and all of Mexico north of 26°N—a belt of territory more than a thousand miles wide north to south and embracing four Mexican territories, three states, and parts of four others. Latitude 26°N was chosen as a simple geometric boundary west from the mouth of the Rio Grande... There were strong supporters for even more..." [such as all of Tamaulipas and Nuevo León, and parts of four other states]

Other cabinet members, however, focused on Alta California and "argued for a separation along the Rio Grande to the southern boundary of New Mexico and thence westward to the Pacific", which was soon clarified as 32°N.

"The maps they relied on showed such a line intersecting the head of the Gulf of California, giving the United States access to that sea whether or not the whole peninsula was taken. In the end Polk gave way to this 32°N line as the minimum acceptable, with Baja California as desirable but not essential."

For its part Mexico gave up Alta California early on but tried hard to keep New Mexico. When that failed Mexico tried for a boundary along the Gila River to a point on the coast just north of San Diego (approximately 33°N). The US demanded San Diego, correctly pointing out the traditional boundary between Alta and Baja California was south of San Diego.

Finally, Baja California was believed by some to contain rich mineral deposits, as was Sonora. Even after the boundary was settled "many fortune seekers" explored and schemed over Baja California (and Sonora). William Walker, "the restless Tennessee adventurer, sailed from San Francisco with a small force, seized La Paz, the capital of Baja California, and tried to detach that territory and Sonora from Mexican rule..." By that time the US government was trying to acquire the Gadsen Purchase and adventures like Walker's were "an embarrassment". Anyway, point being, the Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty line was a kind of compromise between Polk and some of his cabinet, who wanted a lot more, and others in his cabinet, other politicans and interests, and Mexico itself. Of the question of how much to annex Meinig writes: "No national government had ever faced such a range of apparent possibilities for extending its territory and reshaping itself on such a scale (the nearest precedent, Louisiana, was huge in size but presented in one piece for a simple decision: take it or leave it)." Pfly (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does Anyone remember his Name ?

Eleven years ago I recall my late Father telling me about a guy he had just read of in the paper who had died. There was an article on him, with the obituary. This guy was alleged to have carried out a payroll robbery in 1969, of the Aulesbrooks biscuit factory here in Christchurch New Zealand, ( our version of the Brinks Job ), but his involvement was never proven. This factory one of the places my Father had worked at in the off seasons from the Freezing Works over the years.

The man in question could have been a good league player, but chose the other side of the tracks, getting involved, allegedly dare I say, in dodgy deals and drugs, from what I understand. There was a news item more recently about his daughter publicising his papers and people were keen on finding if he had had involvement in the robbery, but there was nothing there to indicate that. He may even have seemed a kind of DB Cooper type character locally as well, since in certain circles his reputation was known. Back in the sixties my Dad won a prize in a raffle this man had run, and went with a friend to collect a choice of prize. The friend said to my Dad, " What ever you do, Jim, take the money. If you choose the TV, he will know your address when he delivers it, and come later and burgle it back " - such was this man's reputation. Again, to be clear, I allege, as I am honestly not sure what is officially proven about him, and what is rumour. But now I simply cannot remember his name or find any other reference of him. I asked my Dad's older brother, who may have known even more, and he did recall who I was talking about, but not the man's name. If anyone has any ideas, that would be appreciated. Thank You.Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 06:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Beri -- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10671161 Futurist110 (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the suspected accomplice was Phil Brown. StuRat (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you had all the info needed to do a Google search, which is what I, and presumably Futurist, did. The search term I used was:

1969 "Aulesbrooks biscuit factory" robbery Christchurch "New Zealand"

The first hit was that article. The quotation marks means those words must be kept together as one search term, in that order. StuRat (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You so much. I will have a look at that. Then I will give his name a mention to my Uncle, which may jog his memory as well. We normally tried to keep away from that element of Society - not to suggest we are better than anyone else because we are not, but we made a consicious choice as to which side of the Law we prefer. My mother has told me though that one of the Bassett Road machine gun murderers ( or should I say alleged ? ) married a woman who was the sister of a man one of my mother's aunts had married. At the time Jorgensen disappeared in Dec 1984 near Kaikoura, I was not aware of that. I do believe he was spotted in Australia a few years later. Thanks again. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 02:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I'll mark this Q resolved. BTW, why do all your posts have double spaces between every word (which Wikipedia, fortunately, does not display) ? StuRat (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Cory Monteith and categories

Hi!, I'm fan of Canadian actor Cory Monteith, and I just love him because of his early life and his struggles with alcohol and substance abuse. I love the way he turned around his life and became a good person. But my question is, should he be regarded as Category:People self-identifying as alcoholics or Category:People self-identifying as substance abusers?. Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This question would be more suitable for the Help desk, which answers questions about how to edit Wikipedia. Our article states (with a reference to an article in Parade Magazine) that he "began to drink, smoke pot, and skip school" and had a "drug and alcohol addiction". These statements would seem to suggest he could be considered in both categories, although given his subsequent 'drying out', maybe he would not necessarily self-identify as either any more. In any case, if you wish to edit Wikipedia to add or change a page's category, just go right ahead (although be aware that articles regarding living people must meet particular standards of verifiability). If you need assistance with editing, this can be found at the Help desk or by asking at the new editors' help page. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

How many Canada's and UK's soldiers have died in Afghanistan?

Thank you. Timothy. Timothyhere (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Since February 2002, 158 Canadian soldiers have died in the war in Afghanistan or in support of the war."[5]

"Between 2001 and May 2012 a total of 414 British military personnel have died on operations in Afghanistan."[6]

Though please note these numbers are out of date so the real figure will be slightly higher. A8875 (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The official list is kept here http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/fallen-disparus/index-eng.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.38.84 (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list of UK military deaths in Afghanistan including the latest death on 09 September 2012 has a total of 427. This attachment breaks the figures down - 376 to hostile action, 33 in accidents and 18 "others", which includes 7 killed in "friendly fire" incidents. Alansplodge (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Shadowjams (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian

What college or university in the United States teaches Ethiopian as a language?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Ethiopian language". There are hundreds of languages spoken natively in Ethiopia, though the Amharic language is the official language for business and government purposes; and English is also widespread. Assuming you mean Amharic, this document lists several major American universities that have a course in Amharic. --Jayron32 17:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best performance by a Communist party in a free election

"Thus, in the 1946 election, the KSČ won 38% of the vote. This was the best-ever performance by a European Communist party in a free election"[7]. Was this 38% record a world-wide record as well?A8875 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, the country I can think of with the strongest Communist Party which is also generally held to have free elections is Greece, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE)'s best year was 1958, when they secured 24% of the vote, so your quote for the Czechoslovak election of 1946 may be the best I can think of. There aren't many democratic countries with a strong, truly Communist party. --Jayron32 19:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more: Wikipedia has an article titled List of communist parties which you could comb through to see if any such communist party has won better than 38% of the vote in a free election. --Jayron32 19:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more. In Cypriot legislative election, 2011 the Cypriot communist party won a plurality of the votes at 31%, roughly the same amount as in Cypriot legislative election, 2006 and in Cypriot legislative election, 2001 it was a little less than 35%. Looking back through the rest of the Cypriot election, the AKEL, their Communist party, consistantly polls between 30-35% as far back as Wikipedia has records for. Again, it doesn't beat your 38%, but it is another strong showing by a Communist party in an open election. --Jayron32 19:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No contender for a single party, but four different communist parties together received some 52% of the votes in the Nepalese_Constituent_Assembly_election,_2008#Results. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian Communist Party got 34.4% of the vote in the Italian general election, 1976. --Viennese Waltz 19:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandanistas got a substantial majority in the 1984 Nicaraguan elections, which I believe most observers considered to be free and fair. Looie496 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation got the most votes for a party in 1999 with 24.29% of the votes.
Sleigh (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- President Aleksander Kwaśniewski of Poland was a former communist who ran under the social democrat banner and was widely described in the West as a communist. He won with 51% of the vote and served two terms. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Left Democratic Front in the southern Indian state of Kerala is often successful in state elections. In the Kerala State legislative assembly election, 2011, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) won 45 of the 140 seats, while their LDF allies Communist Party of India won another 13 seats and the Marxist-Leninist Revolutionary Socialist Party (India) won 2 seats - that's a total of 60 seats or 43% of the seats. The LDF took nearly 45% of the popular vote.

In the 2006 election the LDF took over 48% of the popular vote, winning 70% of the seats and led the State Assembly for the next 5 years. Astronaut (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) took 49.7% of the vote in the West Bengal state assembly election, 2006, as part of the Left Front. Actually, I suspect they will have got higher shares in the early 90s. Matt's talk 16:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An even more impressive score for CPI(M) was the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council election, 2010, where the Left Front won all seats. --Soman (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we limit the query to Europe, then I think the Moldovan parliamentary election, 2001 is the highest percentage in a nationwide parliamentary poll. --Soman (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EU border crossing rule

Poland–Russia border contains this tantalizing sentence:

More crossings are being built, as the EU standards require Poland to operate at least seven for that border.

Is there a rule that no point of a (non-Schengen!) land border should be more than 20 km from a crossing, or what? (The border in question is 232 km long.) —Tamfang (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this from the Conseil de l'Europe is useful:

"Therefore, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers... invite Poland... to establish an adequate number of border crossings at the international land border of the Kaliningrad Region, in particular with regard to small cross-border traffic including local trains and buses" and later "Border controls exist for decades at the common border with the Kaliningrad Region, but the limited number of border crossings does not correspond to the actual demand."

Seems it might be demand led - hardly an "EU standard" requiring such a thing, even if that is what the reference in Poland–Russia border says. Astronaut (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a novel

I read an excerpt of a novel over a year ago and I forgot its title. I think I read it on Google books? It's also well known enough to have its own Wikipedia article. As much as I can remember, it's about an alcoholic writer who pens a novel in a short amount of time and has a sexual obsession with a clay sculptor. Oh, and the cover is yellow. That's all I remember! Anyone with the title would receive a billion thanks! Also, sorry that's not much to go on! 86.11.215.72 (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be thinking of Charles Bukowski's novel Women (based in part on his real relationship with sculptor Linda King)? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a picture of a book cover. Also article titled Women (novel). Bus stop (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the novel! Thank you so much, guys. I really appreciate your assistance. :) 86.11.215.72 (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "wandering Arabs and Tartar hordes" of 1869 Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania's voter ID law was recently upheld by an appellate court, which cited an 1869 precedent much after the spirit of the current legislation, in which the court further explained that to deny the tougher voting rules for Philadelphia voters "would be to place the vicious vagrant, the wandering Arabs, the Tartar hordes of our large cities, on a level with the virtuous and good man." [8]

But the thing is, I don't have much knowledge about vast numbers of Arabs and Tartars in 1869 Pennsylvania. Where did they come from? What happened to their descendants? Wnt (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the court was speaking metaphorically. Wrad (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MEH-ta-PHOR. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy it. Metaphor for what? What meaning would "Arab" and "Tartar" be taken to indicate? How did they pick those two races? Doing some quick searching I'm finding that Tatars were described as "Russians" in old sources, [9] and though only 66,282 arrived from 1898 to 1909, 50% of them settled in Pennsylvania and New York.[10] Of course, that is not a good indication of what the situation was in 1869. It's hard for me to say (I'm not good with faces and such) but it seems to me like the woman on the top right in Tatars might remind me of the unique appearance of people from Hazleton, Pennsylvania, which, though I don't know what it is, seemed to have some unique recognizable local racial identity when I passed through some time ago. Indeed I see that article lists Russians as one of the nationalities who came there in the 1860s. I'm still way out of my depth on this, but I'm thinking it could be some kind of real reference. Wnt (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the second half of the 19th century down to Edwardian times, "street Arab" or "city Arab" could refer to street children (who weren't ethnically Arab at all of course; I would guess that it alluded to their being "nomadic" i.e. homeless). Tartars is probably a quasi-literary reference to ravaging medieval Mongol hordes (Gengis Khan etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Arab" also used to refer specifically to Bedouin, who were of course nomadic (and stereotypically thieving, etc). That's what T.E. Lawrence means when he says "my Arabs" for example, although in that case those are actual Arabs (and several decades later). I assume this also has something to do with 19th century interest in anything Middle Eastern or faux-Middle Eastern. Also from a few decades later, there was the belly-dancer(s) Little Egypt, and the song "The Streets of Cairo". Adam Bishop (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here is an article from The Times in 1859, reprinted in Australia, that also refers to homeless people as "wandering Arabs". I doubt there were literal crowds of Arabs wandering the streets of London at the time. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "Tatar," or "Tartar," also refers to wandering thieves, criminals, and vagabonds, or people who are wild, uncivilized, and uncontrollable. Wrad (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to these articles: [11] [12], Arab immigration to the US doesn't really start until the 1870s, after this statement was made. Also, according to our own article, Russian American, fewer than 7,000 Russians immigrated to the US between 1820 and 1870. Again, the real influx didn't come until later (the 1880s). Wrad (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me they are talking about the homeless, both urban and rural, those "of no fixed address". Back in the day, some people led an itinerant rural existence, working now and then as "hired men" then moving on, or just living off the land in areas where they could get away with it. The Court does not seem to be talking about specific nationalities.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? Bedouins and Tatars are classic nomadic peoples who might, like the Tinkers and Gypsies be mistrusted by sedentary property owners as not having a settled address or being subject to a known jurisdiction. This has nothing to do literally with Tatars or something about their physical characteristics. It is called metaphor. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Wrad is pretty convincing. In my defense I can say only that it sounds like the author of the piece I cited was no more aware than I of this implication. Wnt (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a similar metaphor to referring to people who destroy things as vandals, even though they aren't Vandals. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While in England, we had the Egyptians Act 1530: "Provided alwey that the egipcians nowe being in this realme have maneag to departe w[ith]in xvi daies aftre proclamacion of this estatute among theam shalbe made upon payn of Imprisonnement and forfaicture of theyr goodes and catalles."[13] The Egyptians in question were actually Romany gypsies. Alansplodge (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

Finance fraud- - bank account fraud not located

Hello.

I'm looking in your fraud directory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Finance_fraud and trying to find something. But I cannot find this category.

Can you add - or point to a page regarding bank fraud. I know its a scam of some sort, but I cannot find it easily.

A possible title will be "deposit money into bank fraud" ??

Summary of fraud: "I have a friend/business that is giving me money, but i need to to open a bank account, so it can be deposited. can you open a bank account for me."

I think this has a special name of a fraud, but i do not know what it is called. If it exiss, can it be named (or linked from the bank frauds page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonisnz (talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot like a Nigerian letter... 192.51.44.16 (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More likely the initial stages of a money transfer fraud, where fake cheques will be deposited and the funds withdrawn before the fraud is discovered, leaving the account owner responsible for the resulting overdraft. The various types of scam listed at Internet fraud may contain your answer. - Ka renjc 11:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has al Qaeda ever threatened Canada or not?

I read about the Toronto 18 and the terrorist plot they were planning and would like to know whether those attacks were ordered by al Qaeda or not and whether al Qaeda itself has ever threatened Canada. Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article itself says directly and unambiguously that the Toronto 18 were an al-Qaeda affiliated group. I'm not sure what more you need than that. --Jayron32 13:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I mean, they were al Qaeda members or they were just following their orders without being al Qaeda members? Timothyhere (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the al-Qaeda website has a list of members on it, you could check that maybe. </sarcasm> --Viennese Waltz 13:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict with Viennese Waltz's joke answer). I think you misunderstand how al Qaeda operates. It isn't a military command structure that provides orders for people to do things. It is more of an umbrella organization that provides funding, support, and training for groups that wish to spread their agenda. That is, al Qaeda doesn't order anything. It does support groups that are interested in spreading a particular type of islamist fundementalism through a particular set of tactics, but it doesn't organize and order anything. Al-Qaeda#Command_structure explains this quite well, and I quote "When asked about the possibility of al-Qaeda's connection to the July 7, 2005 London bombings in 2005, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said: "Al-Qaeda is not an organization. Al-Qaeda is a way of working ... but this has the hallmark of that approach ... al-Qaeda clearly has the ability to provide training ... to provide expertise ... and I think that is what has occurred here."[47]" and later in the same section "The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander." So, you see, al Qaeda isn't really an army that organizes and orders things, it is a term (probably largely invented from the outside, and not by themselves) that is used to signify a particular brand of islamist militantism that uses particular tactics, but that it isn't really all that "organized". --Jayron32 13:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I read someplace that bin Laden himself had come up with the term, and later regretted it because it was misunderstood and misused by the western media. In any case, forgetting the horrific nature of their activities, it sounds like an amazingly forward-looking business plan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in this case, the "Toronto 18" were "affiliated" in the sense of being inspired by them. Our article states directly at the beginning that they were al-Qaeda members but who knows where that comes from. Later on there are sourced statements denying any specific link. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, its something like Wikipedia, but without ArbCom / admins. And its about spreading Jihad instead of building an encyclopedia.--Robert Keiden (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any knowledge here, but are you sure you're not being taken in by a story? I mean, lots of groups claim to be leaderless but it turns out to be a major exaggeration - Wikileaks, for example. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks is leaderless in the sense that anyone, not just the founders, can contribute leaked material, but in what other sense has it claimed to be leaderless? --140.180.247.208 (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. --Robert Keiden (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a nice line in our article about the group: "centralization of decision and decentralization of execution." It's clear that some parts of it are definitely centralized. It's also just as clear that it devolves down into cells which may or may not actually be part of the command structure at all — for the Toronto 18, "al-Qaeda" was just a flag to raise, not a connection to bin Laden. To say that al-Qaeda is not an organization is I think wrong; to say that it's an organization that is centralized in a few nodes and diffuse elsewhere is I think a bit more correct. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What keeps homeschooling parents in the US honest when grading kids' work?

Obviously, something like the SAT or ACT is reliably proctored, but as far as the buildup of one's transcripts, what keeps a parent from checking off that their kid got perfect scores so they look better on college applications? Do most colleges not accept the transcripts of homeschooled children as indication of their academic performance, or do homeschooled children in most states take verifiably proctored tests so that it is known that they were the ones who took the test and that their parents were not the ones who graded it? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most states require home-schooled students to take standardized tests (typically annually) in order to verify that they are being taught the required curriculum. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this would differ from European countries or any other country, and why the US was chosen specifically. However, generally, being homeschooled isn't necessarily about grades in a report card, as it would be the parent - or the child himself (many high schoolers will simply teach themselves the material) - making up the grades. Clearly, that would be taken with a grain of salt. What's more important are the standardized tests the student has taken, such as the SAT, SAT IIs, APs, PSATs, any state-wide exams, etc, as well as the activities that the student has engaged in other than the core curriculum, for example joining a math club and learning number theory, which isn't part of most high school curriculum. Hope this helps! --Activism1234 18:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only said US because that is the one I have personal experience with (not having been homeschooled, but having gone through public education in the US) I know that colleges take GPA into consideration, and was unsure how or if an equivalent to GPA is kept in the case of homeschooling, since it seems to me that having that in the hands of parents or the student themself would be unacceptable, while a school would seem to be more likely to give accurate, impartial GPAs. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously homeschooled students face a challenge when applying to many universities for exactly the reason the OP describes. Many homeschooled students reenter regular schools when they reach highschool, which solves the GPA issue. I'm sure there's some standardization of some aspects of homeschooling, but I can't speak to what those are [hopefully someone else knows]? I would also note that most homeschooling regulations (if not almost all) are state based, so will vary. Shadowjams (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Homeschooling in the United States#Testing and assessment says:

States also differ in their requirements regarding testing and assessment. Following the general trend toward easing requirements, fewer than half the states now require any testing or assessment. In some states, homeschoolers are required either to submit the results of a standardized test (sometimes from an established list of tests) or to have a narrative evaluation done by a qualified teacher. Other states give parents wide latitude in the type of assessment to be submitted.

Again, using California as an example, students enrolled in a public program are encouraged to take the same year-end standardized tests that all public school students take, but students using tutors or enrolled in any private school, homeschool or not, are not required to take any tests. Texas also does not require standardized tests for any student outside the public school arena, and absence of such tests cannot be used to discriminate against enrollment in higher education.

Duoduoduo (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that in general most admissions departments don't pay much attention to the grades for homeschooled students. They are automatically going to fall into the "requires a human being to evaluate, cannot be done by just punching in GPAs and test scores" category, anyway, so presumably the admissions officer is going to be looking more at standardized test results and the other materials (e.g. the essays) to try and figure out what level the kid in question is at. This is a standard part of admissions office procedure in general for kids who are not obviously in or obviously out. (Source: A family member who used to do admissions at a number of American universities.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Growing up in Ohio, I had two choices according to state law: either I could take a standardised test, or I could be evaluated by a certified teacher. My parents always chose to go the first route (it was always the Iowa test until I got to high school, when my parents decided to use my PSAT, SAT, and ACT results instead), but we had plenty of acquaintances in our homeschool support group who arranged to have certified teachers examine the children. My grades were a bit of a problem when I tried to do community-college-type classes at the local OSU branch campus, but they dropped their opposition to my grades once we submitted SAT and ACT scores as proof that I'd actually been doing something. I didn't know anyone in our support group who transitioned to the local public high school after eighth grade, but I had many friends in Indiana who did that. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was homeschooled through High School in a state where no standardized tests or evaluations of any kind were required. I had little problem getting into college. I got a good score on the ACT, and was accepted to both schools I applied to, one of them with a full ride. I will admit, though, that I took some courses during my last two years of homeschool at the university in my hometown just to show that I was legit. When you're homeschooled, you just do what you gotta do. Wrad (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tax laws and system in Canada

A book explaining in simple language the taxes and taxation system in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.123.209 (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on Taxation in Canada. Or perhaps this book would be helpful? - Ka renjc 19:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remarriage to the same person

I've looked over remarriage and can't find any information on how often divorced couples end up remarrying each other. I'm sure this will differ greatly based on context, but any information will help satisfy my curiosity. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about this but at least I can tell is I know for sure remarriage between divorced couples did indeed happen. Well in most cases, they didn't actually have a wedding in remarriage. So legally, they are still divorced but they are living together still as a couple with their children of course. (I know this from people I know and on some movies based off from real events).Pendragon5 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Telegraph article says "statistics on remarriage to an ex are not routinely recorded" but the journalist did find three example couples to profile. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm finding are blogs of one sort or another. This one has a few links that may be of use, including this one, where, in the comments section, the writer asserts (without reference to any kind of statistic) that 10% of divorces end in re-marriage. I must say, it's difficult to find anything substantive out there; everything I'm coming across are either mentions of any kind of re-marriage or bible interpretations about whether it's okay to get married again. There's a book called Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage by Andrew J. Cherlin that might have more, but it's hard to tell because the Google Book preview is quite limited. Perhaps you could find it at your local library and see if it pans out. Matt Deres (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's a stronger ally of the U.S. in the Middle East

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or Israel? Timothyhere (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Define "stronger". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean stronger ties, for instance, militarily, and politically speaking. That's what I mean. Timothyhere (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is largely a matter of opinion. Just looking over the ledes of Israel–United States relations and Saudi Arabia–United States relations, I'd have to say Israel. As you can see in the former, Israel was one of the first nations designated a major non-NATO ally by the United States. Also, I'd say anecdotally that many Americans perceive Israel to be a stronger ally. Critics of the US's relationship with Israel generally find it to be too strong. By contrast, there have often been whispers of Saudi support for the September 11 attacks, especially since most of the hijackers were Saudi.[14] As you can imagine, this is a rather contentious claim. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given that Saudi Arabia has never been given major non-NATO ally designation, I think we can fairly objectively say that Israel is a stronger ally. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Saudi Arabia never been given this status? Also, for this reason, I'd also say Israel. The U.S. gives more aid to Israel and Israel has much closer values to the U.S. than Saudi Arabia, such as support for democracy, women's rights, gay rights, and peace. Futurist110 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. Timothyhere (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia does have a history of giving money to Muslim extremists, in order to buy them off so they don't attack the kingdom. Add to that that some of the Saudi views are rather extreme (or at least non-Western) themselves, such as being non-democratic and not believing in equal rights for women or homosexuals. And the bin Laden family is Saudi (with Yemeni roots), to boot. I think of the alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia as like the WW2 alliance between the Soviet Union and other Allies, one of necessity only. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to support this unreferenced violation of wikipedia's policy. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BDD provided a reference. Do you even read these before you hat them ? StuRat (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic/Ethiopian Church

A lot of documentaries talk about the Jewish traditions of the Ethiopian Church. But the Ethiopian Church was a part of the Coptic Church in Egypt and was in continuous contact with it until the Muslim invasion of Egypt in the 700s and even somewhat after that, via the Patriarch of Alexandria appointing the Abuna, so does that mean the Coptic Church also have some of these traditions or had them until very recently or are these traditions exclusively Ethiopian. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to start with the article Oriental Orthodoxy and follow on from there. The History section has a link to an expanded history article which has some good information. --Jayron32 23:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that the Ethiopians are unique in this respect (and if not, they probably share only with the Eritrean church); nothing is ever said, as far as I remember, about the Egyptians following the Book of Jubilees or venerating the Ark of the Covenant at the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion. Have you read the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church article? Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innocence of Muslims

Where can I watch the entire movie, instead of just the trailer? --140.180.247.208 (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to be highly censored, since watching it apparently inspires people to murder others. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely why I want to watch it. Long live free speech, and long live the Streisand effect! --140.180.247.208 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Google? --Jayron32 23:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it has been highly censured. Were the boot on the other foot, it certainly would be. No excuse for murder, though. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Nobody in the press has seen it. They've been reduced to reporting an eyewitness account from one of "less than 10" people who saw it at its one and only screening, who didn't watch it long enough to know it was about Muhammad. The best guesses of many is that there was never anything but the trailer. For those (there are two versions almost exactly the same) see [15] Wnt (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the reaction to a trailer showing Muslims as blood-thirsty and violent is rioting and violence ? Not a good way to fight the stereotype. I also noticed the whiteboard scene used "BT" as the abbreviation for "Islamic Terrorists". They couldn't even afford to hire somebody who can spell ? StuRat (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That could also be the effect of the alleged heavy editing of the film: Originally the actor said something that could be abbreviated 'BT', but that was then dubbed to 'Islamist Terrorist'. V85 (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the story, like many people, on the news. Some commentators on a radio program today discussed how what is being called the "trailer" really is all there is. There were a few scenes shot with some actors (many of whom claim to have not known what the final product would look like) and these were cobbled together into the 13-14 minute clips that have been seen on youtube. The supposed "full film" that may or may not have been seen by as many as 10 people in one viewing may have not even been the same as the trailers, from our Wikipedia article, the only direct attestation to that version seems to indicate that it didn't even directly deal with Mohammed at all; instead it seems to have been about Osama bin Laden. It seems that the two YouTube clips, from July 1 and 2, are likely a complete reworking of the earlier bin Laden parody to instead parody Mohammed, so while the scenes and actors are the same in both the "full film" and the "trailers" significant editing and overdubbing has made them completely different. Of course, more may come out, and a copy of the mysterious "full film" may yet surface, but as now, all we have are the shorter "trailers". --Jayron32 05:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the dubbing is so poorly done (the person doesn't even sound the same and it suddenly changes) it's extremely obvious it was done. That largely includes this example (if you watch the earlier scene with the same guy it's even more obvious). Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please seek elsewhere for non-encyclopedic material.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

As is obviated by the link in the title, Innocence of Muslims is an encyclopedic topic. Asking where the subject of an article can be found is a perfectly reasonable question. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where one can watch the movie is simply not an encyclopedic topic. We don't give movie listings for any movie so far as I am aware, even the ones we do have articles on. Note also all the unsourced speculation above. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, you may wish to actually read the article, as well as the sources it cites. Journalists have spent substantial amounts of time trying to find out how and where this movie can be seen, and reported on their efforts. This is not someone asking where the latest Hollywood movie is screening. In this case - this movie - where it was published and whether it was published are significant issues. Context is everything. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is your point, that the refs in the article are hiding some big secret out in the open? Has no one suggested the OP read them? All I see above is speculation. I await your criticism of the unreffed remarks above before you return to criticizing my suggestion we keep this encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what your opinion is of the responses. In fact, almost no one does. The problem is that every time you dislike the responses, you take it out on the question. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not uncommon for a articles to mention stuff like when or whether a movie is available in DVD/BluRay/legal streaming sites and in what regions. Nil Einne (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. First time I've ever encountered "obviate" used with that meaning. It's logical enough - is it common among some speech community? --ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just my personal tendency to use words in ways they are not meant to be used. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I shall add you to my List of Rebels and regard all your future posts through that prism. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Ghost stories

Hello! Two part question: Who are, historically, some of the most critically acclaimed ghost story writers? And to what extent did they differ at the time from the most popular ghost story writers? 114.75.12.14 (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Allen Poe ? He seemed to be a master of suspense. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was he well received at the time? I seem to remember reading that his stories were criticized as being "too constructed", and some contemporary author (can't remember who) referred to him as "the jingle man". Is this still the critical opinion today? 114.75.12.14 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If so, he wouldn't be the first artist to go unappreciated in his own time. In my American Lit class, he and Washington Irving (The Legend of Sleepy Hollow) were the only two ghost story writers on the curriculum, so he seems to be appreciated now. Were you looking for somebody who was lauded while still alive ? StuRat (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Through most of his fiction, ghosts haunted the ravings of a distracted human mind, and not the "real world".

'He could dream with the best, as ghost stories (fake) go,

But it seems that for Poe it was all a mistake(o)'.--Robert Keiden (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, what I'm looking for is the difference between the criticism of today and that of past ages, as well as the popularity of today and of past ages. 114.75.12.14 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going back further, Shakespeare had some ghosts rattling around the old castle: [16]. I think he was more appreciated by the public than the critics in his own day, whereas now it may be more of the reverse (although the difficulty in following the language is part of the problem now). StuRat (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homer, Dante, and Shakespeare are hard to top. Zoonoses (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really interested in this topic, I recommend H. P. Lovecraft's essay Supernatural Horror in Literature, freely available at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Supernatural_Horror_in_Literature. It will give you lots of names that haven't been mentioned here, such as Algernon Blackwood and M. R. James. Looie496 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you count Frankenstein as a ghost story, as it involves a revived being, but Mary Godwin Shelley must be regarded as a pioneer. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a long response to this last night but then decided not to post it, because I'm still unsure what exactly the OP is asking. From the beginnings of the short-story form in the early 19th century until the relatively recent total genrification of literature, many top-notch writers (Charles Dickens, Nikolai Gogol, Rudyard Kipling, Robert Louis Stevenson, Henry James, L. P. Hartley, tons of others) included ghost stories among the things they wrote; but although they were both "critically acclaimed" and popular, it wasn't primarily as ghost-story writers. They simply handled that particular type of story as well as they handled everything else. Of the writers who might be said to have in some sense specialized in the ghost story (broadly speaking), on the other hand—H. Russell Wakefield might be taken as a representative example—most were neither wildly popular nor paid much attention by the critical establishment in their own day.

If one considers those who are now thought by critics (the few who are interested in such things) to have been masters of the ghost story in English, prominent on most people's lists would be such writers as Sheridan Le Fanu, Vernon Lee, the aforementioned M. R. James and Algernon Blackwood, Walter de la Mare, and Robert Aickman, who had varying degrees of popularity in their own day, but none of whom were exactly critical darlings (with de la Mare perhaps coming closest). The most acclaimed contemporary ghost-story writer may be Ramsey Campbell, but he's hardly a household name and has at times lacked a U.S. publisher.

In short, trends in literary criticism have obviously changed over the years, but never have mainstream critics paid much attention to ghost stories per se; and seldom have writers who have focused primarily on the ghost story been best-sellers. I don't really see what significant information about either literary criticism or literary popularity the OP can glean by focusing specifically on the ghost story. Deor (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

Refs for Citizens United backfire?

I'm seeing a lot of editorials for a backfire effect of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in that the party with the few rich donors seems to have chosen a candidate whose appeal doesn't seem to go much further than that group, but no solid RSes for this. So is this just sour grapes or has anybody really done the research here? Hcobb (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you refer to Mitt Romney ? If anything, rich donors were able to keep fringe Republican primary candidates alive longer, and thus delay the choice of Romney as the Republican candidate. There are two opinions of if it helps or hurts a candidate to be chosen early, though. On the one side, the attacks on them by other primary candidates may also work against the in the general election. On the other hand, learning how to deal with such attacks early on may be beneficial. StuRat (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hcobb, what is the "backfire" supposed to be in this context? If you're talking about wealthy donors wasting their money on candidates with little prospect of success, the largest case I'm aware of was Sheldon Adelson giving $5 million to a Newt Gingrich-supporting PAC earlier this season (see Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012#South Carolina: 1st place, 40%). Otherwise, the phrase "backfire" doesn't seem to really make sense to me. If the hypothetical rich-people-backed candidate is able to win a party's nomination, then his support necessarily extends beyond that small group, at least into the population of primary voters. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "backlash" would mean the candidates mostly supported by a few huge donors would be rejected by the voters, because they are seen as "in the pocket" of those donors. StuRat (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, the real place where the Citizens United ruling has been felt has been in smaller Congressional races. The Presidential races so far have not been too different, but there have been lots of cases where outside donors have swamped Congressional primaries with funding. NPR did a pretty interesting feature on this not very long ago. It's there that I'd look for the effects, not the Presidential campaigns, which have too much other cultural and political "noise" for such a small sample size. It ought to be answerable — has SuperPAC funding generally led to the election of whomever received the money, or not? There were certainly a number of spectacular fails in the last Congressional bouts, where candidates with lots of external support (namely Tea Party darlings) were routinely rejected by voters, but I don't know if that's actually the trend or just the interesting news cycle. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The GOP's long-term strategy has been to buy as many Congressman and Senators as they can, and then who the President is won't matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slave trade of women in Mexico

I remember once to have seen a film, which took place in USA in the 19th-century. It was about a Caucasian woman and her daughters, who were abducted by slave traders and taken to a beach in Mexico, where they were taken aboard a ship to an unknown destination, were they were to be sold as slaves. Recently, I saw a completely different film, taking place in the 19th-century and starring with Cate Blanchett, were her daughter were also abducted by slave traders, who were taken to Mexico.

This second film made me remember the first, and I it made me curious: were they a slave trade of Cacuasian women in 19th-century Mexico? This seem odd, for I understand (forgive me if this seem ignorant) that Caucasian people where not slaves in any western country in the 19th century. Who could buy them without anyone reporting it? Were where they sold? Or were they rather taken through Mexico and taken to another location, such as the Middle East, to be sold? Both films made the impression, that this slave trade was well known and common. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual_slavery#Historical_sexual_slavery has a bit of background, but my understanding is that this was a bit of overblown Moral panic and not a significant threat. Poor women are often forced into working in the sex trade, initially for survival, but then it becomes hard to "get out", but this isn't what is usually meant by the type of "sexual slavery" the OP notes. There was a widespread belief during the late 1800s-early 1900s that middle and upper class white women were being abducted by non-whites and being exported around the world as sex slaves, though I don't know of a single case of that actually happening. The panic in the U.S. led to the passage of the Mann Act, which AFAIK didn't actually stop sexual trafficking, but was instead used to enforce Anti-miscegenation laws at the federal level; Jack Johnson the boxer spent time in federal prison for having a white girlfriend. --Jayron32 00:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbary pirates abducted Europeans and sold them as slaves until they were defeated in 1805 by the U.S. In the 20th century, ads were placed in European newspapers for models and the women were abducted and sold as sex slaves to Lebanese brothels and to the Shah of Iran.
Sleigh (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Barbary pirates used traditional slavery of the "capture people and force them to work for you" type, but to be fair, so didn't lots of naval powers, some legitimate, see Impressment and Shanghaiing and Blackbirding. As far as your second point, please ^{[citation needed]}. This is the reference desk, and it would be nice to see actual evidence of that having been recorded as happening, and not just evidence of it being rumored to have happened. I don't say outright that it didn't, but if you are going to claim that it did, it would be nice to see some references. --Jayron32 03:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant '....so did lots of....' Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical evidence for religious founders

What religions' founders are there actual historical evidence for having existed? --128.42.221.171 (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith, Sun Myung Moon, etc. Perhaps you should qualify your question in some way, so we don't get a hundred such answers ? StuRat (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

L. Ron Hubbard. And Marshall Applewhite. And Jim Jones. And are you looking for cult leaders as well? Dismas|^(talk) 02:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, The Bab, Bahaullah, etc. Futurist110 (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Even then there's little historical doubt that Muhammad, Jesus, David, Moses, Buddha or Zoroaster were real people. You need to delimit this question if you want specific answers. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said that these were some of the leaders for whom there was actual historical evidence for this existence. Futurist110 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Baker Eddy, Martin Luther, Henry VIII of England, John Wesley, Laozi, Confucius, Akhenaten, Wovoka, Anton LaVey, Guru Nanak Dev all founded religions of various sizes and historical importance, and AFAIK, they were all really real. For realz. --Jayron32 03:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the Christian denominations are not religions in themselves, only different branches of the same religion. Futurist110 (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Say's who? --Jayron32 03:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia--look at Catholicism, Protestanism, and Orthodox Christianity, for instance. The only Christian branch (at least that I know of--there might be others) which could be theoretically considered a different religion is Mormonism. Futurist110 (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also most mainstream Christians, when they say the Apostle's Creed; our statement of faith. Alansplodge (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could also make an easy case that all of the Abrahamic religions are a single faith with different brances, as are the dharmic faiths like Buddhism and Hinduism, as are the East Asian religions like Taoism and Confusianism. If you look at comparative religions, "religion" itself was invented maybe a half dozen times or so in history, each of the major modern "World Religions" began as an offshoot of one of about three foundational faiths. There isn't a bright line to be drawn to say when one collection of beliefs is a seperate religion, or merely a sect. With apologies to the linguists in the room, "A religion is a sect with an army and a navy". --Jayron32 04:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What defines a religion is obviously a cultural and linguistic thing. For example, in Australia, the National Census Form contains an optional question - "What is the person's religion?". Choices for answers are, in order: Catholic, Anglican (Church of England), Uniting Church, Presbyterian, Buddhism, Greek Orthodox, Islam, Baptist, Lutheran, Other - please specify. Make of that what you will. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laozi was mentioned above as someone who really existed. I thought the historicity of Laozi is much in doubt and there is little or no real historic evidence he existed, apart from texts written no earlier than many centuries after his supposed life. I thought Laozi was kind of like Homer, in there being "no reliable biographical information handed down from classical antiquity", as our Homer article puts it. As the question is about religion founders with "actual historical evidence for having existed", I'd suggest Laozi doesn't make the cut. I also thought the "actual historical evidence" for Gautama Buddha was rather lacking. Our pages on him says, citing a historian, "although there is very little information that can be considered historically sound, we can be reasonably confident that Siddhārtha Gautama did exist as a historical figure". The historicity of Moses is also in doubt, according to our page about him. Moses#Historicity puts it "While the general narrative of the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land may be remotely rooted in historical events, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated". Pfly (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The historicity of any person from over 2000 years ago who wasn't a King is always in doubt. There just wasn't much contemporary record of anyone outside of political life, it's not like we have birth certificates and tax rolls to prove that any specific person existed. So, while the criticism against the existance of any religious leader may be valid it isn't particularly striking, since there just isn't much corroborative record of anyone from that long ago. --Jayron32 16:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Historical USSR Censuses

Are there any websites that allow you to search historical USSR censuses, similar to how we have Ancestry.com here in the United States? Futurist110 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Futurist110 (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How much $/credit-hour are the cheapest online courses in the United States?

Even though I'm only a resident of Kansas, thanks to a "Military Dependent Waiver" for being a son of a former military personnel, I could potentially take advantage of said waiver for any of the 50 states plus the various territories.

What college in the United States offers the lowest-priced online courses? Also, with favorable admissions rates? How much are they per credit-hour?

And just in case I can't take advantage of that military-dependent status after all, what colleges provide the cheapest online courses for Kansas residents? Thanks. --70.179.167.78 (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a degree is unimportant and learning is your only objective, MIT offers free courses. Dismas|^(talk) 15:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courses offered through Coursera are also generally free. From my understanding, you don't typically get university credit, but you often get a signed certificate that you can try to use to impress other schools or employers. Buddy431 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to study? And at what level? And at what purpose? Cost can't be your primary consideration, since there is no point doing a course that doesn't interest you, is at the wrong level and won't help you achieve whatever it is you want to achieve. You need to work out what kind of course you want to do and then you can start looking at what those courses cost. --Tango (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's to study environmental technology (alternative energies, sustainability, etc.)

That's the field of study I'd like to go into online. That'll help you narrow it down, Tango. Having already studied Social Sciences & International Studies by that point, I will have completed certain prerequisite classes so I'd be on an accelerated path to finishing that field quicker, therefore the levels would be appropriate.

If anyone can find (or compile) a list of the cheapest 10 online courses in that field, that would be superb. Barring grants and scholarships, it would be imperative that I be able to pay for them under my own financial power, so the lower-priced the merrier.

Buddy431, it would help that the classes are accredited because I need to enroll in 6 credit-hours to defer student loan payments and the onset of compounding interest, so while I look for a job (which would take longer in this economy) and work the job I land, I would take these online courses as a "loan shelter" to keep me from paying back more than I'm able, and to prevent compounding interest from commencing. I'd like to pay on my own schedule, and make myself more marketable through these classes so that the resulting higher income allows me to pay the loans quicker.

(Again, I would not take out new loans for those online courses. Grants, scholarships, or my own financial might will be in play. If various students can get by with a full brick-and-mortar course-load with a full-time job, I can get by just fine with a full-time job and an online course load.) --75.39.136.230 (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't the euro's value plunged?

The Eurozone, to my understanding, is facing serious financial and monetary crises. Greece is near bankrupcy. Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland aren't in top condition either, to put it mildly. A (relatively) healthy Germany and (to a lesser extent) France strain to stop the tide of red ink. The European Central Bank seems to be responding by printing huge amounts of the stuff (Euros) and using it to panic-buy the most desperate members' debts to forestall a default. True solutions to these deep structural problems with the common currency do not seem to be on the horizon - or at least not without MAJOR economic pain all-round (most likely lasting several years). Logically, all this should have the effect of weakening the value of the Euro on the Foreign Exchange markets *significantly*, one would think?

Yet, despite all, this does not seem to have happened. By and large, the Euro seems to have held its' value against the $US *remarkably* well (from what I can gather looking at FX graphs) albeit with some swings. I know the US is going through economic problems of its' own (e.g. massive levels of foreign debt, "quantitative easing", a housing market crisis, and huge "entitlement spending" commitments on the horizon as the baby-boomers retire), but is this the whole story? (The Euro's value against other currencies doesn't seem to have massively plunged either). With all this bad debt and money-printing, what has stopped the value of the Euro from plunging horribly? 58.111.230.117 (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you sell Euros, what do you buy? USD has long been the safe reserve currency, but as you say there's reason to believe it will default, or inflate to avoid doing so, too. There's concern the RMB will falter, and markets have only so much confidence in smaller currencies like AUD and BRL. There has been something of a flight to metals and commodities, but when people want to keep a proportion of their assets in cash or a similarly fluid equivalent, they're stuck with a currency like the Euro. It seems the markets still have sufficient confidence in the Euro, and to the extent that there is real long-term inflationary pressure on it, that pressure exists on its competitors too. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Stability Mechanism might be a helpful article. As long as the group of countries are bound to assist each other, the risk of a collapse of the Euro is rendered less likely. There are two other articles to consider: Stability and Growth Pact and European Financial Stability Facility. There are also many news reports, political screeds and business papers on the subject. One of the latter can be found here. (In an effort to support the Ref Desk's objective to avoid presenting our own opinions when there are sound others to link, I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.) Bielle (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The description above is wildly exaggerated, in particular "printing huge amounts of the stuff and using it to panic-buy the most desperate members' debts". There has been a 25% drop in the Euro against the dollar over the past year of so, and that's a huge currency fluctuation in historical terms. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Looie says, a 25% drop isn't exactly "holding its value". It's been helped by the fact that the central banks of other major currency (eg. USD and GBP) have also been printing a lot of money to stimulate their economies (see quantitative easing). --Tango (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, all this should have the effect of weakening the value of the Euro on the Foreign Exchange markets *significantly*, one would think? As Looie says, there already has been a big drop against the dollar. True, Europe is facing major financial & monetary crises. But the US most certainly is NOT facing any real crisis in public finance. As I explain below, the problem is that Euros are too scarce; the prospect is deflation, not inflation. So in this context - when deflation is threatened, money, Euros should become very attractive - the drop in the Euro is telling, but still entirely rational. If you aren't scared by the Euro & the Eurozone economies, you don't understand what is going on. Despite the invalidity of many of the assumptions underlying the question, your big picture is right, 58.111.230.117 . This rational fear is widespread and widely acted on. Aside from the drop vs the dollar, flight from the Euro has led to Swiss National Bank intervention to prevent further rises in the Swiss Franc - i.e. the Swiss explicitly support the Euro - and to enormous (trillions) movements inside the Eurozone, from periphery banks, including not-so-peripheral Italy, to German ones. (See OsmanRF34's question above & the answers there for some background, btw).

The European Central Bank seems to be responding by printing huge amounts of the stuff (Euros) and using it to panic-buy the most desperate members' debts to forestall a default. The problem is (a) the ECB is not doing enough printing & not quickly enough, not too much printing. Not saying it will stand behind member states' bonds, capping interest rates and (b) when it does the printing - it conditions it on entirely destructive austerity, which is the exact reverse of what should be done: major government spending to boost employment & growth. So each time it intervenes, it is just doing a quick surface fix, while making the underlying problems worse. And some of its acts, like the Greek haircut, have been close to highway robbery, at the behest of the US Treasury & Wall Street in the background. And because each time it acts, the ECB just prolongs and actively causes the real crisis, each intervention is bigger and bigger and at a shorter interval from the last one. The ECB "printing money", doing all the "QE" possible, could not create inflation now even if it tried to. The most fundamental problem is in the member states' debt: WTF is it? In a normal country, like the US, not only does the central bank stands behind sovereign debt but there is an even more fundamentally important answer to the "WTF is it?" question: sovereign debt is a deferred tax credit. You can use your one-year bond to pay taxes in a year. If the ECB stood behind member states' debt, with rational spending oversight, the "WTF is it?" question would have a real answer.

The question implicitly exaggerates the USA's problems: massive levels of foreign debt? Denominated in US dollars & actually not too big. Real debt, but always payable. quantitative easing not very meaningful - except right now it's deflationary, anti-stimulatory, in the US, UK, Japan, etc. housing market crisis a real, true crisis, but economic, behind private sector ills, not public finances and huge "entitlement spending" commitments on the horizon as the baby-boomers retire Problems with "entitlement spending" are entirely fabricated, a very Big Lie. Huge "entitlement spending" would be a great boon to the US economy now. There is no economic reason for the US to default, which would be insane and is thankfully legally very difficult, and there is minuscule prospect of inflation either, no matter what it does.

True solutions to these deep structural problems with the common currency do not seem to be on the horizon - or at least not without MAJOR economic pain all-round (most likely lasting several years). There's already been major pain in the periphery, and it is spreading to the center. Unless people relearn real economics & discard the nonsensical "economics" of the last 3-4 decades, things are going to be tough, likely to get worse before they get better, especially in Europe. If applied economics returned to the level of say 1950, the crises would be over in a couple months.John Z (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people overspent stupidly especially on housing during the boom and then the crash came. Normally a country would just print lots of money to pay off the debts but Germany has made sure the Eurozone follows its way to prudence in finance. Except for Greece the other countries can take it well enough and will come out stronger at the end. For Greece there will have to be continuing support and some attempt made to reform and build the economy and I think the rest see now that austerity is nowhere near a complete solution there. I'm not at all sure the Euro should have gone down so much compared to those other currencies, a lot of the stuff is just herd instinct and avoidance of disruption and uncertainty. It going down has helped the economies a bit which is good but printing loads of Euros without a strong check would have gone against everything Germany stands for, and personally I prefer how they go around things to how the US and UK do it. About the only thing that really worries me about it is that it is more in line with what Republicans in the US want to do! Dmcq (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you join the U.S. Army, can you choose to stay at home

I'm 20 and I don't really know what to do with my life, I neither study nor work and I'm supported by mom. I want to join the Army but to be honest I don't want to be on any front line. Are there possibilities to stay at home and work on American soil? Timothyhere (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My (limited) understanding is that the answer to that question is "yes and no". There are plenty of non-combat roles in the military which involve working on the "home front". My understanding, though, is that when you sign up to the military, you effectively give them something of a "blank cheque" to deploy you overseas should they choose to do so. This doesn't mean it's likely they'll do so, just that it's possible. Note, also, that even if you're kept "home" on american soil, the U.S. is a big place, and you could end up being sent far from your mom's home - the military has bases all over america. You may be able to state a preference as to where you are stationed, but the final decision is theirs, not yours. Hopefully, this doesn't deter you - the military needs recruits pretty desperately. Others can correct me if I'm wrong about any of the above. 58.111.230.117 (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be mentioned that "home" and "war" aren't the only two options for where they might deploy you. The US military has bases all over the world, many of them in friendly first world countries. My brothers (combined) spent most of their military careers stationed in foreign countries which we weren't at war with. Dismas|^(talk) 15:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just speculating here, but my understanding is that when you sign up you can get the military to guarantee (?) you will be put into a particular field (infantry, airplane technician, that sort of thing). I've always wondered how airtight those promises are. Anyway, maybe you could choose a field that is unlikely to be needed in a combat zone. But I don't know if there is such a field.

Incidentally, I assume the military still has its policy of rotating people to a new location every few years, so there's probably no chance of being located long-term near your mother. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

1) The choice of service will affect your chances. The US Coast Guard is not generally used abroad. The US Navy is, but the nature of modern wars mean that the Navy is relatively safe. We did have the USS Cole incident, but, generally, the Navy is out of harm's way in modern wars. The US Air Force is also deployed abroad, but, unless you are a pilot, you would be likely to be in a relatively safe location at an air base. The US Army and US Marines are where you are most likely to find yourself in front-line combat.

2) The choice of a specialty also matters. If you sign up to be a computer programmer, you aren't likely to be needed on the front line.

3) Be sure to get any promises in writing. Military recruiters in the US are notorious for promising whatever will get you to sign on the line, then conveniently forgetting what they promised. You can certainly choose which service you join. Some may also allow you to pick your specialty, but, by all means get it in writing. However, many selections are chosen as "preferences", meaning they can reassign you based on your ability (or lack thereof) and their needs.

4) Another way to stay home (most of the time) is to join the reserves. Each service has a reserve portion. As before, you want to avoid services which are likely to call up the reserves and send them abroad. The US Coast Guard Reserve should be pretty safe. Note that the reserves, being part time, don't have the same level of pay and benefits as full-time military service. However, it is a good thing to have on your resume, and the skills/job training you learn there may also apply to civilian jobs. StuRat (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Careful there. The Navy might be a safer choice relative to the Army, but some naval personnel are being called to the front lines. Now, this may have diminished along with involvement in Iraq, but I have an uncle in his 50s (a naval reservist, actually) who's had a few tours in Afghanistan. So he wasn't on a boat. As I understand it, he was called up due to his rank, and thus was able to provide leadership. Maybe that doesn't happen with midshipmen. But don't assume the Navy is just sitting around in ships. And if we go to war with Iran? Even the ships are going to be more active. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily on ships, no, but even at a navy base it should be considerably safer than if deployed to the interior at some small army outpost. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to #2: Even in technical fields, you aren't safe from combat. Back in the 60s, when the draft was going on, My dad got smart and signed up for a technical field: he was a repair technician for coder-decoder equipment, and was asigned to a base in Korea, far from any active wars. He was an E-6 specialist, no one even wore their proper uniforms around the base, just T-shirts and jeans and stuff like that. Things went fine until a boat ended up where it shouldn't have been and suddenly the Korean war looks like its about to get hot again. My dad's base goes on alert, and suddenly he's an Seargent with two corporals and 6 privates he's going to have to lead into combat. So, the answer is there is no job in the military which is safe from combat. There are support roles where combat is unlikely, but the military's job is to fight wars and the expect everyone to be ready to do so, just in case it happens. --Jayron32 15:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's all about probabilities. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in military service but don't want to be shipped off to Afghanistan, there are many civilian jobs with the Armed Forces branches. [usajobs.gov ] is probably the best centralized place to find them. The caveat is that every time I've applied for a job there, I've found it about as effective as shouting out my window. I can only assume that there are very large applicant pools for most jobs there. But it may be worth a try, particularly if you have any sought-after skills, such as knowledge in a STEM field or an in-demand language like Mandarin, Arabic, Pashto, or Farsi. Good luck! --BDD (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I believe translators/interpreters attached to the military (even "civilian" ones) often get deployed overseas, including in combat zones - particularly if your language is one spoken in a current conflict zone. Ergo, if I was an Arabic, Pashto or Farsi translator, I'd be wary in taking up a position in the armed forces. A massive number of translators/interpreters working for the Americans in Iraq have been murdered. I'd stick to translating languages whose speakers are not our current enemies. 58.111.230.117 (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is 100 percent unwilling to give their life for their country, they should stay out of the military... because as Jayron indicates, once they've got you, you never know where they might decide to send you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but my assumption is the issue is not so much where your service may be needed, but whether you can be forced to serve there. With enlisted personnel, my understanding is even if written promises are offered as suggested by StuRat (I'm not convinced they are although I don't know whether you have much hope getting one for a civilian job either), you really shouldn't take too much heed of them, stop-loss policy shows that the government can and will do whatever they decide is necessary. I.E. I'm pretty sure a written promise not to be sent into a conflict zone isn't worth much for enlisted personnel.

And as the same article or AWOL attests, when you leave the military is often not completely up to you (for enlisted personnel). If you do try to leave and they don't let you, you could easily be jailed. For most civilians jobs outside the military, you retain the option to leave your job at any time. Okay you may be required to give notice, but even if you don't as I understand it, in most countries they still can't force you to work if you don't. They can just sue you and attempt to recover some of the costs (depends on your contract) [17]. Very occasionally you may be bonded usually after training, but again the enforceability of requiring you to work appears to be quite questionable [18] [19] [20], most likely they can simply make you pay them back. Whatever happens you normally won't be going to jail for it. Obviously this will look rather bad on your CV probably screwing up chances of a future job but that's a somewhat seperate issue.

While technically when it comes to the government, there's fair chance they can change the law but it's not clear how likely this would be in the absence of other factors likely making it a moot point. There is a history of civilian service, e.g. Civilian Public Service but these are of course only in play when Conscription in the United States is enforce. So the key question is whether right now, civilians working for the US military can basically be forced to work somewhere if they had a written contract saying they can't (if you can actually get such a contract). It seems that the [Civilian Expeditionary Workforce]] does have a provision for involuntary service [21] so you probably do need to be careful with that. But I couldn't find (not helped by the number of nutcase websites picking up on the involuntary service provision) if this means you can't quit or whether you still have this option which you don't generally have if you're enlisted. (If you can still quit, ultimately it's not that different from a civilian job outside the military where if you contract allows it, your employer may ask you to go somewhere you don't go and your options are either to go there or quit.)

Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see here, not one response is linked to any hard information about postings after sign-up or the military's ability to make or keep promises about postings. You may be right, but a little sourcing would be helpful. Bielle (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only sure way of being in the US Army without being in combat is to be a woman. Failing that, see this website for a discussion of the chances: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruiterlies.htm

"This depends primarily upon (1) your branch of service and (2) your military job. For the Army and Marine Corps, almost everyone will get a chance or two to play in the sand, regardless of Military Occupation Specialty (job). Heck, the Marines have even been known to send band members to perform combat missions in Iraq. These two branches do not have enough folks in the combat MOSs to do the job, so they routinely deploy non combat folks to help out.

Your chances of being deployed (on the ground) to Iraq and Afghanistan are not as great in the Air Force and Navy, and depend much on your military job. However, both services task members (regardless of their specialty) to train and deploy with the Army in Iraq, under a program called "in-lieu-of," or ILO, tasking. The active duty Air Force has a couple of thousand deployed under this program at any given time, and the active duty Navy about 5,000. Of course, depending on your job, you could also be deployed on a ship patrolling the Gulf region (Navy), or on any number of Air Bases (Air Force) in and around Iraq and Afghanistan. The Coast Guard keeps about five or six patrol boats in the Gulf to assist with port security." --128.112.224.216 (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women are not directly assigned to front-line infantry units, but in plenty of cases they can be close enough to fighting to be in danger... AnonMoos (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This site (GoArmy.com) is absolutely clear about one aspect of military life: Relocation is part of Army life. One of the things you can count on is that at some point you will relocate to a different installation,. Bielle (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NASA has archaeologists on the payroll?

Watching a documentary on the History Channel about the Indiana Jones movies and one talking head, Robert R. Cargill, Ph.D., has the label "Archaeologist, NASA." Why is NASA employing archaeologists? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either the History Channel was being even screwier than usual or you misread the "label", I think. The relevant initials seem to be UCLA, not NASA. See www.tvrage.com/person/id-336860/Robert+R.+Cargill (which I can't link directly because the site is blacklisted here). Deor (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got the name wrong, but not the fact that there was an archaeologist on that show whose given label was "Archaeologist, NASA." It just wasn't Cargill. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this answer your question? --ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, things like filled-in canals may be visible from satellites, but not obvious directly on the ground. StuRat (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From that link: "Understanding how ancient man successfully managed Earth is important for the success of current and future societies." I guess that's the reasoning. But I wonder what specific answers about how to successfully manage the land are answered by archaeologists better than, say, civil engineers could answer when designing the plan of, say, a base plot on Mars. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cargill appears to edit Wikipedia as User:XKV8R (with OTRS confirmation). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As mentioned above, I asked the man himself on his talk page, and he confirmed that it wasn't him, but another scholar in the documentary. These documentaries show one commenter after another, and I remembered the wrong name as I came to the computer with this question. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was Thomas Sever, whose article says that he's the only archaeologist employed by NASA and explains what he does there. (He also wrote the page linked by ColinFine above.) Deor (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought is that archeology may be useful if we find potential evidence of a long-dead civilization on another planet. For example, if we find rocks chipped in a way that looks like toolmaking, they might be able to help determine if those chips are intentionally made or naturally formed, as this is a common problem encountered during excavations on Earth. For another example, it's apparent that water once flowed on Mars, and an archeologist could help distinguish rivers from canals. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there'd be no reason to keep an archaeologist on retainer until then. It's not like there wouldn't be plenty jumping at the bit if such a discovery was made, and nobody's expecting to make a discovery like that within the lifetimes of any archaeologists currently alive. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a reason: to keep it quiet until you decide what you have and announce it. StuRat (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a reason to keep one on indefinite retainer. Even if you did find something weird, it is trivially easy to find someone to hire for consultation (archaeologists are not exactly rare). The guy above has a full-time job. He's not being kept on for the reasons you've described, which would just be an obvious waste of money. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A permanent employee is less likely to risk his job to leak that info than a consultant, who might very well get more by selling photos of the "Proof of alien civilizations !" to the press than he gets as a consultation fee. StuRat (talk)

Except of course no one will trust the consultant anymore so his ability to work in the future as a consultant will be majorly affected. In other words, little different from the employee.... (And it wouldn't actually surprise me if the consultant finds it harder to find a job as a consultant, then the employee will find it to find as an employee afterwards. There is a fair chance the consultant will not be someone who's primary job is as a consultant.) In fact, the consultants fee will almost definitely be higher then the employee's annual salary, and the employee will likely receive his salary up until about the time he is fired whereas the consultant will get nothing. Of course both could easily suffer a large financial penalty once the lawsuit comes around, but there's no reason why the financial penalty for the employee will be higher.

Also while I'm not saying money doesn't matter, the reality is for most quality researchers (i.e. those NASA is likely to hire), even those working as consultants, it isn't generally the most important thing to them. Working on something like that, particularly if they are the only one as you seem to be suggesting, will be a far more important to any quality researcher and they will know leaking the info will get them cut out of the research rather quickly. And besides, there's a very good chance having been that person, they will get far more money from appearance fees, books, etc, if that's what they want; then the person who leaked info and was promptly cut out.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pssst. Obviously something to do with Stargates.John Z (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's foreign policy, Iran, Israel ...

Canada closed iran's embassy and expelled iranian politicians. Nazanin Afshin-Jam, an activist and the Defense minister's wife, had a major role in this decision (One of the most prominent voices calling for the closure was Nazanin Afshin-Jam CBCnews). Many analyst said Canada's always peace broker role is distorted without any useful outcome for Canada (Canada, a country that was respected around the world as a peace broker, has failed its citizens and the world for taking an unwise decision that would help no one in the long run except the warmongers Prism-Magazine). Except netanyahu's praise. Everything was about israel's satisfaction (Shutting Iranian Embassy Was for Netanyahu, Not Canadians Huffingtonpost). As Tony Burman said: "Netanyahu Is Canada's New Foreign Minister". What is exactly Canada's plan about Iran, and in whose hand it is? Flakture (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Canadian-Iranian relations. It's rather surprising that Canada didn't break off diplomatic relations after Zahra Kazemi was arrested, raped, tortured, and murdered. The timing of breaking off relations now suggests that Canada is concerned that Iran may soon be attacked, and take it out on Canadian diplomats (since there are no American or Israeli diplomats present). StuRat (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Half your links are pointless, and your failure to consistently capitalize names looks amateurish and distracting. Anyway, Israel had nothing to do with Zahra Kazemi... AnonMoos (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to respond to assumptions not proven. For example:

♦Nazanin Afshin-Jam, an activist and the defense minister's wife, had a major role in this decision. Not proven, no evidence given

♦Many analyst said canada's always peace broker role is distorted without any useful outcome for canada except netanyahu's praise. Not proven, no evidence given

♦Everything was about israel's satisfaction. Not proven, no evidence given

♦Tony Burman has a near-unique point of view, several degrees away from any other commentator.

Your specific question is answered, to the extent that any politician actually answers question, in the WP article linked above by StuRat. John Baird has spoken may times about the decision and the on-going consequences. See here, here, and here for a small sampling. I have sympathy for your general frustration, but you do not help yourself by soap-boxing, using unfounded statements and outlier journalists as your benchmarks. Bielle (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links are added to question. Flakture (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baird did not stated anything about Iran-Canada direct issues. What he said was about some international issues like Syria, Israel and some other things. Any country could do what Canada did about iran's embassy. Flakture (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully most other nations haven't had their reporters arrested, raped, tortured, and murdered by the Iranians. And Canada, being close to the US, might also be more of a target should Iran decide to strike back after a US attack. StuRat (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube question

How to download a video from a website and then upload it onto YouTube when there's no "download" option? Thank you. I asked this on the computing desk but nobody answered. Please help me. Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two people answered you; you didn't answer their follow up questions. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But their answers didn't help me at all. As for the first answer, it doesn't matter. As for the second, I know how to handle copyright issues. Nobody answered me how to download it. Timothyhere (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So continue the discussion there. Don't open another question because the answers you've already received displeased you. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the right desk. Nobody here will know the answer if they don't know it there. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Wrong forum. We're done here.

Shadowjams (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

majority seats Knesset

Knesset has 120 seats. If a party like Meretz wants to win a majority in order to avoid to make a coalition government with other parties, how many does it need to win? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.31 (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obviously 61, isn't it? Rojomoke (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) To be able to govern in its own right, with no need to consider a formal coalition or depending on the support of other parties, a party must have at least one more seat than all the other parties combined. That is, 50% plus 1. In this case, that works out to be 61 seats. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be less than 61, if a few seats are vacant, due to deaths, resignations, etc. ? StuRat (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how the Knesset operates so I can't say for sure. But in Westminster parliamentary systems, decisions are made by whoever happens to be there on the day. In some places there's a system called pairing, whereby if one member is unavoidably absent through illness or parliamentary or government business, the main rival party will voluntarily absent one of its members from votes, so that they don't get an unearned advantage. But that's always a voluntary thing, and exceptions are far from unknown. Our article is extremely rudimentary, btw. Pairing has a long and significant history in Australia, and its failure to be honoured played a part in the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, which saw Gough Whitlam and his government dismissed despite holding a clear majority in the lower house. But remember that these movements in numbers are short-term transitory things. If a parliament has X seats, the basic goal is for any party to win X/2 + 1 seats. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rojomoke, that was a disgusting response. If it was so obvious to the OP, why would they ask? Please be civil and assume good faith. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second this comment. Futurist110 (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Rojo assumed that the OP understood what the term "majority" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but who knows what leads up to the questions we get? And who knows what level of knowledge our OPs have about the things they ask about? Who is fit to judge what should be obvious to an OP? Maybe the OP was in a discussion where one side argued all they need is more seats than any other party (a plurality), and another side said all they need is exactly 50%, and another side said they need a 2/3 majority, or what-the-hell-ever. There are endless possibilities that could make this an absolutely reasonable question, and we are enjoined to assume good faith. Unless Rojomoke is accusing the OP of being a troll - in which case, let him produce the evidence - he ought to either answer the question unsnarkily, or not answer it at all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He shouldn't have assumed what I assume he assumed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I got it. the number of seats to win a majority is 56. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.31 (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

56 ? StuRat (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's from Canada, so maybe he computed it in metric. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would a Canadian Knesset be called a Canusset? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Knesset is known as the Parliament of Canada. Guess they're not as creative with their naming, eh? --Activism1234 04:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll have to stop calling them the the Royal Canadian Mounted Politicians, then. StuRat (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

"Knesset" means "gathering" or "assembly", as with U.S. states that call their legislatures the "General Assembly". As for the other comment, maybe you're thinking of the boys in the band: a Guy and his Royal Canadians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 18 elections in Israel's history, and never did the leading party get a simple majority (61 or more seats). What's more, if the party with the greatest number of votes fails to assemble a coalition of like-minded parties to number 61 or more seats, the mandate goes to the runner-up; in the most recent elections, that happened to Kadima and Likud respectively. Minority parties that become coalition partners reap great rewards in the form of government ministries (now of an unprecedented number). This means, for those of you accustomed to directly elected and regional representation rather than the Israeli system of voting only for a party slate* - a majority of voters have their representatives in the opposition. They sit on committees, propose and vote on legislation - but a great deal of policy-making at the ministry level, and associated budget allocations, are in the hands of "special-interest" parties representing minority populations (e.g. religious fundamentalists). *When a parliamentary seat becomes vacant, it goes to the candidate who was next on that party's list in the most recent election; some politicians choose to cede their seat partway through a term. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the most accurate death toll for serial killer Ted Bundy?

I know he confessed to lot of crimes, but I also know that he later denied involvement in many of the crimes he confessed. What's the most accurate death toll? Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Ted Bundy#Victims. It's not likely that we can give you better information than you will find there. Looie496 (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

PDFA and tobacco and alcohol money

The WP article on PDFA cites the following statement: "The Partnership recently announced it will quit its alcohol and tobacco habit but will continue to mainline pharmaceutical checks (Village Voice, 3/12/97)." Is "Village Voice" referring to www.villagevoice.com? That seems to be an entertainment magazine. My ultimate goal is to find out whether PDFA still accepts tobacco and alcohol money or not. A8875 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Village Voice is not limited to entertainment, they also report news: [22]. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Guess I'll head to Resource Exchange, though I doubt anyone still has that 15 years old piece of dead tree. If anyone has a a more recent source on the topic please chime in. A8875 (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a slightly more recent story from them: [23]. StuRat (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the PDFA's annual report for 2010, with a list of donors on page 23: [24]. I see lots of big pharma on the list, but no explicit listing of alcohol and tobacco companies. However, since many on the list are other charitable organizations, like state versions of the PDFA, you'd need to research each of those to be sure. They also have an anonymous donor and donors which can't easily be identified, like "Grey" (as in a grey area ?). StuRat (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the 2011 donor list: [25], which looks about the same. StuRat (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A8875 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

US Marine guards at embassies

Are US Marine Corps guards at US embassies merely ceremonial, or are they expected to fight to defend the Embassy? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are expected to fight, but only when it's actually possible to win. There is also the difficult judgement of when using force will incite the mob even more. StuRat (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any Marine will tell you that he or she is always prepared to fight, whether on active duty, ceremonial duty, or off duty. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 01:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "ceremony" is displayed by Marines is simply to improve discipline and esprit de corps (greater ability to fight as a unit) in short almost everything Marines do is aimed at being better strategic fighters. StuRat had it right, that doesn't always mean fight since the Marines by mission are "expeditionary" they are fully capable of fighting 5:1 or even 10:1 or 20:1 odds in the right circumstances but the reason for this is they are one of the most elite fight smarter not harder organizations on earth. In a way however as expeditionary no strategist or politician would expect them to hold out for more than a day or two under a full mob, but the embassy assigned Marines are fully capable of repelling almost anything until reinforcements are sent by Washington--or hopefully the native government. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just silly. Of course the marines at embassies are more than just fighters. They are obvious parts of the image of an embassy. Most embassies are in friendly countries. The image needs to be a positive one (and is, in my country), showing passers-by that the US does things well and professionally. And those at the US Embassy in my country are highly unlikely to ever be asked to fight the locals. The ceremonial bit IS important. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is saying ceremony isn't important, just that with the Marines it's not just for the sake of ceremony. Friendly countries do allow for the Marines to be viewed more as symbols but even in the friendliest nations terrorists, extremists and even the random crazed criminal is still very much a threat to an Embassy. Even in the most hostile, chaotic nations there will still usually be a token effort by the native police to assist a U.S. Embassy if for nothing else as a signal that they don't wish for all out war/invasion or U.N. armed response (realistically remote but always in the back of the mind of national leaders anywhere). Bottom line if the Embassy is in Ottawa or in Tripoli all it takes is a handful of determined individuals (be it a pseudo government or just a team ala Oklahoma City bombing) Marines and the Foreign Service Protection staff are always ready to repel. Plus even if your stationed at Paris or Ottawa next month you could be reinforcing Tripoli or Beirut, so the training and mindset can't slack. Marketdiamond (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, the local police will defend embassies. In the UK, for example, that role is performed by the Diplomatic Protection Group. If the visiting security personnel need to do any actual defending, then something has gone seriously wrong. Article 22(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations says: "The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity." The duty of protecting the embassy is very clearly with the host nation, not the visiting nation. --Tango (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility of winning isn't really relevant. If they are forced to fight, then they'll be doing so to buy time to evacuate the embassy (it's rare to try and stand your ground in an embassy - what would be the point?). They'll fight until either everyone has got out or they are dead, as is the duty of any military personnel. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases surrender is the better option (at least for those inside the embassy). For example, the hostages in the Iran Hostage Crisis were eventually released, while they might have all been killed if the it came down to a firefight. Of course, those not inside the embassy might think "death before dishonor" is the way to go, but people actually in that position don't always agree. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the attackers are interested in taking prisoners, then yes, that can't be a sensible move. In the recent attacks, I don't think there was any intention to take prisoners - when you are faced with a mob like that, the best strategy is generally to run away. --Tango (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps land mines. If it's posted that the grounds are full of land mines, and they climb the fence and get blown up by them, they can't very well get upset at Americans for escalating the event. StuRat (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

By the way, the consulate in Benghazi had no Marines, no bulletproof glass, no reinforced doors. [26] Wnt (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Emma and King Kamehameha IV

Are Queen Emma and King Kamehameha IV really Anglican saints? If so, why is Father Damien considered Hawaii's first saint?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say they are in our article, where did you get that information from? --TammyMoet (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of England hasn't really had any official method of making saints after the 16th century; if you look in "The Calendar; with the Table of Lessons" section of the Book of Common Prayer, none are listed. Wikipedia article Saints in Anglicanism... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Book of Common Prayer in the Anglican Church is something of a historical relic. Each separate part (or "Province") of the Anglican Communion has its own replacement and each has an up-to-date list of saints and those thought worthy of commemoration and the day on which they should be specially remembered. They are collectively called Saints and Heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion. This calender includes saints who were canonized before English Reformation and a number of other Christian worthies; many of them, like Óscar Romero or Dietrich Bonhoeffer (both commemorated in England) were not Anglicans. The inclusion of these post-Reformation names was a result of the 9th Lambeth Conference in 1958; the calendar for each Province will be similar to any other but will have names of particular local interest. You can see the list for the Episcopal Church in the United States of America at Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America). Kamehameha and Emma, are commemorated on 28 November in the US but not elsewhere as far as I can see. So not saints but people whose Christian example is worthy of remembrance, at least in the USA. I believe that the lede of our "Calender of Saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America)" is in error in this respect. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could qualify that last comment. Our Saints in Anglicanism suggests that the term "saint" refers to any spiritually saved person". In that sense, exemplary Christians, like Martin Luther King or our Hawaiian monarchs, may be regarded as saints but certainly not in the same way as biblical saints or in the way that Father Damien is regarded as a saint by Roman Catholics. Those on the Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism often accept the validity of recently canonized Roman Catholic saints, however. Alansplodge (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of seats of lower house of the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium, and Knesset

Is there some websites where they show the names of the constituencies of each lower house of each European nation and Israel? I am interested in who represents which riding or constituency in those nations and by which political party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.31 (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does. While the naming can get hard if you try to guess what each article is located at, you can usually start at the "Politics of <whatever>" article and get what you want in one or two clicks. For example, starting at Politics of Israel, I find the navigation box on the right with the blue menora in it. I click the "show" next to Knesset and find the "Members" link which brings me to List of members of the eighteenth Knesset. Likewise, on Politics of the Netherlands, I click the "show" link next to "States General", and there's a link for the "Current members" of the House of Representatives, and that link brings me to List of members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands (2010–2012). Since every one of those countries organizes and names their legislature differently, the easiest method is to repeat what I just did for each country you want info on. --Jayron32 03:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli Knesset doesn't have any geographical constituencies, by the way... AnonMoos (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One problem you're likely to come across here, is that many (if not all?) of the countries you listed, have proportional representation, rather than first-past-the-post, so there is not one MP who is responsible for each constituency, but rather several MPs for each constituency. Norway's constituencies are the same as the 19 fylker, each is represented by several MPs, none of whom respond specifically to a certain geographical area, but rather all represent the same geographical area. Another way of finding a list of current MPs would be to look through the articles named, such as Norwegian parliament, Swedish parliament etc. (There is even a specific template for them.) V85 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be another Ted Bundy in these times with all the technology and criminal profiling?

I mean, at large. Timothyhere (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't ask questions asking for opinions - and obviously there cannot be a factual answer to this. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Of course there can be a factual answer. We know it is possible, because it happens. List of serial killers in the United States includes plenty of modern serial killers, including quite a few that killed over a period of several years. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A recent thread on serial killers on the ref desk pointed out that the basic problem in such cases is the "randomness" of the homicides. The Category:Unsolved murders in the United States seems to contain a number of unsolved cases of multiple homicide.

Of course, it is unknown if the associated criminals are at large or dead (or possibly "cured", whatever that may mean in the context).

The article Serial killer furthermore has sections on potential motives and theories. It points out that "the law enforcement system in the United States is fragmented and thus not configured to detect multiple similar murders across a large geographic area" (admittedly, a reference from 1998). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's still a problem today. Let's say there was a serial killer with a unique MO, say dressing his victims up in giant chicken suits. I don't think there's any system set up to check to see if any similar murders have been performed with that MO in the rest of the US, much less the rest of the world. We'd just have to "get lucky" and have one cop who knew of such a murder happen to read about another such murder. Then, when you get murders with nothing that obvious in common which jumps out as unique, the chances of linking them up is even lower. You can also get serial killers who intentionally change their MO, making linking them up the most difficult of all. StuRat (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inherent randomness of the victims would presumably make it more difficult to figure out who a serial killer is, compared with a family member who would be targeting a specific victim or victims. If a serial killer leaves evidence, it allows the police to tie a series of victims together, but it doesn't necessarily reveal who the killer is. There has to be something to cross-reference, such as DNA or fingerprints that are already in a database somewhere. Otherwise, it just depend on the killer doing something stupid and giving himself away, as with the BTK guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 attacks, did the hijackers carry firearms?

Retractable blade knife with replaceable utility blade.

Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read September 11 attacks and the linked articles? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overread, sorry, I'll get into the details. Thank you and sorry again.Timothyhere (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no, they used boxcutters as weapons, which, for some strange reason, were allowed to be carried on board by passengers (I never quite figured out why). StuRat (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought the boxcutters they were using were more like Xacto knives, which could easily be disguised as pens in a shirt pocket. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This report suggests that the boxcutters "may have been prepositioned by accomplices for use by others" (presumably hidden on the aircraft in advance). This article says that a "Leatherman-style utility knife" might be the weapon in question. But apparently we only know that boxcutters were used from a single telephone conversation, so probably we'll never know what they were like and how they got there. Alansplodge (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem too spectacular in a pre-9/11 scenario and in a national flight. It could also have been a simple, innocent looking cut-throat razor. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to really understand a box-cutter if you haven't used one. The blade is basically a razor blade, but it is protected so that only about half an inch is exposed, so it can be used to slash but not to make a deep stab wound. Because of that, they were not considered a deadly weapon -- but they are definitely intimidating. Looie496 (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(For our UK readers it's called a Stanley knife. And it can cause a very nasty wound indeed.) --TammyMoet (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I flew with a common folding knife in my pocket in July 2001. (One way. On my return, screeners at a much smaller airport disapproved of it, so I checked it, in my laundry bag – which had a defective zipper. Oh well.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before 9/11, knives with short blades were allowed on airplanes, including box-cutters. I flew dozens of times with a Swiss army knife in my pocket before that time, with no particular problem. The rules were changed rather dramatically after the attacks. --Xuxl (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many people died on board the flights on the September 11 attacks before the planes crashed

I mean, the pilots died before the crash right? Timothyhere (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on each flight, which spell out the exact sequence of events on board each one in as much detail as is available. See: American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93. --Tango (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign interventions

My intuitive sense is that the United States has performed the most foreign interventions of any nation in the 20th century (with maybe the Soviet Union as a close second). By "foreign intervention," I mean not only the classic "start a war with another country" or "overthrow a government you aren't fond of," but also things like "find ways to overtly or covertly influence elections," "impose economic sanctions upon," and "line up coalitions of other allied countries to punish/invade/condemn/etc. other nations." (I would consider the Iraq War to be a primarily US intervention, for example, despite the fact that there were other countries that participated in it; it was obviously something pushed for primarily by the US, and the US bore the weight of the cost, lives, and credit.)

Obviously with such a qualitative list of things, it's hard to know how one would approach such a thing quantitatively, but that's the question, I guess: has anyone come up with any kind of sane quantitative way of weighing foreign intervention? I'd be curious to see how the actual numbers worked out per decade (the US, for example, was quite different about its patterns of intervention in the first decades of the 20th century in comparison to the later decades), and I'd love to find a way to think about this for the 19th century as well as thinking about who else would be in the top tier. (How does the Soviet Union of the 1940s line up, say, with the U.K. of the 1880s?)

I'm not looking for a big debate about who was or wasn't interventionary, unless there are some good facts and figures to back it up! (If you want to argue that we should consider France as the great interventionary power of the 20th century, go ahead, but please back it up with some reasoned analysis and not just spouting of knee-jerk opinions.) And I'm imposing no moral order here — I am explicitly not caring about whether interventions are justified, unjustified, good, bad, whatever. I'm just curious about the levels of intervention. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would doubt you would find more than the U.S. during the 20th century, it is not a negative thing it is simply the reason the U.S. is thought of as the only Super power from 1991-2000 and one of two from circa 1950-1990, one of maybe five 1915-1949, and from 1901-1914 the major hemispheric power. As far as lists try:

Again during 1901-1914 possibly 1949 I would say the U.S. had at least the U.K., France and Japan tied or ahead of it. The period from 1950-2000 puts the U.S. far ahead of any other power, I say this as a very educated guess, I'd personally be shocked if the global power from 1991-2000 and 1 of arguably 2 for the last half of what was the 20th century politically was somehow eclipsed in all categories of foreign intervention. Again like OP, I don't see this as purely a negative, a large chunk of these may even be viewed as humanitarian or assisting "freedom fighters" etc. Interesting question, given this was my field of expertise for about a decade I would be extremely curious on a list that exceeded that of the U.S. 1901-2000. Marketdiamond (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the kind of thing where you can come up with a definition that will give any result you want. If you are including covert operations, then it is extremely difficult because even the ones we know about tend to be unconfirmed. --Tango (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course — I fully own up to that. But people have managed to come up with weirder indices in the past, e.g. everything at List of freedom indices. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the less sensitive covert operations eventually gets declassified after a few decades in democratic countries. This almost never happens in undemocratic countries. Hence you will always underestimate the hostility of undemocratic countries.A8875 (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the many parameters to determine a "sane" metric will be the military expenditure budgeted by various nations. On another level, foreign investment can be a tool for intervention. Budgets for relevant branches of the Intelligence agencies may be a further indicator of a specific nation´s interest in "foreign" affairs.

Of course, these metrics (and there are many more) have to be weighted in complex ways. For all I know, the RC church in the Vatican is the most interventionalist entity in proportion to the Holy Sea´s size and population. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Soviet Union would have the most, considering how almost every nation in Eastern Europe was controlled by them during the Cold War. The control was usually achieved just by the threat of violence, but they did use actual force when the threat was insufficient, such as in the Prague Spring. StuRat (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm looking for are metrics, not just blah blah blah opinions. I tried to make that somewhat clear. Let's not turn this into trivia night just because I said "United States." I think it can be taken for a given that I am pretty well-versed in Cold War history. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the US is the most interventionary nation in the 21st century and one of the most in the 20th century when the Soviet Union was a major interventionary power too, Cuba is an example of that, our country was in the front-line of the Cold War, however nowadays Cuba is an example of regime change support policy adopted by US government in recent years, following this objetive they apply to our nation several measurements like the embargo and the inclusion of Cuba in the List of Countries that support Terrorism(¿?)CubanEkoMember (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba has done several interventions of its own, starting with Angola... AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just look at all the innocent people America has killed: 12 Million Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and Homos in the Nazi Holocaust; 6 Million in the Ukranian Holodomor; 60 Million in the Cultural Revolution; a million in the Armenian genocide; 60 Million in WWII, including the 27 million soviet citizens murdered by the US; a million in the Rwandan Genocide; the 2 million dead when the US started the Korean War by invading the Communist North; the 2 million dead in Vietnam when the US attempted to annex the Communist North, like they had subjected the Phillipines to brutal colonization; the 200 Germans shot dead at American hands trying to cross the Berlin Wall; the 1.7 million personally strangled by Richard Nixon in the Cambodian Genocide; The 116,708 American soldiers dead in WWI sacrificed to kill 10 million Europeans in the name of Making the World Safe for American Interventionism; the 19,000 American soldiers, 25,000 Cuban freedom fighters, 45,000 Grenadian soldiers and 24,000 Grenadian civilians or so, by three factors of ten, killed by Reagan's order in the Invasion of Grenada, the 30,000 dead and 30,000 raped in the Yugoslav wars when Bill Clinton decided to stop Slobodan Milosevic from protecting the Muslims, Croats and Albanians; The 8 dead at Jimmy Carter's order in Operation Eagle Claw attempting to make Iran the 57th US state; and, of course, Kent State. </sarcasm> μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I am not sure your response helped the OP find the answer to a very reasonable question. These aggressive and rude answers of yours are starting to become a disruption. Please stop. --Jayron32 02:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "question" itself is a rather longwinded and personally offensive POV soapbox attack based on moral equivalence and equivocation between conquest and self defense. The OP, who challenged his opponents rather coarsely ("if you want to argue") to outright debate, could simply have asked in a neutral way, how many military actions or covert actions was the US involved in in the 20th century. See the MOS. Why didn't you shut this down in the first place and suggest a properly worded query? If he wants to reword his question neutrally I will be quite happy to hat mine. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he did the exact opposite of that. He's asked several times if anyone has come up with a scholarly metric to measure the concept of intervention, and has stated several times he's not really interested in debate. So, I'm not sure what words you are reading, because the words the OP posted didn't invite the sort of vitriol you have posted here. In fact, the OP has asked a very reasonable question, and worded it quite neutrally. You're tilting at windmills here. --Jayron32 03:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody to my knowledge has come up with a sane method of quantitative weighting of foreign interventions. As you already know, the standard methods of dealing with these issues are non-quantitative. Attempts to produce quantitative metrics in political science or political history for the large scale actions of states are often dodgy as all hell (democide anyone?). The unit of analysis for large scale state caused premature human mortality has shifted to the individual massacre, and this is being held forth by persons working in the area as superior from methodological and theoretical perspectives (and they're liberal-enlightenment instrumentalists generally in terms of theoretical background). Given the particular attention given to mortality studies, I would expect that areas such as state interventions have an even less well developed critique of large scale attempts at quantitative analysis. Obviously, you're aware of theoretical and methodological fallacies associated with poor quality qualitative coding issues. My personal experience has been that qualitative categories are often poorly developed prior to use, and are less well structured to analyse complex human social interactions (particularly aggregate ones), than methods rooted in the analysis of large volumes of discursive primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the entire 2,000 byte query, and we obviously disagree, Jayron. I think "if you want to argue" is inappropriate, but argued with supportive links as requested, and you think it isn't, unsw. I have made myself clear, am sure no one misunderstands what I have said, will be happy if the thread as a whole is hatted as intentionally attackatory, and am otherwise entirely uninterested in further discussion. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the dismissive or "My way or the highway"-type response. The "if you want to argue" was a request that any such arguments be supported by reason and not the knee-jerk utterances we see far too many of around here. In Ref Desk-speak, we'd interpret that as a request for referenced statements rather than unreferenced opinions. A perfectly reasonable and appropriate request. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, "my way or the highway"? Who is screaming whose contribution shouldn't even be read? Mr98 invited debate and I gave it, with plenty of articles, whose information I read in each case (see my figures) and am happy to stand on. Anyone who wants can read the links I gave and determine for themselves the impact or not of American "interventionism". (The word itself is meant to blur the distinction between conquest and defense; but I already said that; and you already know it.) I mean, really. Frankly, Jack, you are the last person I would expect to defend someone's right to explicitly invite debate, and then, instead of criticizing the invitation, attack the person who took it up. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't invite debate. He asked for scholarly studies. And your response was to be rude and combative and sarcastic and snide. --Jayron32 04:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I saw that statement as an attempt to keep rhetoric and polemics to a minimum and stick to the facts. It was the exact opposite of an invitation to debate, except for those who choose to interpret things uber-literally when it suits them. And you dare to insist the ref desks stick to the rules about "no debates", not even if requested, or you'll have us shut down. Please. This is what I mean about "my way". You justify your debating on the (spurious) grounds that it was requested, but nobody else can ever use that defence. Where's the "pestilence" now? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These datasets for 1946-2005 may be helpful, googling on the two pairs of scholars involved should help too. The omitted earlier part of the 20th century is easier, I think. The two great wars of course. But many might not realize how much the USA was only potentially a great military power in the interwar years - although of course still the hemispheric power - with something like only the 15th largest army in the world, able to be treated with rather less respect than nowadays as in say the USS Panay incident. So with the interwar isolationism, the main interventions would be Latin America, and I think at a lower level than any other time in the century, while this was not true of the other powers at that time.John Z (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Alemayehu

What religion was Prince Alemayehu raised in? His native Ethiopian Orthodox faith or in the Protestant faith of his country of exile? And what has been the United Kingdom's response to the request of Ethiopia for his reinterment in Ethiopia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The royal household were "considering the request" in 2007 [27], since when there seems to have been silence. I'd also be interested to know about the prince's religious upbringing (but the Church of England is not a Protestant faith). Marnanel (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find anything definite, but here is what I did find in case it’s of interest or suggests better search terms.

1. The Church Of England Magazine, 1 Jan 1870, says “They were being conveyed to the coast, with a view to their proceeding to Bombay; but the queen died on the journey. One of her last acts was to commit her son to the especial charge of captain Speedy, and make him promise that the child should be brought up in the Christian faith. Her majesty queen Victoria, having heard the circumstances, intimated her desire that Alamayu should be brought to England.” (Unclear if the magazine meant a specific denomination by this, or if Alemayehu’s mother did…)

2. Colburn's United Service Magazine and Naval and Military Journal, Volume 38, page 267 includes a protest against the idea of Alemayehu being sent to a Presbyterian school: “It was at first proposed to send him to Bombay to be educated by the Rev. Dr. Wilson. But we are pleased that this scheme was never carried out, convinced as we are that it would have ended in the youth being sent when older, to proselytise his compatriots in a Calvinistic direction.”

3. In the end, Englishman Tristram Speedy was the guardian and the prince lived with him in England and India until going to Rugby School. I haven’t found anything about Speedy’s own religion, but Allen’s Indian Mail, 16 July 1868 says that Alemayehu had an Ethiopian companion, Shellika Kassa, with him at least in the early days in England.

4. I couldn’t find whether the prince at Rugby might have been excused from chapel.

5. This is fiction, but the author is contactable and might reveal her source. In The Prince Who Walked with Lions, she wrote “I sometimes wonder if [Speedy] knew as much about Abyssinia or our Coptic religion as he thought he did.” It could be totally made up, but she seems to have reason to believe the intention was to raise the prince in his own religion, but the execution was not really possible.

NB for other googlers: the spellings “Alamayou”, :”Alamayu”, “Alamaiou” are all variations from the actual period. Taknaran (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of historical North-South conflicts?

Hi, I'm wondering if there is an archive of conflicts/tensions between the North and South parts of regions. This can be at a local, national, or even continental level. Some examples of North-South conflicts/tensions include: North and South Korea, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, cultural differences between North India and South India, Sudan and South Sudan, the American Civil War Nkiita (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to be a rather arbitrary way to categorize conflicts. I don't know that there's anything special about North-South compared to other directions, per se. I imagine one could find conflicts between easts and wests or conflicts where the direction doesn't play into it at all. --Jayron32 23:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the division of East and West Germany, or currently Western Sahara and Morocco. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although Western Sahara is located south of Morocco... --Xuxl (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, North Vietnam versus South Vietnam. Gabbe (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North–South Centre might be of interest. If you search for "north-south dialogue" you'll find some other links. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Harrying of the North, which goes a long way towards explaining the North-South divide in England. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

Norwegian and Danish crime writers' works in English

Which Norwegian crime writers has had their work been translated to English? Which Danish crime writers has had their work been translated to English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.93 (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the publishers Stockholm Text for a number of names. Bielle (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those all appear to be Swedish. For whatever reason, there seem to be many more Swedish detective story writers than Norwegians or Danes. The only one I am familiar with is Peter Høeg, the author of the bestseller Smilla's Sense of Snow, who is Danish. You can find a few more names listed in our article on the Glass Key award, though. Looie496 (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list at Amazon of Danish writers, and a reference book on Scandinavian mystery writers in general. Bielle (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a column on Nordic mystery writers with names from Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Bielle (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Nesbø is another. Mikenorton (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Let him speak up now or be silent for ever"

Hello L.H. ! I recently witnessed a British marriage religious ceremony in a Lutheran temple, and was disappointed not to hear that formula, so popularised by the film Four Weddings and a Funeral . Has that picturesque rite (and the little suspense it conveys) disappeared ? . Thanks beforehand for your answers Arapaima (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The variation I've heard in movies/TV is "Speak now or forever hold your peace". However, I haven't actually heard it in any weddings I've attended here in the US. I suspect that priests/ministers are reluctant to invite objections, as that could lead to trouble (and, seriously, if you have an objection you shouldn't wait until they are standing at the altar, should you ?). StuRat (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So many "shoulds", Stu. If only the lives of others could be as well organised and predictable as yours. What's your secret? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The formula is in the 1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer: "if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace." [28]. It certainly hasn't disappeared, since it survives into the modern Anglican prayerbook, Common Worship: "I am required to ask anyone present who knows a reason why these persons may not lawfully marry, to declare it now." [29]. In addition, the same request is asked three times of the congregation on Sundays before the wedding as part of the banns of marriage. I am interested to know more about where you attended this wedding, though: I don't know of any major denomination in the UK calling itself Lutheran, and I don't know of any Lutherans who claim to have temples. Marnanel (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This injunction is still part of the Anglican marriage service. The form of words in the Common Worship service is "I am required to ask anyone present who knows a reason why these persons may not lawfully marry, to declare it now" [30]. However, I don't believe it has any legal significance, so it won't necessarily be part of marriage ceremonies in other denominations or religions, or secular ceremonies. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(super edit conflict) Those words are definitely part of the Order of Matrimony in the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England (revised in 1662 after the Stuart Restoration), and I think probably carried over into the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The banns of marriage were proclaimed in church on several successive weeks in order to allow anyone who might know of a legal or religious impediment to the forthcoming marriage (such as an intended spouse's existing marriage or a family relationship like uncle-niece that fell within the prohibited degrees of marriage) to speak out. The very last chance to bring up such an objection was provided during the marriage ceremony before the actual marriage was performed. I'll dig up some supporting references ( which another editor has apparently already found in the meantime). ¶ My 1999 Whitaker's Almanack says of Lutherans on pages 417-18 that "in Great Britain there are 27,000 members, 45 ministers and 100 churches" and that the English-speaking congregations adhere either to the Lutheran Church in Great Britain–United Synod or to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of England. The Lutheran Council of Great Britain (30 Thanet St., WC1H 9QH) represents the United Synod and "most of the various national congregations". —— Shakescene (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Here are some relevant words from the 1559 Book of Common Prayer, ordained by Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) shortly after she succeeded her Roman Catholic sister Queen Mary I of England (1553-58), and familiar to me because I read parts of this service over ten summers while performing as an actor in renaissance faires:

FIRST, the banes [banns] must be asked thre severall Sondaies or holy daies, in the tyme of service, the people beyng present, after the accustomed maner.
And yf the persons that would be maryed dwell in diverse Paryshes, the banes must be asked in both Parishes and the Curate of the one Paryshe shall not solempnize matrimonye betwyxt them, wythout a certifycate of the banes beyng thryse asked, from the Curate of the other Parysh. At the date appoincted for solempnizacyon of Matrimonye, the persones to be maryed shal come into the body of the Churche, wyth theyr frendes and neighbours. And there the Pryest shall thus saye.
DEARELY beloved frendes, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of his congregacion, to joyne together this man and this woman in holy matrimony,...
...Therefore if any man can shewe any just cause, why thei may not lawfully be joyned together let hym now speake, or els hereafter for ever holde his peace.
And also speakynge to the persons that shalbe maryed, he shall saie.
I REQUIRE and charge you (as you wil aunswere at the dreadful day of judgement, when the secretes of all hartes shalbe disclosed) that if either of you doe knowe any impedyment, why ye may not be lawfully joyned together in Matrimony, that ye confesse it. For be ye well assured, that so many as be coupled together, otherwyse than Goddes worde doeth allowe, are not joyned together by God, neither is their Matrimonye lawfull.
At whyche day of Maryage, if any man do allege and declare any impediment, why they may not be coupled together in matrymony by Gods law, or the lawes of thys realme, and wyll be bound, and sufficient sureties with him to the parties, or els put in a cautyon to the ful value of suche charges, as the persons to be maryed do susteine to prove hys allegation: then the solempnization must be deferred unto suche tyme as the truthe be tried. If no impedyment be alledged, then shall the curate saye...

The Book of Common Prayer - 1559: THE FOURME OF SOLEMPNIZACION OF MATRIMONYE.

—— Shakescene (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. This site also has an enormous list of on-line Church of England Prayer Book versions from 1549 (Edward VI) to the uncompleted present project. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Lutheran places of worship are usually called churches, not temples. It's only in France that I've ever encountered the peculiar custom of designating non-Catholic churches 'temples' (although I understand that a Spanish captain landing in South-West England in the 16th century called the local Anglican church a mosque).

I'm familiar with the old form for reading the banns, from my previous (CofE) church. The wording is pretty much this (from memory): "I publish the banns of marriage between N, of (this parish/the parish of X) and Y, (also of this parish/of the same parish/of the parish of Y). If any of you know of any cause or just impediment why these two persons may not be joined together (in holy matrimony), ye are to declare it. This is for the (first/second/third and last) time of asking."

I don't know if the familiar Hollywood formula ending "Speak now or forever hold your peace" has ever appeared verbatim in the main marriage rite of any Christian denomination - it may be a deliberately generic variation on the text of the Book of Common Prayer. Trying to Google for the answer simply turns up dozens of people convinced that the phrase is really "hold your piece", and showing themselves unwilling to be persuaded otherwise, even by centuries-old texts to the contrary. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all L.H. (Learned Humanitarians) , my cup overflows ! As I ought to have added, the marriage took place in France. Where, if you are catholic you attend "l’église", the church, - and if protestant, whether Lutheran or Calvinist, you go to "le temple". It was a Lutheran church, about 90 British people were there, apparently rather on the hedonistic-atheist side for the most part of them, and there was a jolly good feast after the service. Glad my question arose your interest, and as you seem to be good specialists, could you please consider my following question, about a (would be ? ) prescription of Martin Luther’s. Thanks beforehand, and sorry for my misuse of the word "husbandry" (though, considering the roots of the word, I maybe wasn’t so grossly erring, wasn’t I ?…).T.y. Arapaima (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is still legally possible to get married using the Book of Common Prayer service (but the 1663 version which is rather more intelligible than the earlier one quoted above), although finding a priest willing to do it might be an issue, as most now believe that making vows in modern English is the right course, however prosaic. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always wanted to use the medieval one, which included the wife promising "to be buxon and bonere in bed and atte borde". They wouldn't allow it though. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther and good husbandry

Hello L.H. ! I have recently been told by that Martin Luther advocated "at least 3 conjugal intercourses per week for a marriage to be a happy one, especially if the wife was young". Are there any written proofs of that assertion ? Thanks beforehand for your answers Arapaima (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know some farmers who take that advice seriously. It's called animal husbandry. Who or what is "L.H.", btw? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lutherheads ? :-) StuRat (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC) . No : "Learned Humanitarians" ! Aren't used to it by now ;-)?[reply]

Sorry, I thought "husbandry" meant "management of couple life" , & I see that actually it means "farm management". Anyway, my question stays : did Luther write it ? Arapaima (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luther's sermons on the Estate of Marriage mention nothing so specific. (It was an interesting peruse of someone I would never otherwise have read.) Perhaps he has written elsewhere of the specifics, but I couldn't find any evidence of it. Bielle (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Ayman al-Zawahiri were killed or caught, would it mean the end of al Qaeda?

Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand Al Qaeda does not have a monolithic structure with a single "supreme command". It appears to be a fairly loose confederation of structures operating in different areas. For example Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb which is active in parts of north Africa, does not seem to be subservient to the "original" Afghanistan based Al Qaeda. Roger (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very doubtful. The killing of Osama bin Laden didn't do that. "Decapitating" al-Qaeda is a symbolic act, and it may even hamper their activities to a certain degree, but the group is decentralized enough that this is very unlikely to stop it. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we replace the purely mathematical technical language and concept in dealing with philosophical logic which is not symbolic?

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE OF THIS

I ask of this so that I may have supporting views that logic in terms of philosophy is not numerical or mathematical in technical language or concept and thus accessible for all men imploring the basic rules of logic using language not symbols. Please answer directly. Thank You!

Logic is not only of philosophy it is also of mathematics and other fields, thus there is always technical language of a broad logic that if expounded will lead to purely mathematical or symbolic perspective like propositional logic. But there is philosophical logic which is not mathematical but uses artificial language. If so can we replace the purely mathemathihcal technical terms as modal, modal operators, propositional, etc., in dealing with philosophical logic which is not symbolic using philosophical language, jargon, or concepts instead of numerical since it is philosophical logic and if we include these mathematical terms it will lead to numerical perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilingswordfish (talk • contribs) 16:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ethics of increasing medical school positions when # of residency positions guarantees many won't match

Reading this article, I have a question. Bolded, as it is kind of buried in the middle. It is a fact that in the United States the number of medical residency positions yearly available is less than the number of yearly graduates from medical school. Not only is this so, to exacerbate it, some of those residency positions in a given year get taken up by people who failed to get in on previous years, so there's a 100% chance that some people can't use the medical degree they just spent four years and probably a couple hundred thousand dollars on (for at least a year, and for some, ever). If this is the case, and if hospitals refuse to, for budgetary or otherwise reasons, increase the number of residency positions, where are sources from proponents stating how it is responsible for medical schools to not reduce the number of students they take in, knowing that if they continue to take more and more in, more than a handful will be screwed in four years? I know the business world has no moral compass, and taking more people's money is defined as the right thing to do, but one would hope that the medical education institution could, just possibly, have a set of ethics more human-centered. Once again, premises, as cited in the article: 1) There are fewer residency positions available than medical school graduates, 2) The number of residency positions is not increasing, 3) the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has called for a 30% increase in medical school enrollment, or 5,000 more doctors each year. College universities have responded to this demand, with 18 new medical schools currently in the process of opening. I'd like to see the arguments justifying increasing the number of med school graduates given this state of affairs. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]