Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 16

From where does the strength of the pro-Israel lobby come in American politics?

Please, please try to restrain your responses to factual statements, please. The article Religion in the United States says that only 1.7% of Americans identify as Jewish. Yet, there's an Associated Press headline today reading "US Israel criticism ignites firestorm in Congress" and going on to say:

The Obama administration's fierce denunciation of Israel last week has ignited a firestorm in Congress and among powerful pro-Israel interest groups who say the criticism of America's top Mideast ally was misplaced.

Since the controversy erupted, a bipartisan parade of influential lawmakers and interest groups has taken aim at the administration's decision to publicly condemn Israel for its announcement of new Jewish housing in east Jerusalem while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting on Tuesday and then openly vent bitter frustration on Friday.

I can understand Israeli diplomats pushing hard, but where does this domestic political strength come from? It runs wholly against the majority-rule nature of a vote-based form of governance. How can "a bipartisan parade" of politicians respond to the pro-Israel lobbying and expect to keep their seats in the next election? Is there widespread support for Israel among the other 98.3% of Americans? Someone please help me understand the basis for this seemingly-tremendously disproportionate political power? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

See Jewish lobby and Israel lobby in the United States. The first article also links to The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a book that appears to deal with the issue (and has also been criticized for its handling of the issue). Buddy431 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The "powerful American Jewish lobby" is a myth. If there were a powerful American Jewish lobby, there would be strict separation of church and state, a greater social safety net and lots of other stuff that there isn't. While the importance of Jews to the pro-Israel lobby should not be understated, you are right in assuming that without significant support from non-Jewish Americans, there would be little support for Israel among American politicians. The fact is, the great majority of Americans support Israel over the Arabs in the conflict. In a recent poll, 63% of respondents said their sympathies were with the Israelis and 15% said they sympathized more with the Palestinians. It is hard to get into an explanation of why without starting a debate into the whole conflict, but basically, most Americans see Palestinian violence, such as bus bombings, as attacks on innocent civilians (like 9/11) while they see Israeli retaliation as legitimate defense. Many American Christians also sympathize with the Jews as the people of the Old Testament and believe God gave them the land of Israel. (Christian Zionists tend to be more hard-core than the Jewish kind.) Many Americans see Israelis as being "like us" -- indeed, some are from America -- while the Arabs seem decidedly "un-American" in their attitudes and beliefs. Finally, Israel has been a staunch U.S. ally for 60 years, sometimes being among the only UN states to side with the U.S. in General Assembly votes and helping the U.S. out in ways such as slipping Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" to the CIA and not retaliating when Saddam Hussain attacked Israel with Scud missiles during the first Gulf War. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For specific groups that lobby about U.S. policy towards Israel, see American Israel Public Affairs Committee and J street. For a broader look at an aspect of the issue, you can look at Diaspora politics in the United States. There are tons of articles in Wikipedia alone relating to this topic.

And of course, groups do not need to be large to have a significant impact on United States policy: see Lobbying in the United States. The system is such that a small, motivated group can have a disproportionate amount of influence. As an example, look at the farm lobby. <soapbox> Only about 2-3% of Americans are farmers, and yet they get congress to prop up prices and feed them subsidies at the expense of the other 97%. But the farmers have a large stake in such legislation, so they advocate strongly for it. Each individual consumer is only negatively affected to a small degree, so they do not form powerful groups to address the issue</soapbox>. It's not just the pro-Israel lobby, it's pretty much any US lobby. Buddy431 (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the "Jewish Lobby" is a peculiarly US phenomenon. For example, would 63% of Europeans or Canadians say their sympathies were with the Israelis? Astronaut (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Canada-Israel relations, no, it's not like that in Canada. Note the Gallup Poll link at the bottom. --Anonymous, 06:10 UTC, March 16, 2010.

I think that in Canada, and probably in the States, the answers to public opinion questions like "who do you sympathize with more" are wildly erratic. The poll mentioned in the article was taken in 2005, shortly after the 2004 Israel–Gaza conflict. If you had asked that same question just after any of the Arab-Israeli wars, say, I think you'd have gotten a much different answer, as you would have if it had followed a period of more intense Palestinian attacks. People's opinions on this issue are somewhat flexible, and tend to fall on the side that has most recently appeared as the victim. TastyCakes (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of other points:

• The media in the U.S. covers the conflict in a different manner from the British media. For example, the British news agency Reuters regularly refers to all Israeli settlements as "illegal under international law" while the American Associated Press simply says the Palestinians consider the settlements illegal under international law. American journalists are generally more objective while British journalists are less hesitant to take sides on an issue.
• It's worth pointing out that the U.S. intervened militarily to defend the Muslim Albanians of Kosovo against the Christians of Serbia, yet there was no accusation of a "Muslim Lobby" manipulating U.S. policy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, it looks the other way to me - American journalists are much less likely to question the Israeli government and military line, British journalists more likely to report that most countries' governments consider the settlements illegal. Anyway, in answer to the original question, there is an extensive extreme-Christian lobby in the US, which while profoundly anti-Semitic in and of itself, sees the return of Jews to the Holy Land as a prerequisite for the return to earth of their sky-god's offspring. DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between saying most countries consider the settlements illegal (if indeed that is the case) and simply saying outright that the settlements are illegal (as Reuters does) or just calling them "illegal settlements" (as The Guardian does).

This is getting off-topic here (surprise), but U.S. journalists clearly value objectivity more so than do British journalists, and that shows in the reporting. I read that the British journalists' union had endorsed a boycott of Israeli products. The U.S. Newspaper Guild or Society of Professional Journalists would never endorse a stand on a political issue except one specific to its field, such as freedom of information laws. In fact, some U.S. journalists don't even vote because they think it would compromise their objectivity. I recently read about a meeting held by global warming skeptics during the Copenhagen summit on climate change. The New York Times reporter simply reported what the people said without injecting his or her opinion, but the Guardian reporter got up during the meeting and started yelling at the participants about typhoons in Bangladesh and what not. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Settlements are a questionable example suggesting American reporters' objectivity. The overwhelming consensus of states and legal scholars is that they are illegal, no country other than Israel has ever formally said that these settlements are legal, unanimous votes of the UNSC and the ICJ and many US presidents have said that they are illegal, the USA has not retracted its latest official opinion (from 1978) that they are illegal, and the requested internal official opinion of Theodore Meron, the Israeli government's legal adviser in 1967, was that settlements would be illegal. Rather than being more objective, I think it is much more the case that American journalism gives undue weight to an insupportable fringe view.John Z (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

See also: Christian Zionism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normansmithy (talk • contribs) 11:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument over international law, but if you look around the Internet you'll find a lot of comments from some very learned legal experts who believe the settlements are legal, and indeed the U.S., while seeing the settlements as an "obstacle to peace," has voted against UN General Assembly resolutions denouncing the settlements as illegal. Granted, those who believe the settlements are legal under international law are in the minority, but it's not like people who believe the moon landing didn't happen. Anyway, the point is, American reporters, rightly or wrongly, cover the Arab-Israeli conflict according to a journalistic ethic that places objectivity and what Wikipedians would call "NPOV" above all else, and that has a marked impact on how the conflict is presented to Americans and how Americans perceive the conflict. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A follow-up question to Mwalcoff's fine answer: Mwalcoff says (and I've often heard elsewhere) that Israel has been a staunch ally for 60 years. But I've heard in other quarters that, in recent years, the relationship has become increasingly one-sided. Have there really been good examples of Israel acting as a staunch ally in, say, the last 20 years? John M Baker (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from 1948-1967 the U.S. kept Israel at semi-arm's-length in some respects, and certainly carefully avoided the appearance of any kind of open military alliance between the United States and Israel. It was in 1967, in response to what in the United States was then widely viewed as the Arabs' pathetic and repellent performance in the events connected with the 6-day war -- such as issuing a constant stream of vituperative bloodthirsty wannabe-genocidal bombastic threats before the war, then spectacularly collapsing in a cloud of military incompetence during the actual fighting -- that a wave of emotional support for Israel occurred inside the U.S. and broke down the old diplomatic inhibitions, so that after 1967 the U.S. was now willing to be seen as being in open military alliance with Israel. From 1967 on, Israel has been seen as a democratic country largely free of anti-American sentiment in a sea of autocratic or dictatorial regimes, and there has been useful cooperation between U.S. and Israeli intelligence services. As for the larger question of the "Israel lobby", American Jews have made support for the continuing existence of Israel (against threats of Policide from Ahmadinajad and many others before him) a kind of a test issue with respect to the status of the Jewish community in the United States -- major established Jewish organizations are of the opinion that those in the United States who question the right of Israel to exist are really questioning the right of Jews to be full citizens of the United States. In this respect, 1967 was also around the time that the power of the old-line "Arabists" (old style experts on the middle east) at Foggy Bottom was pretty much broken -- from the 1940s to 1967, the middle east desk at the State Department always invariably advised U.S. Presidents to sell out Israel because the Arabs had oil, more votes at the United Nations, etc., regardless of the circumstances of the diplomatic situation of the moment, and thus there were constant zero-sum "I win you lose" struggles between the American Jewish community and the Arabists over who could most influence presidential decisions. American Jewish leaders considered the Foggy Bottom Arabists to be largely supercilious pin-striped country-club WASPs of old northeastern "good" families who were partially motivated by a kind of genteel refined upper-class anti-Semitism of the Gentleman's Agreement kind (not to be confused with any kind of crude or vulgar anti-Semitism suitable for the lower orders of society, oh no). That's why breaking the power of the Foggy Bottom Arabists was viewed as an all-around unequivocal clear-cut victory for the American Jewish community as a whole (not just a matter of middle-east foreign-policy lobbying). AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but at this point 1967 is going on toward the half-century mark. What has Israel done for U.S. lately? John M Baker (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that Israel had done anything for the U.S. in 1967, either (though it did defeat states allied with the Soviet Union and provide information about Soviet weapons). What I did say on that particular point was "From 1967 on, Israel has been seen as a democratic country largely free of anti-American sentiment in a sea of autocratic or dictatorial regimes, and there has been useful cooperation between U.S. and Israeli intelligence services." AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think not retaliating when Saddam Hussain attacked Israel with Scud missiles during the first Gulf War was a huge favor Israel did for the U.S. I can't think of another time when a country uninvolved in war was attacked and did absolutely nothing about it because its ally (which was fighting the war) didn't want it to. And although it wasn't a favor for the U.S. at the time, Israel's destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 sure made it easier for the U.S. to defeat Saddam in two wars down the road. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't a large number of Israeli citizens in Israel vote in the elections there and also in U.S. elections, because of having dual citizenship, more than the number of Muslim-Americans living in Muslim countries who get to vote in U.S. elections? Edison (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

100,000 people (the number of Israeli residents who can vote in the U.S. election, according to that link) is not that many in American national politics. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If some state which were tightly contested were highly represented, it might be important. More US citizens from some states likely migrate to Israel than from other states. A couple of thousand votes in a given state could sway many Senatorial elections, or could decide the electoral votes for a number of states in some Presidential elections. Edison (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Answering the OP directly, I agree that there is widespread support for Israel in the United States, not just among Jewish Americans. That support may be the result of a pervasive pro-Israeli bias in the US media. You have asked only for facts, so I hesitate to speculate on the reasons for this bias. However, I will venture that committed American supporters of Israel (Jewish and Christian) are more passionate and motivated than most critics of Israel, because Israel's most committed supporters are motivated by religious belief, whereas Israel's non-Muslim critics are rarely passionate. In the United States, Israel's passionate supporters outnumber its passionate critics (mainly Muslims). Israel's committed supporters are vigilant and will go to great lengths to make life difficult for institutions or individual politicians who are critical of Israel. For example, AIPAC is credited even in the mainstream media for bankrolling the electoral defeat of U.S. Representatives Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard in retaliation for their criticism of Israel. Another factor in U.S. politics reinforcing support for Israel is that American Jews are likely to be committed supporters of Israel, and, partly due to their relatively high average incomes, they also provide a disproportionate share of contributions to political campaigns in the United States. Generally, campaign funding is critical to electoral success in the United States, and the need for political contributions often influences politicians to court groups by supporting those groups' interests. By contrast, U.S. critics of Israel are nowhere near as well organized or funded. Marco polo (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just one point here -- the Washington Post article linked to above does not claim AIPAC "bankrolled" the opponents of the anti-Israel legislators. It says AIPAC board members contributed to the opponents' campaigns. But a person can only give $2,400 to a congressional candidate. I don't know how many board members AIPAC has, but it can't be enough to make up a significant portion of donors in a hotly contested election. And one other point: The website you link to as your source on the claim that Jews contribute a disproportionate share of campaign donations is "Occidental Dissent," a website whose aim is the establishment of a "Jew-free, racially exclusive White ethnostate." You might want to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not investigating that website before linking it. I will undo the link. I did not intend to link to a racist website. Marco polo (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The impact of the campaign contributions of pro-Israeli Jews (acknowledging that a minority of Jews are critical of Israel) on U.S. politics in the Middle East seems to be a something of a taboo topic in the United States. This article suggests some of the reasons why this is so. Marco polo (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court of India appealing before itself

Recently, there has been a curious example in India where the Supreme Court of India appealed before itself against a judgement passed by the High Court. The High Court had ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India came under the Right to Information Act, which the SCI has challenged.

1. Is the Supreme Court of India a legal person to sue and be sued or is this whole report a misunderstanding of the facts of the case? If the SCI can indeed sue, on what occasions can it be sued? Can it be sued for example (at courts at any position in the judicial hierarchy), when it passes a judgment that is against the constitution of India?
2. If this indeed is abnormal, does this indicate a flaw in the Indian constitution, or it something allowed deliberately by design? Is the conflict of interest objection valid?
3. Are there any examples from anywhere around the world, where such an incident has happened before?

Chancemill (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, a) SCI is not a separate entity that can be sued b)when a SCI judgement is questioned/appealed, it is usually given to a SCI bench with a higher number of judges than the one which pronounced the original judgement c)whenever COI issues arise (like the above given case), consensus is arrived at by the judges collegium and the law ministry. In the past, in case the govt wants to bypass the SCI, it enacts special legislation or amends the constitution. An example is Shah Bano case. d) The ninth schedule of the indian constitution is sometimes used to enact laws to bypass the judicial preview of SCI [1]. So if the govt wanted to go against the SCI, it enacted laws under nineth schedule. But in 2007, SCI made a judgement to close the loophole. So far no one has challenged that pronouncement. When that happens, during the next show down between the SCI and parliament, we will see what happens.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

this kind of thing is actually is kind of a semi-sub-field in political science. Political systems always have a curious tension. on one hand, they are always 'bootstrapped' entities: i.e. at some points the system or its parts must declare itself legal according to its own authority. The whole concept of Judicial Review in the US came about because the supreme court decided the judicial branch had that right, and no one disagreed until it was too late to do anything about it. You see the same thing in other branches, as well, e.g. the Bush Administration's rather liberal assertions about their immunity from investigation. On the other hand, political systems have a desperate need to appear legitimate: lack of legitimacy is a death knell for a political system, and almost always leads to deterioration and civil unrest. The logic here, I imagine, is that the Supreme Court bears the responsibility of properly interpreting the law, so this act is justified; however, they will be very careful in their decision to avoid giving any impression of impropriety, because a loss of legitimacy might mean that parliament or some other branch of government will step in to limit their power in future cases. bit of a tightrope, but not uncommon. --Ludwigs2 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Corsets for men in the 19th century

Does anyone out there have any information about corsets for men in the 19th century? Materials, design, etc. Trakorien (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they were often sort of canvas tubes, intended to keep the paunch in check but without enforcing curvy shapes like women's corsets did. AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK,they were made of the same material as women's.Some sort of stout fabric,reinforced with stays made either of whalebone or steel.They had laces up the back which were like long ..shoelaces and usually bought separately from a manufacturer.http://www.oakhillclothiers.com/Catalog/1800s/MensClothes/Undergarments/tabid/731/Default.aspx...hotclaws 14:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Banksy

Does anyone know with certainty the identity of the street artist Banksy? I have already checked out the references on his wiki-page. GerardLP (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a BBC article about how he was supposedly revealed (or maybe not): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7504132.stm -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Banksy hasn't confirmed any speculation over his identity, so there is no question of it being established beyond all doubt. However an enterprising BBC reporter following up one of the speculated identities appeared to come across corroborating evidence in his former home: see this video report. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure Banksy knows who he is! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Much of "his" work requires many people to organise and put together - such as the excellent exhibition in Bristol last year that I went along to. Those people (or, at least, many of them) "know" who he "is". But, to them and to Banksy himself (themselves?) there is a clear commercial value in maintaining the mystique of anonymity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It would not surprise me if the publisher of his books knows who he is. And I suspect that HMIT know. -- SGBailey (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"HMIT" = HMRC, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- SGBailey (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Banksy has a 'handling service' through which his works are authenticated and (very occasionally) sold. Pest Control website here. I remember when in another capacity I was called upon to deal with the future of 'One Nation under CCTV' having an interesting debate as to whether it would correctly be described as 'school of Banksy' or 'attributed to Banksy'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Asatru

How many (approximately) active Ásatru societies are there in the world today?Antheafor (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article Ásatrú, and the articles it links to, may help you. DuncanHill (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Information about the artist Ib Geertsen?

Where can I find valid information on the danish artist Ib Geertsen? I have searched the net, and only found brief summaries. Both Scandinavian and English sources are ok. JennaJ82 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A straightforward Google brought up this obituary, this home page, and many other reliable references (over 6,000 in fact). If you mean "Where on Wikipedia can I" find information, that is a different matter - there is no article (yet) in English because no-one has written one, but there is this over at Danish Wikipedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

bigfoot

i have heard a lot of people saying bigfoot is hoax. but what i can see from Bigfoot#View_among_the_scientific_community is that there is no consensus among the scientific community on this issue. Is bigfoot real?? --Fovol (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reading of that section differs from mine. The consensus appears to be that it does not exist, but that we are lacking explanations for what evidence there is that has been offered in its support. I think by & large, we can agree there is no such thing, and that belief in bigfoot absent any compelling evidence is mere fancy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The first two sentences make this clear: "The scientific community overwhelmingly discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is little or no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature." Perhaps you are confused because they listed scientists who support the existence of Bigfoot or are unsure, and didn't list the millions who think it's a total hoax. StuRat (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The majority of scientists discount the possibility for the existence of Bigfoot; however a small number of cryptozoologists maintain that there is a possibility that some cryptids exist. One of the pieces of evidence that has received much scientific examination is the Patterson-Gimlin film. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah - I think you need to separate the scientific and speculative viewpoints here. Most biologists would agree that it's not at all impossible to find an unknown species of animal - lots of new species are found annually, and while most of them are tiny little things, there's no reason to assume that there aren't any bigger unknown creatures out there. However, the bigfoot thing is driven more by fantasies about 'not-quite-people' sharing the world with us. it's the same thing that has made people fascinated by dwarves, elves, leprechauns, space aliens, intelligent dragons, afrit, angels, demons, etc., etc., etc. there's just something special and primordial about a true 'alien' (not just an animal, but something on our mental level, but different). It probably traces back to tens of thousands of years of sitting around campfires, staring off into the dark, and wondering about other tribes that might be hunting us - are they beasts, can they be reasoned with, what to do, what to do? --Ludwigs2 18:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Orang Pendek may be more plausible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Particularly now that a Society I belong to, the Centre for Fortean Zoology, has published in their latest journal sketches and a (very poor) photo, by individuals personally known to (and trusted by) me, of one seen on their 2009 expedition. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Has that been added to the article yet? Its possible relationship to the "Flores hobbit" is also interesting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My favorite "examination" of the Paterson-Gimlin film is this this version that compensated for camera movement. It's amazing how much a bouncy-camera causes us to use our imagination and see what we want to see. APL (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Many cryptids have folklore and hoaxes associated with them. But those alone don't completely invalidate the possibility for their existance. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely not. Just took a peek at the film linked to by APL above. Only thought: "Who's that dude in the fur coat?" --G-41614 (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Splitting Nigeria

I have just read that Gaddafi proposes splitting Nigeria into two separate countries [[2]] - is this a good/feasible idea? Thanks for info., --AlexSuricata (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The RD doesn't deal in speculation on the future, which is what we would need to do to answer this question. Gaddafi makes a good point, and partition has been achieved in other places, but not without enormous disruption. Quite what the unintended consequences would be, is difficult to fathom. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Gaddafi also proposes splitting Switzerland along language lines. Not to be taken very seriously.131.130.223.109 (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been tried before. It kinda-sorta failed miserably. See Biafra and Nigerian Civil War. The article on Biafra also discusses a modern revival of the secessionist movement. --Jayron32 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, take a look at this recent event: Libya's Gaddafi calls for holy war on Switzerland. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume he doesn't include in his successful examples Northern Ireland. SGGH ^ping! 08:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Africa (Petrarch)

According to Bergin and Wilson's English translation of Petrarch's Africa (p. xiii), It was not until 1397 in fact that Pier Paolo Vergerio gave to a world no longer quite so impatient the first "published" text of the "Africa." However in Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder, who I assume is the person they are talking about, this important work does not seem to be mentioned in the article. Either

1. I missed seeing it in the article, maybe under another title.
2. it was not considered an important work of his works, although it seems important enough to mention in the article.
3. we are not talking of one and the same person as Bergin and Wilson mentions as "Pier Paolo Vergerio"; although the age seems right and he taught logic at Padua and Florence.

Which? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Or:

4. Wikipedia is not a finished work, and no one has yet added that information to the article. Since you apparently have access to a reliable source which mentions the fact, you could add the information to the article and cite your source using inline citations. --Jayron32 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thought of that - however just wanted to make sure Bergin and Wilson's "Pier Paolo Vergerio" is the same as Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder. Bergin and Wilson book came out in 1977 and does not use the term "the Elder". Wikipedia's article came out initially in 2007 - however you think then we are talking of one and the same person? IF so, I'll be glad to add to the article and reference accordingly.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Two things: The 1397 date matches exactly the 1397 date mentioned, with cited reference, in the Africa (Petrarch) article, AND the date fits in the lifespan of Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder (1370-1444), he'd have been 26-27 at the time, whereas the only other notable Pier Paolo Vergerio would not have been born for another century. If you are concerned, you could post the question on the talk pages of the various articles, and/or contact the people who heavily edit those articles and see what they say. The person who added the date to the Africa (Petrarch) article may still have access to the source of that date (its a print source, so I can't access it right now) and may be able to confirm your information. --Jayron32 15:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated Africa (Petrarch) and Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder as I also feel I have the correct "Pier Paolo Vergerio", based on that print source I have.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Short stories dealing with sexual abuse

Where could I find some short stories, preferably in the public domain, that deal with the issue of sexual abuse, without being inappropriate for high school students?--99.251.239.89 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Public domain is hard, because most professionally published stories that cover this subject overtly, in language accessible to teenagers, will still be in copyright in most jurisdictions. I can recommend Vandals by Alice Munro, which appears in her book Selected Stories. I also like The Tulip Touch by Anne Fine for tweens and younger teens, although this is a short novel rather than a story, and the focus is on the anger and dysfunctional behaviour caused by the abuse, rather than the abuse itself. I don't know whether any of the books listed here would be any help? Karenjc 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Canadian work; Rape Fantasies by Margaret Atwood is a good one. It doesn't really involve any abuse, but it's still relevant. Vranak (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing the age of the high school students, I was amazed to find The Color Purple used as a set text for A level English in the UK a few years ago. If that's suitable reading for 16 year olds then I'd recommend it. I know it's not a short story but it's quite short for a novel. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, I was looking for something that can be read in about 5-15 minutes, and is available online.--99.251.239.89 (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

March 17

How to cite The New York Times - under T or under N?

Hi. I am building my references list for an academic essay and I was wondering whether an articles by The New York Times goes under T - because "The" is part of the full name, The New York Times - or under N - because the article "the" is usually ignored when sorting alphabetically (just as the United Nations goes under u). Thanks for helping me out with this one :) --Tilmanb (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

New York Times, The would be the most correct. The is an intrisic element, in spite of Wikipedia's article title.--Wetman (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Communism 2

Why do people still support communism even though China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. have all shown that communism leads to nothing but totalitarianism? --70.250.214.164 (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Either because they disagree that China, etc., are totalitarianism or because they think they can do a better job. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Or because they simply cannot agree with capitalism. --Tilmanb (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Or because they think totalitarianism is a good thing as it reduces the number of areas of life that they need to organise for themselves. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(OR) A former acquaintance of mine firmly maintained that your examples were all problems of scale - in other words, that at the township or farm level (see commune) the communist economic system is workable. The noteworthy difference therein is that the less people are participating (1,300,000,000 in China versus maybe 30 on a farm) the more likely it is that they all want to be there and believe in the system. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Communism" has a pretty specific meaning, so the local cooperative spirit is more aptly called "communalism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, primitive communism clearly states that small-scale pre-agrarian communities can have all of the features of a communist system but on a small scale. If someone says "communism never works" without the caveat of primitive communism, then they're basically wrong since "primitive" small-scale communism clearly does work. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 08:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside North Korea, which is seems to be a hereditary monarchy, one might ask if the people of Chinese and Cuba are better off materially, in health care, and in education under communism than they were under the preceding regimes. I expect that they are, but with limited personal freedom. China has increasing classdistinctions and has developed an aristocracy with numerous billionaires, so their "communism" seem limited. Edison (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Frank Zappa once said, "Communism doesn't work, because people like to own stuff." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse a moment of complete of OR: I'm not a communist (not much of a capitalist either, but that's a different story), but I will say that one of the reasons why Marxist/communist/socialist philosophies persist is that they are really very sharp theories. For instance, the only explanation of the current economic collapse that actually fits the observed situation is the Marxist explanation (the financial class tried to extract just a bit too much surplus labor value from the lower classes; the lower classes' inability to cope with the extraction caused financial organizations to fail to meet their obligations to other financial organizations, causing a trust crisis, which causes markets to shut down in fear. the government - as guardian of the financial class - steps in and helps the worst-hit financial organizations meet their obligations by extracting more labor value from the lower classes in the form of taxes.) At heart, Marxism is a meta-theory that includes capitalism, and thus so long as you have a purportedly capitalist system you will have marxist/communist/socialist systems. a pure capitalist society, left to its own devices, would reduce itself to anarchy in a matter of months. --Ludwigs2 05:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, "Thomas Jefferson" (starting at the 27-minute mark) provides a decent free market capitalist explanation of the current banking crisis. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Communism appeals to anyone who has ever lost a job or envied a neighbour, been evicted from their home or relied on the state for healthcare, distrusted career politicians or resented old money. But it appeals especially to those who haven't studied the 20th century.NByz (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you may mean "relied on a for-profit company for healthcare". It's the cases where a corporation has screwed you over on your healthcare that drive people to communism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

One could argue that the 20th century showed how Communism won't work if you have a powerful group of anti-communists trying to undermine your nation's success. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 08:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: if you ask the communists, there never was communism in the Soviet Union, only socialism. Communism, in theory, is what is supposed to come naturally after socialism, a state in which the whole concept of "ownership" is obsolete, except perhaps for personal effects with sentimental value, irrelevant to the productive economy. Also, in communism there is no state or government in the modern sense. They never got that far in Russia. (As to whether it's possible to get there, that's another story.) The use of "communism" to describe the state of affairs that existed or exists in communist dictatorships is just name-calling, from the point of view of political philosophy.--Rallette (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And the form of socialism practised in the USSR was very different from the form practised in, say, Sweden for much of the 20th century. DuncanHill (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Lest we forget, there wasn't much personal freedom in Imperial China, and enormously lower standards of living, hygiene, caloric intake, information flow and participation in government. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hooray for propaganda! Lest we forget, personal freedom, lower standards of living, hygiene, caloric intake, information flow and participation in government were enormously lower in every single country around the world, with the exception perhaps of Somalia. 61.189.63.170 (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My experience with people from China (who I met while they were visiting the U.S. to get an education) is that most of them do not feel that they are under totalitarian rule. On a day-to-day basis they do not worry about the state, about Big Brother, about Marxist economics. They feel that the government is a system that brings order to the world. They feel that it sometimes oversteps and does not listen to the will of the people, but they see that as an invitation for eventual reform, not revolution. They do "own things" and they do "work for a living."

I bring this up not because it is necessarily common (though I suspect it is) or that it makes their form of government "right", but just to point out that the view we are taught about such regimes from the U.S.—both in our schools and our culture—is that they are the proverbial iron foot stepping on a human face every day. And yes, for dissidents, for members of various religious or ethnic groups, that is what it probably feels like. But for the vast majority of the population, it doesn't look anything like the "evil officious Chinese" that we get in our movies. They don't necessarily see the U.S. model as leading to better political judgment, better economics, or better people (as moral or ethical beings). In the U.S., we like to believe that if you don't have "freedom" (vaguely defined), you don't have anything, and you should fight and fight until you have it. That makes for rousing cinema, but it's not how humans have generally lived their lives, and there are many degrees of "freedom". I think your average Chinese probably feels safer than your average American, in practically every realm except personal political expression, and even in that case, your average American is much more likely to voice controversial opinions only when they can do so anonymously, or amongst people they know agree with them 100%, because there are economic/social ramifications for mouthing off in a workplace, amongst friends, etc. I'm not trying to argue for any kind of equivalency, but I do think if you want to understand what the "other side" is thinking, you have to spend a little more time putting yourself in their shoes, and trying to reduce things to "how do they live their daily lives" and not "how do movies make it look." (I know little about Cuba so I don't know if this carries; North Korea is something else entirely, a slave population.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Historically, we should also no forget that Russia was on the losing side of a war in 1917, then in a civil war sponsored by outside powers for the next 6 years, and only a few years later lost 27 million people in WW2 - about 15% of the population. As a comparison, that's 10000 9/11s (15000 if scaled up to the current US population - or about 1 per day for the entire existence of the Soviet union). These are not the best circumstances to build a blooming society brimming with civil rights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Reference desk does not do opinions or forum discussions. I think we are done here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

See Socialism with Chinese characteristics for the Chinese style communism. --Kvasir (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Communism was never practiced in China. There was some degree of socialism, some bits of communalism and some bits of authoritarianism. Neither the Communist Party nor independent observers have seriously characterised any of it as communism, however. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

One argument for large-scale communism is that it's never been tried, if one considers the cases so far as simply totalitarian governments which pretended to be communists as a propaganda tool to control the masses. The reality was that the leaders of those nations were rich, and extracted that wealth from the masses. I suspect that true communism would require both democracy and a powerful work incentive to take the place of capitalism. A strong religion might work, as fear of eternal damnation for laziness should be effective. StuRat (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a "2" to the section title to differentiate it from another with the same title. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on which regime the people grew up in. If people are born into a nation that holds Communist principles, then these people will generally support its perpetuation. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

From Will Rogers: "In Russia, they ain't got no income tax. But they ain't got no income!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Yakov Smirnoff. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The Amana Colonies practiced religious "communalism" with common ownership and no businessmen from the 1840's to 1932. The article does not reflect it, but I was told by residents there that the "great change" in 1932 in which things were divided up and they became the Amana Corporation was largely a result of slackers who did as little as possible versus those who wanted to work hard and have greater material wealth. By many standards they were "communists" in a Biblical and non-Marxist sense, with all property held in common, everyone working, and no one a peasant, wage slave, landlord or rich landowner. They were united by religious belief rather than fear of the secret police and imagined external enemies. Edison (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Did they teach that the lazy would burn in Hell ? If so, that implies that people stopped believing. StuRat (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(trying to get back to the original query) It all depends on how you define "support communism". Millions of people around the world vote for communist parties in elections, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they wish the see any immediate transition to socialism. Nor does everyone who vote for non-communist bourgeois parties necessarrily agree with capitalistic system of governance. Voting behaviours are far more complex. After 1991 there have been numerous studies/gallups in Eastern Europe were large sections of respondents have supported statements like 'life was better under communism'. Still communist parties generally fare rather badly in elections (with exception of Moldova, and earlier in Ukraine).

This article is a bit interesting, as it expressed an anguished concern that people don't function the way political powers expect them to do. Do notice the following quote; "He warns against efforts to downplay the SED dictatorshop by young people whose knowledge about the GDR is derived from family conversations, and not as much from what they learned in school" (state indoctrination fail, in other words)

If we study the cases were communist parties have obtained mass appeal, it rarely has anything to do with succesfull promotion of a model idea of a different socio-political order. Rather it is were communists have been able to formulate concrete demands that somehow matter to people, were they have been able to gather massive support. Notably, it is often the national question, struggles against colonial and/or imperialist oppression, were communist parties obtained strong links with the populace. For example: In Belgium the communist vote is marginal in general elections (generally below 1%), whilst in Cyprus its above 30%. The explanation is probably not that "capitalism is more popular in Belgium", rather the explanation primarily lies in the historical development of the polity of each country. Moreover, if we study the developments inside the communist movement, we also find some interesting facts. At the time of the emergence of the Communist International, council communists were potent competitors with the mainstream communist movement in some places. Since then the changes in relations in strength has seen the council communists disappear as a political force. The council communists (and similar groups) rebuffed the notion of working for reforms within the capitalist system and solely promised a better life after revolution. Thus they made themselves irrelevant to people whose everyday means were far more pressing. --Soman (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Seventh-Day Adventist in China

How many Seventh-Day Adventists are there in the People's Republic of China today? Sonic99 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Googling “Seventh Day Adventists, China” led me to this site, and a report dated May 18, 2009 entitled “Adventist president's visit to China first by a top church leader in decades “ which states in its closing sentence: Nearly 400,000 Adventists are believed to worship at thousands of locations across the nation. (The “nation” under discussion is China.) Bielle (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It says "are believed" because there are no official figures. Officially the Chinese people were liberated from religion by Glorious Leader Mao, woohoo! Shii (tock) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain this please? Finding out who you are...

Can someone please explain this in simple terms...

"Finding out WHO YOU ARE is not about being more, doing more, having more, manifesting more, creating more, being the best you can be, finding out your imagined mission or purpose in life, or having financial success. Finding our WHO YOU ARE is the realization that everything is made of the same substance, and YOU ARE THAT ONE SUBSTANCE." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It's nonsense. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did you come across this statement? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Something like this: "Finding out who you really are is not about self-improvement but about facing reality and the fact that you are part of it." A popular search engine reveals the quote to be from "The Beginner's Guide to Quantum Psychology", by Stephen H. Wolinsky - who in turn appears to be in the business of mixing particle physics with Indian thought. It's difficult to say from a quick glance what exactly he means by all this, but to quote from a bit further on in the book, "Quantum Psychology is not intended to make you better, more virtuous, teach you how to have great relationships, how to make more money, or even how to feel more comfortable in your life. Rather, it is concerned with developing awareness so that you can discover Who You Are, even beyond awareness itself." What can one say to this? Strong stuff, and there is a good deal of wisdom in the idea that if you want the truth about yourself, you must not expect it to make your life sweet. Do be cautioned that probably none of the book is particularly original, and what's original is probably not so good. You might do better with someone who has the sense to leave quantum mechanics out of it. For Indian philosophy, you would do well to go to the source first, and then work your own way to a synthesis with modern science, if that's what you want. And it's easy: we have a whole bunch of good articles right here on any number of related ideas in Buddhism and Hinduism.--Rallette (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Giving another perspective on this here, the equivalence of matter and energy has been established. If matter and energy are the same, and all we can perceive is made of matter including ourselves, then everything is energy. If everything is made of the same stuff, then that includes ourselves. According to this, finding yourself means recognising that you are not only connected to everything in the universe, but you are an integral part of the universe. (Note to the proper scientists here: I'm simplifying matter/energy equivalence but, for this purpose, the principle is the same.) --TammyMoet (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that simplification is misleading. Mass and energy are equivalent; in other words, mass - a measure of a body's resistance to acceleration - and energy - a measure of a system's capacity for doing work - are actually different ways of measuring the same thing. Mass has energy and energy has mass. Matter and energy are definitely not equivalent. Matter certainly has mass (and/or energy) as one of its attributes, but it also has other attributes such as volume and temperature. Matter is not equivalent to volume, temperature or energy. Saying "everything is made of the same substance" makes as much sense as saying "this bar of chocolate and that bar of gold both have a monetary value therefore they are both made of money". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to fix a few things there. Temperature is an energy expression (sort of); it measures the average kinetic energy on a molecular scale, normalized to the assymptotic condition known as absolute zero. Energy has volume as well (again, sort of), see field theory for the spatial nature of energy, though it is somewhat more complex than saying it occupies a space the same way matter does; but there is a dimensional and spatial nature to energy. The thing that seperates matter from energy is quantum numbers. Quantum numbers are what tell matter that its a proton or an electron or a quark (or even, say, you). Mass is the same thing as energy; in terms of conservation law, what is conserved universally is the sum of mass and energy. If we think of mass and energy as the exact same thing, than we can think of quantum numbers as the parameters that define the organization of those mass/energy values into all of the various forms we see in the universe. --Jayron32 14:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Most mystical faith (regardless of religious or cultural background) hold that identity - the separation of the self from the surrounding world - is a misperception of the true nature of the world. an extension of that is that the various efforts to heighten identity (to make ourself a better person, and more moral person, and more successful person, and etc) are misguided to the extent that they draw you away rom a true understanding of the world. some of the more New Agey thinkers have taken to reinterpreting the first concept in scientific/physics type terms, which starts to color how they talk about the second concept. this isn't a bad thing, in itself, but I think it leads to more confusions than it resolves.--Ludwigs2 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original question: The best translation is probably "If you give us money, you will feel better." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

lol - silliness... you think that a pro basketball player should get paid ten million a year to run around in short-shorts, but you accuse this guy of being greedy because he tries to make some money by telling people what he thinks are wise thoughts. what the hell kind of priorities are those? or do you think those short-shorts contribute more to society? --Ludwigs2 16:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The market itself has decided that the basketball player has contributed more to society, if you subscribe to the idea that wealth is a very rough indicator of how society has rewarded the contributions to society you (and your ancestors) have made. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends how short the shorts are and who's wearing them. Matt Deres (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

and the market itself will determine how much this spiritual author gets paid. the whole 'if you give us money you will feel better' stupidity either applies to everything in the market or to nothing - we can't at whim single out one kind of transaction as moral and another as immoral.

incidentally, if I'm in a 'short-shorts' mood, I'll watch women's volleyball, thankyouverymuch. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Especially "beach volleyball". OK, so "If you give us money you will feel better" sounds like a corollary to the old one, "Send me a dollar and I'll tell you how I make money." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ping Fu

This story http://www.inc.com/magazine/20051201/ping-fu.html is interesting but it just doesn't make sense- how does a Chinese political prisoner with no ties to the US get deported to the US and furnished with admission to the University of New Mexico? Usually deportation is to send people back to the original country they came from. Does the Chinese government have pull with the INS? And the University spot?20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This story simply says she came to the US as a student, so perhaps there was an application and acceptance that occurred which the reporter did not bother to write about. This NPR story says she was ordered to leave China, but similarly is vague on this detail you're asking about. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Comet Tuttle for those good references. The other strange thing is I thought it was the case that when on a student visa, the student had to prove that they had the financial resources to cover the entire education before they were given the visa. At least that's what I remember from talking with a Chinese student on a student visa when I was in College. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The original story, when talking about her deportation, says "she didn't know why New Mexico, any more than she knew why she wasn't dead" so presumably she didn't apply. What it sounds like to me - and I have no references to back this up - is a deal done behind the scenes. The US wanted her freed (possibly because of pressure from an expatriate Chinese lobby), China didn't want her free in China and probably didn't want the bad publicity of either keeping her imprisoned or killing her, so a compromise was reached. Remember that the story she was imprisoned for writing was a pretty big one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That theory has a high degree of believability too, DJ Clayworth. And yet you'd think if she had people with power gunning for her, she'd at least have someone meet her in San Francisco, not be $5 short for her ticket to Albuquerque being saved by the kindness of a stranger, and then being locked in a room by some person in Albuquerque for three days. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, that name strikes me as a bit odd for a Chinese person - so much so that when I first saw the heading for the question, I thought this was going to be about some comic book character with an arbitrary Asian-sounding name. Shouldn't there be another syllable in the first name somewhere? TomorrowTime (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Han Chinese names usually feature a one-syllable surname (here, Fu) and a one- or two-syllable given name (here, Ping). Rarer variations include two syllable surnames, and >2 syllable given names. In contemporary China, the two character name seems to have become more common than the one character type, but both types are commonly seen.

If we take the Communist Party Politburo as a sample, I count 22 double-syllable given names and 3 single syllable given names.

Interestingly, characters in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms almost exclusively have single syllable given names. The reason for the popularity of single syllable names during that historical period was a law instituted in c. 1st century AD which forbade double syllable names, based on a misinterpretation of a line in the Confucian classics which denounced "double names" -- which in fact referred to pseudonyms, not double-syllable names. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so the name and surname are reversed as well? I assumed Ping was the surname... And I'd seen so many two syllable first names that I just flat out assumed two syllables are the unchallenged norm - so much so that I sometimes advise people to figure out which is the name and which the surname in a Chinese or Korean name simply by counting the syllables... Oh well, you live, you learn. Thanks for the explanation, PalaceGuard :) TomorrowTime (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking at Kanji / Chinese characters, one helpful rule of thumb, however, is that a two or three character name would most likely be Chinese, while a four (sometimes five if I'm not mistaken) character name would likely be Japanese --达伟 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that. I speak Japanese and have, to a very limited degree, an overview of Chinese culture as well (even if my spoken Chinese is limited to 不要！, which really comes in handy around hawkers in China :) ) Thanks for the kindness, though :) Oh, and you are correct, while the most common number of characters in Japanese names is three/four, first names often have three characters so the names can easily be five characters long (ex-prime minister Koizumi is as good an example as any), and in some cases even six is imaginable - but in this case the last name would also have to have three characters, which is much rarer. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Authorising use of logo

I have created a logo for a non-profit organisation. I've looked around online and seems like that it's best I keep the copyright of the artwork and AUTHORISE the group to use the artwork as the logo. Not really looking for legal advise here but where can I find a sample user agreement that basically says I authorise this group to use the logo under certain conditions and that it may not be altered, it's not for sale etc. I'm not looking for royalty from this logo but I also do not want misuse of the logo or release ownership of it. I want to make sure I cover all the clauses yet it gives me the owner the freedom to give permission case by case. thx in advance. --Kvasir (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I live in Alberta, Canada btw, not sure it's a federal or provincial matter. The said organisation is a provincial registered society. --Kvasir (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the point of Creative Commons licenses is to provide plain-English summaries of legally-cromulent licenses so that a non-expert can reasonably select terms suitable for their purposes. It looks to me like you'd be going for the by-nc-nd variety. The summary and full text of the latest revision can be found at creativecommons.org. That link is specific for Canadian jurisdictions. — Lomn 18:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I need. thanks! --Kvasir (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite what you wanted. If you release a license under NC-ND-BY all any group has to do to satisfy the requirements of the license is to just not change it, not use it for profit, and give you credit. That's not the same thing as giving you any kind of real control. It will not prevent "misuse" depending on how you are defining it—if the group turned around tomorrow and started advocating Holocaust denial with your logo, there is nothing you could do about it, provided they didn't change its design. If you want real control over how it is used beyond whether it can be modified or used for-profit, you will need to write up a separate agreement, and probably need a lawyer. Drafting contracts is fairly standard in the legal world; I don't know how much it costs but the non-profit group surely has some sort of legal counsel that can iron this out? --Mr.98 (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm covered in the sense that I have the right to terminate the licensing agreement anytime for any reason, no? (Item 7) unless i'm not reading this correctly... --Kvasir (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to protect your rights, you should use a traditional licensing agreement and not a creative commons licence. Their status and effectiveness are uncertain in many jurisdictions. See your attorney. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Point 7 means the license terminates if they violate it. That's just legalese that says, "if you break the rules, you can't appeal to the rules"—if they violate the terms of the license, they can no longer use it. (And "the rules" are just about whether they can modify the logo, use it in for-profit scenarios, or use it without giving you credit—that's it, nothing more.) It says you cannot terminate the license if they haven't broken any of its rules, that once you give it to them under CC, they can continue to use it under those terms in perpetuity. (This is intentional. The point of CC is to give the users the ability to use your stuff forever as long as they comply with the relatively lax rules over intellectual property. It is not about editorial control, or fine control in general. CC licenses are easy to use if you are trying to use them in the spirit of CC, but if you are not, avoid them.) Quite the opposite if you being able to terminate the license for any reason! Again, contract stuff is tricky. I don't think a CC license will satisfy your requirements. You will need to engage in real legal stuff to get what you want. (But keep in mind this is pretty boilerplate stuff for an intellectual property lawyer.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

hmmm thx. yeah, I didn't even consider the possibility the group could change its purpose, however unlikely. At least now i can use the format and terminologies there. --Kvasir (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but be aware that blindly using/modifying legal content is going to get you a contract that is probably unenforceable in any court (and thus pretty worthless—and they'd be dumb to sign it). What you need to do is to figure out exactly what kind of control you want, and then go to a lawyer who handles this kind of thing, and they will be able to draw you up a boilerplate contract that will work. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

cynicism overload

Is there a case of power companies being known to give away cheaper than free incandascent bulbs in a given area, in any form, not cheaper than free in just the possibility "you get paid to take and use them" but I'm also including hypothetical examples such as packaging them with baby formula and selling the package cheaper than the rest of the baby formulas in the grocery store (though obviously not less cheaply by enough to create an arbitrage situation where someone would just buy them all and resell them - just cheaper by enough that it would be "free money" to choose htat one). This is just one example, I am looking for anything that even vaguely fits my description.

I'm asking because this behavior is predicted by an exhaustive programmatic model I have made of human, employee and corporate behavior, and I would like to test its predictions. Thank you. 82.113.121.167 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Without answering the question, do you mean fluorescent rather than incandescent? Tevildo (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the OP said what he meant. A power company could give away incandescent bulbs to avoid people using fluorescent ones. The power company then sells more electricity and the extra profits make up for the loss on the bulbs. It would be an extremely unethical practice, which is why the OP says he is being cynical by suggesting it. I have no idea if it has actually happened. --Tango (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if it has happened with power companies giving away free inefficient lights, but the reason why many bars offer free salty snacks is so they sell more drinks. Is that considered unethical? Googlemeister (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think salty snacks will accelerate the impending apocalypse. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

you obviously don't frequent the same kinds of bars that I do...--Ludwigs2 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well for that matter, a lot of people probably don't think incandescent bulbs are going to accelerate The Apocalypse either. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I did once get an item for "less than nothing". It was ketchup for 87 cents a bottle, which came with a coupon for $1 off your next purchase. I bought about 20. I wonder if hot dog, hamburger, and french fry manufacturers all conspired to make this offer. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You really went to a lot of work to get $2.60 unless you really, really like katsup. Googlemeister (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Given his name, he might be Scottish, which could explain it. :) It could be worse. Alan King said he knew what he was in for when he got married. His bride-to-be went to buy her wedding dress, and they were on sale, so she bought two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am partially Scottish, how'd you know ? (I had one grandparent born in Scotland, but she had an English surname, so, I figure, on average, I have about a fifth of Scotch in me at any given time.) I gave away most of the ketchup, and wondered if I was morally obligated to pay each recipient 13 cents a bottle to take it. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I recently replaced my Grandmother's colour scanner/printer/photocopier jobby. The new one cost less than $100, which has to be far less than it cost to make, but is still more than nothing. Of course, the catch is that the ink cartridges for those things cost a fortune (around $3000 per litre of ink according to our article, which is why if you're actually going to use such a printer a continuous ink system is the way to go). FiggyBee (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for examples of service providers offering products at subsidized prices because of the eventual service revenue they will generate, the world is certainly full of them. If you're talking about the net price being negative, examples are just as common (get free IPod or a 10,000 airmiles with a bank account or credit card etc.). A rational (rational choice theory) firm will certainly offer any product and service combination that ends up generating net cash flows with a positive present value (including the "cost of capital" employed).NByz (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

UK and Ethnicties

I heard the United Kingdom has more interracial relationships per capita than any other nation in the world. Is this true? B-Machine (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This question cannot be answered meaningfully, because race is a cultural construct without any real objective basis. As such, its definition varies from one culture to another. For example, racial categories are subtly different in the United Kingdom from the United States. In the United States, for example, a person from India might be defined as "white", whereas in the United Kingdom, they are probably defined as "Asian". Therefore, in some countries, there will be more racial categories than in others. Obviously, if there are more racial categories, there is more likelihood of interracial marriage, since there is an increased chance that any two people are of different races, as defined in that society. Finally, there are many countries where virtually everyone has a background that includes more than one race, as defined in the United Kingdom (or the United States). In those countries, virtually every marriage is interracial from the perspective of the United Kingdom. Marco polo (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that relationships between white and black people are common here in the UK but rare in the USA. 92.29.150.112 (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If that is true, it is probably because (generalising wildly) skin colour is seen as less important or interesting in the UK than it is in the US, at least in terms of inter-personal relations. But I always thought that Brazil was the model for such integration. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Race in Brazil is a very complex issue; while outsiders often think of Brazil as a seamless melting pot, it's more that the Brazilian concept of "race" is very different from that in most European or North American countries. FiggyBee (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I've made a comment on that article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, here the US, people from India are seen as Indians (in race, not just nationality). Which is why some of us insist on the term "Native American" to differentiate from the other type of Indians. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Only 2 per cent of marriages in the UK are inter-ethnic.[3] I think the stats for interracial marriages are similar in the US.--Pondle (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about marriages but there certainly seem to be lots of mixed relationships and mixed children in the UK, I'm pleased to say. 89.242.38.108 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Irish occasionally marry Scots...hotclaws 14:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Versailles

In modern US Dollars, adjusting for inflation, how much did it cost to build Versailles? --70.250.214.164 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Versailles (the city), or the Palace of Versailles? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The palace. --70.250.214.164 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this site[4], "Actual building costs for Versailles are debated by modern historians, because currency values are uncertain. However, Versailles' price tag ranges anywhere from $2,000,000,0000 (in 1994 USD) all the way up to a maximum cost of $299,520,000,000!" According to this[5], the overall cost in the French currency of the time was 92 million livres, so you could do your own calculation. The Wikipedia French livre article gives an idea of the complexity of the task, even if you based it purely on the price of gold which would be very misleading. Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is going to depend what you are tagging the data to. My calculations give approx 1,000,000 toz of gold (value $1.1B) or 14,500,000 toz silver (value $250M). That is quite a price difference. This is based on the conversion rates for 1726. Googlemeister (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For Whom the Bell Tolls

Hey again. In Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls", he seems to use a lot of words like "unprintably" "obscenity", etc in the dialog. Are the characters really saying this,or is it just Hemingway cleverly bowdlerizing their speech? THX --Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.224.228 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"I obscenity in the milk of thy father"? Yes, he's cleverly bowdlerizing their speech. See For Whom the Bell Tolls#Language. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in the tradition of silent movie villains supposedly saying, "Curses! Foiled again!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I said that a lot when I was taking fencing lessons. PhGustaf (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The punch line I could add here is so trite and cliched that even I won't touch it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, I obscenity in the unprintably obscenity of thy obscenity. Hey, I like this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit more colorful and varied than the famous Watergate cliche, "(expletive deleted)". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what she said :) --74.123.54.54 (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In some of Larry Niven's science fiction, people use "censor" or "censored" where you would expect a swearword -- and he does mean that they're actually saying that. He's extrapolating from the notion that "censorship is bad" to the notion that "censor" itself might become a "bad word". --Anonymous, 07:44 UTC, March 18, 2010. You got in before me,tanj it!..hotclaws 14:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Marriage

Is it legal for a step brother and his step sister to marry in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.137.66 (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I mean for a step brother to marry his step sister!--79.76.137.66 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is baiting a troll or not, but I'm actually curious about this myself... Even more, I've wondered what would happen if two siblings separated at birth by adoption were to meet and marry. I think an episode of House may have touched on this. Aaronite (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The episode was "Fools for Love", but they were actually half siblings, not step. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It happens in real life. I saw 20/20 do a special about it a few years ago, but I can't quite remember if the marriages were automatically made void upon this discovery or if the couples could choose to remain married. I saw a documentary on BBC America about people who know they're related and still decide to shack up anyway. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a real life story. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, marriage between siblings is against the law almost everywhere. it doesn't matter whether they are full, half, or step siblings (the laws are related to incest laws, and are more concerned with sexual relations within the family group, not with the genetic details). That being said, the laws for annulling a marriage vary from place to place, and I don't know of any place that has specific laws nullifying legal marriages between siblings, possibly because the act is sufficiently taboo - and thus rare - that law makers haven't seen a need to create such language. --Ludwigs2 02:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In Canada the "Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act" is very simple. Marriage is not allowed between siblings or half-siblings, but between step-siblings there's no prohibition. Adoptive relationships count the same as natural ones, too -- which is a bit weird considering that people sometimes adopt their stepchildren. Anyway, there it is. --Anonymous, 07:50 UTC (link added 21:25), March 19, 2010.

Woody Allen married his stepdaughter, didn't he? Unless she was not actually "legally" his stepdaughter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, she was his (then) wife's adopted daughter, but not actually adopted by him, so no actual legal relation. still, even that kicked up a shite storm. --Ludwigs2 03:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mia Farrow was not Allen's legal wife, though they had a child together. —Kevin Myers 12:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed back on 1 October. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between half-sibling and step-sibling, and even between adopted sibling and step-sibling. The previous discussion linked to the excellent table of kindred and affinity which contains an updated list of forbidden marriages in the UK. If it is to be believed it prohibits marriage to half-siblings but not step-siblings or adopted siblings (obviously unless both siblings are adopted from the same natural parents). If this is anything other than idle curiosity you'll probably need a lawyer. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

According to[6], "Step-relatives may marry provided they are at least 21 years of age. The younger of the couple must at no time before the age of 18 have lived in the same household as the older person. Neither must they have been treated as a child of the older person's family." In other words, if you've lived together as brother and sister with a step-sibling, you cannot marry them, but if you've met as adults or your parents have married while you were over 18, you're ok.

The Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 is the relevant legislation for Scotland, England, and Wales; it amended the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 and The Marriage Act 1949 (for England and Wales). The law in Northern Ireland is different. --Normansmithy (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That ref is inconsistent since it says a woman may not marry her brother, half brother or step brother earlier on the page. So which is correct?--79.76.137.66 (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a case where twins were separated at birth and later in life, not realising that they were brother and sister, got married. When they discovered that they were siblings the case came before the High Court in London who in annulling the marriage ruled that "the marriage had never validly existed". ("Twins who were separated at bith 'in accidental marriage'," Times online, 11 January 2008: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3171716.ece). Simonschaim (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There was alleged to have been such a case, bearing all the hallmarks of urban myth. I would suggest you dig a little deeper, and question why no details ever came to light, and why even the teller of the tale took a step back from it here. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not been clear enough. The step siblings in question have both a different mother and different father and so are not related by blood. Is it ok to marry?--79.76.137.66 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been clear, and Normansmithy's link above still applies. Weddingguideuk.com's summary states clearly that even if the stepsiblings have no blood relationship at all, they cannot marry if they have lived together in the same family, as brother and sister, when the younger of the two was still under 18. The inconsistency for stepbrothers and stepsisters is probably just a missed line; the advice further down the page makes the situation crystal clear. There are other seeming anomalies of this type: for example, I saw a documentary in which a divorced man wished to marry his former mother-in-law but was prevented from doing so even though the two were not in any way related by blood, because his ex-wife was still alive. Looking at weddingguide.uk, we find that "if a man wishes to marry his daughter-in-law, both his son and his son's mother must be dead", so the same will apply to mother-in-law and son-in-law. Should the stepsiblings decide to marry without declaring their relationship, the marriage will not be valid and there may be penalties for making a false declaration. If this is not a hypothetical case, then your question is close to a request for legal advice, which Wikipedia cannot give. Don't rely on the links that have been given here: visit your local register office who will advise you free of charge. Karenjc 17:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

March 18

Looking for a science book...

I read somewhere a while back about a book written by wither a journalist or a scientist that described what the earth would look like if humanity suddenly disappeared off the face of the planet. I believe it described how long buildings would take to fall, land to be reclaimed, wild animals to come back and breed, that sort of thing. I'm also fairly certain it was quite popular/well-known and got a lot of reviews. Could anyone help out? Skinny87 (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The World Without Us? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, thats the one! And a Featured Article to boot! Skinny87 (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a similar TV series on the History Channel titled Life After People. --Jayron32 14:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

traditional Francophone elite

How is Egypt a traditional Francophone elite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This site refers to "the deep anchoring in Egypt of French cultural presence", and states: "Relations between Egypt and France date back to Napoleon Bonaparte's Expedition in 1789 which left its imprints on all aspects of Egyptian life. As time went on and with the ascension to power of Mohammad Ali The Great in 1805, ties of friendship deepened between the two countries. Egyptian missions were sent to France to specialize in modern sciences and fine arts." But there must be more to it than that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't mention the Suez canal which dominated Egypt's relations with France and Britain from the 1850s until the Suez Crisis of 1956. It's probably still a touchy subject in Egypt. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the original question, I don't understand it. An elite is usually a group, particularly a group of people. I don't see how a single country can be a group of any kind. Beyond that, it is unclear what "a traditional Francophone elite" might be (as opposed, for example, to other kinds of Francophone elites). As recently as the 19th century, one might, I suppose, have referred to the European aristocracy as "a traditional Francophone elite", but I can't think of another way to apply that phrase. If the question is really "Does Egypt have a tradition of a Francophone elite?", then the responses above might help to answer that question. However, Egypt was dominated by Britain, not France, from 1882 until the 1950s, and Egypt's current elite are much more likely to speak English than French. Marco polo (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the question comes from the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie article. See Egypt's entry in the membership table. I don't understand that particular statement either. Maybe the original author there meant "ally". --Kvasir (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread may be of interest. Apparently, up until the mid-1900s, the Egyptian elite tended to learn French (perhaps in addition to English and of course Arabic). This seems no longer to be true. So one could say that Egypt had a traditional Francophone elite, but an elite that had learned French as a second or third language. Marco polo (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

fishing sector of Canada

Is there a website where I can find all the aspects of the fishing sector in Canada like the present situation: facts and figures, economic strengths or successes, problems faced, main issues and controversies, policies adopted and implemented by the government and the extent of sucess and failure of these policies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fisheries and Oceans Canada site would be a good place to start: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index-eng.htm --Kvasir (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple Wikipedia pages include: Fishing industry in Canada (really poor article), Cod#Endangered-species controversies in Canada and Europe and No More Fish, No Fishermen Rmhermen (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer's mugshots

Question has been moved to Wikipedia:Help Desk#Jeffrey Dahmer's mugshots. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

March 19

King of Tavolara

In 1836, King Charles Albert of Sardinia made a shepherd, Giuseppe Celestino Bertoleoni Poli, King of Tavolara. Did he had the right to do that? Wasn't it only that the Pope could created someone a King, ie. Stephen I of Hungary? And also it wouldn't make sense a king making someone an title equal to their's. I thought King only created Dukes, Counts, Prince, and ect. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Similarly were the Cocos (Keeling) Islands granted in perpetuity to the Clunies-Ross family by Queen Victoria. However the "king" title was self-styled by the head of the family. It's essentially a fiefdom. --Kvasir (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Newly formed kingdoms used to have monarchs elected by a body, not the Church. The Great Powers at the London Conference of 1832 elected Otto of Greece, originally a Bavarian Prince, to become the king of the newly form Kingdom of Greece. He was later deposed and the Greek National Assembly elected a Danish prince to become king. The newly formed Belgian National Congress elected yet another Bavarian prince to be their first king when the country became independent from the Netherlands. Of course, one of the most notable examples is Napoleon crowning himself as Emperor. --Kvasir (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Pope created Charlemagne as emeperor.
Sleigh (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Under what code of laws do you suppose Charles Albert might not have had the right to do that? If you're a king (or a government) you can do more or less anything that the other polities will let you get away with. International law hasn't been around that long, at least in Europe. --ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The OP may be a bit confused because the pope traditionally crowned Emperors; the pope is Pontifex Maximus, i.e. chief priest of the Roman Empire, and as such, is given the right to crown the Emperor, in medieval times this meant the Holy Roman Emperor. Kings, on the other hand, either exist since "time immemorial" (like England, France, Spain, etc) where the Kingship can be traced back to the military leaders of major confederations of Germanic tribes (Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Visigoths, etc.). Other kings are created by Emperors or even other kingdoms, for example Ottokar I had his Duchy, Bohemia, elevated to a Kingdom as a reward for giving military aid to the Holy Roman Emperor (see Golden Bull of Sicily). Other times kings just up and declare themselves to be kings, King Zog I apparently got tired of merely being the President of Albania, so he had the constitution rewritten and made himself king. And then there's the kings that are so assigned by the various Congresses of Europe. This, for example, when the Ottoman Empire was driven out of Europe, Otto, a Bavarian Prince, was placed in charge of the new Kingdom of Greece. --Jayron32 02:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Crown Prince of Denmark

Who was the first Crown Prince of Denmark? When did Denmark started having crown princes instead of hereditary princes?

See List of Danish monarchs and Crown Prince. Crown princes are hereditary princes, and Denmark has always been an hereditary monarchy (and still is). To answer your question, the first (recorded) crown prince of Denmark was Sigfred, son of Ongendus, the first king of Denmark, who ruled in about 720 AD. Tevildo (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Denmark has only been constitutionally a hereditary monarchy since 1660. Prior to that time, monarchs were elected and their children, including their eldest sons (even Hamlet, were not princes of Denmark since they had no hereditary right to the throne. Instead, from the accession of the House of Oldenburg to the Danish throne, the Danish kings' sons and their male-line were Dukes of Schleswig and Holstein, at first dividing those fiefs up among the numerous cadet branches, but later simply bearing the title Duke/Duchess (not Prince/Princess) of Schleswig-Holstein or of Holstein-Gottorp, while the head of their dynasty, the King of Denmark, actually ruled the twin duchies. A crown prince is a form of hereditary prince, although the former term is more commonly used for the heir apparent to an empire or kingdom than to a grandduchy, sovereign duchy or sovereign principality. In Scandinavia, the term Hereditary Prince came to be used to refer to the heir apparent's heir apparent (i.e. usually the eldest son of the king's eldest son) or, when there was no heir apparent, the heir presumptive was accorded the title of Hereditary Prince. When Frederick IX of Denmark's daughters were given succession rights in 1953, his younger brother Prince Knud of Denmark ceased being heir presumptive de jure but continued to retain the style of "Hereditary Prince" (Arveprins) for his lifetime as a courtesy title. FactStraight (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Original & Translation version of Gilgamesh

Does anybody know of a print version of the Epic of Gilgamesh which includes the original as well as a translation in parallel, such as what the Loeb Classics series does? Cevlakohn (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The original cuneiform? The epic we read in translation is a synthesized version patched together out of various tablets. So there's no single authoritative "received text" such as we have with the Greek and Latin canon in the Loeb editions--Wetman (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Penguin edition translated and edited by Andrew George is pretty good. Images of the original Sumerian or Akkadian tablets may be seen mainly in specialist journals. New tablets (or fragments) used to appear routinely, but the recent hostilities in the region may delay new recoveries. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

services industries

Why services industries are generally very competitive in the world today?

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Service industry leads to a couple of other articles which could lead to further information. However, Google is probably a better bet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

sales revenue and employees

in 2001, General Motors was ranked 1st in sales revenue and 32nd in number of employees. McDonald's was ranked 108th in sales revenue and 4th in number of employees. What might explain these differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

They are apples and oranges? They sell totally different types of products and have totally different business models, and they make use of their employees in a totally different way (McDonald's employees are mostly in service, GM I imagine are mostly in manufacturing). Is there any reason to think that ranked number of employees would have anything much to do with ranked sales revenue for all industries and products? I doubt it, but I'm no economist. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Salary level. McDonald's employees teenage fry cooks, GM employees engineers. Rmhermen (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is not much in the way of a meaningful comparison to be made between these companies. One makes millions of easy to assemble burgers that sell for dollars each, whereas the other makes thousands of vehicles which sell for thousands of dollars each. Much better to compare GM to Ford or McDonald's to Wendy's. Googlemeister (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can compare them. Investors compare them every day. Abstractly, that year, McDonalds utilized more employees to generate less revenue than GM did. GM's revenue-per-employee was much higher, which was great for GM. Of course, the two companies' fortunes have reversed in the subsequent 9 years, so revenue-per-employee clearly isn't everything. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

But is sales revenue even what you are trying to compare? I was under the impression that McDonald's made a huge amount of its money from real estate, for --Mr.98 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's comparing apples and oranges. However, when looking at such ratios between two auto companies, or between two fast food companies, the comparison is valid. And, if McD's goes to automated assembly lines for production of hamburgers, then maybe it can be compared with GM. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Claiming it is not possible to compare GM and McDonalds (as you did saying it would be an "apples and oranges" comparison) is nonsense. They are both businesses which exist primarily to turn a profit for investors, and investors compare them all the time using many indications of profitability and efficiency. Revenue-per-employee is one such indication. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely it is, but using revenue-per-employee on businesses in 2 wildly different industries will not give good results in and of itself any more then comparing only the relative fuel economy between a 747 and a pickup truck would give a good indication of which vehicle moves people more efficiently. Googlemeister (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that this is the best yardstick to use, but am arguing that comparing these two companies is not "apples to oranges". Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You can compare them this way, just as you could compare their revenue to the heights of their buildings (GM probably wins in this respect, too), but it doesn't mean that you'll get meaningful investment or economic data out of it. Comparing random metrics is exactly what the phrase "apples and oranges" is all about. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We are quibbling at this point, because I'd certainly agree that many, many metrics give a lot more information than this one when comparing companies in different industries; but I can't let it go: You are saying revenue per employee is actually meaningless in this comparison, which is untrue. In addition to being one indicator of efficiency or productivity, it implies the amount of managerial overhead each company must maintain; it can indicate how much each company will be affected by certain types of new taxation (or reductions in certain types of taxation); it says something about worker education and/or training, which in turn says something about each company's probable success if trying to commence operations in a new market. Some of these are second-order approximations but I think it's misleading the original poster to just say "The metric is actually useless when comparing two companies in different industries" — the indicators I just listed have some value. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this example then CT, In 2009, AIG got $101B revenues with 96,000 employees, value, $1.06M revenue/employee. Walmart got $405B in revenues off of more then 2 million employees, or about $200k revenue/employee. Using that metric, one would think trading %1 of AIG for %5 of Wal*Mart would be even, but in reality, it is a total sucker bet for the guy holding Wal*Mart (to the tune of $46M traded for $10B). Googlemeister (talk)

Straw man argument. Nobody but you in the above paragraph has ever suggested that anybody thinks that the "revenue per employee" metric gives you a literal valuation of Company A's shares versus the shares of Company B. My only argument is that comparing the revenue per employee, between two companies in different industries, has an amount of meaning that is nonzero. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

But my argument shows that whatever "signal" you can get from such a comparsion can be totally swamped by the "noise" from all the other, far more useful indicators. Googlemeister (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrarily counting the number of employees doesn't prove much. Clearly someone involved in the manufacture of a car is going to add more value than someone involved in frying a burger. It would be relevant to compare their Sales Revenue to their wages bill. That way you can compare the efficiency of their utilisation of labourJabberwalkee (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I used to work for a Chartered business valuator, and though revenue per employee was rarely the best way of assigning values to businesses, we did have access to an annual publication that estimated it for different industries. As the discussion above points out, it varies significantly. NByz (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

drum beat in music

An awful lot of popular music has a prominent drum beat, and an awful lot of "classical" music doesn't (I know there are tons of exceptions). I've never personally developed an appreciation for classical music, but I think I'd probably like it more if it did have a drum beat. Can you explain why classical music often avoids including drum beats? ike9898 (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The presence or absence of a drum beat in classical music is likely to determine if it's a march or not. Thus they might have tended to look down on drums as an expedient instrument for war, since hauling a brass band, piano, and violin section around were problematic. But drums were loud enough and portable enough to signal commands to soldiers during battle. Later on, the bugle was more likely to be used for this. And, just like the drum, this made it less desirable for normal music (Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy aside). StuRat (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The brief simplistic answer is that since around the early 20th-century, "western" popular music has been significantly influenced by African rhythms through various channels (at first rather indirectly). In 19th-century classical music, they had a rather different understanding of percussion, in which non-rhythmic percussion tended to be used for kind of "special effects" (simulating thunderstorms, cannons in battle, etc), while rhythmic drumming had a strong association with military marches (as mentioned by StuRat). AnonMoos (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hooked on Classics has/had a number of classical medleys with a recurring beat as an undertone. As for the drum beat in rock, swing music and jazz also had it a lot. But even classical marches such as this one seem to de-emphasize the drumbeat. Classical music has more to do with strings and woodwinds, with drums as percussion when needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like there's something more to it than that. I've heard classical music that's been popularized with a drum beat (usually electronic) and it seems to be regarded by classical music lovers as extremely cheesy. Also, modern composers of classical-type music shouldn't associate drum beats with military action, and yet they continue to avoid them. ike9898 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sure music experts could identify a great many classical works which have a prominent drum beat, such as Ravel's Boléro. Others feature percussion with a steady rhythmic beat at least for several bars. But the tympani or other drums make their point and then some other part of the orchestra gets a turn, with the rhythm moving to the string bass, tuba, trombones, horns or other sections. In lots of modern pop music, a drum machine (or drummer) bangs out the same repetitive pattern bar after bar, "boom-CHUCK, boom-CHOCJ" etc, or "one TWO-AND, three, four, one TWO-AND, three, four," etc for 12 or 32 bars, which would have a classical audience yawning, then leaving (with notable exceptions like the music of John Cage which repeats something seemingly forever with only tiny variations). Edison (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the impression that a typical percussion section of an orchestra set up to play 19th-century works consists of two guys placed in a corner in the back who are surrounded by diverse miscellaneous equipment (kind of like sound-effects guys on a 1930's radio show). If you look at them during the performance, then most of the time the piece is being played they aren't doing anything (though from time to time they may be working strenuously for brief periods). AnonMoos (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation involves timing. Classical music has a conductor whom can be seen by the entire ensemble. Smaller groups in the recent - pre-amplification - past, needing an auditory equivalent, adopted a steady rhythm from a penetrating and concussive instrument. Though music may need no standard method to be enjoyed, it certainly needs one to be performed. Modern music seems to rely heavily on this concussive convention. Maybe a more enlightening question might be: "Why does so much modern music rely so heavily on drums as a rhythmic centre?"NByz (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There is, unfortunately and disappointingly, very little information on this at the article on Rhythm - but, I've just discovered, a lot more here (in the .pdf document). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how true that can be. In my experience, groups of musicians from string quartets to moderately sized orchestras are perfectly capable of staying together without the conductor: the front desk of the first violins functions as the leader, and the rest of the orchestra usually sticks to them more closely than they do the conductor. The purpose of the conductor is more to shape the music and get specific effects: the basic keeping of time happens even if the conductor walks away. 86.177.124.127 (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good point. Perhaps in the post-amplification and the rock bank format, no instrument but the drums can fit this leadership role so robustly and flexibly? The bass can be muddy (though it often leads for long periods in smaller jazz groups, this is only practical when all instruments, including the bass, are using an abrupt clean tone; certainly not in a rock band with a rounded bass tone and a distorted or "effects"-riddled guitar tone), the rhythm or lead guitar can be as well (and relying on it to be always playing and always indicating the time signature can be straining to the composition). The drums, on the other hand, are the perfect time keeper in this modern format. They are loud and abrupt, and the lack of tonality (except on advanced sets. I do realize that drums are tuned, but their purpose is mainly percussive) forces the player to focus their musical growth on tempo and time signature. Furthermore, the lack of tonality in most percussion instruments allows them to create another layer to the music without interfering with the melody. This can serve to make the music more complex without being harder to understand. It seems that most bands you hear on the radio rarely take advantage of this opportunity.NByz (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Free Churches Moderator

AKA. the Moderator of the Free Churches Council, is a president of the Council of Christians and Jews [7] – but who is he, what does he do, how is he appointed, what is/are the Free Church(es)? Web-references are sparse! Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

One start is Free church. There is also the Free Church Federal Council. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks—I understand the concept of a free church, I was more interested in this specific British organisation... ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 14:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"it isn't _____ if you don't get caught"

This might belong to the language desk instead, but what do people mean when they say "it isn't stealing if you don't get caught", "it isn't cheating if you don't get caught", "it isn't illegal if you don't get caught", etc...? In what sense are these statements true, do we have an article about it?

Is there a history of this ideology? Where did it originate? Thank you. 82.113.106.89 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a (illogical) view of a victimless crime due to the idea that if you don't get caught doing something, then the victim will never know that they've been stolen from, cheated on, etc. It's also based on the idea, especially in the "cheating on someone" version, that if they don't know you cheated on them, then their feelings won't be hurt. Dismas|^(talk) 18:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That is assuming there are no such things as victimless crimes. I would refute such an idea by putting forth that running a stop sign where there is clearly no other traffic is such a victimless crime. If they caused an accident or near accident, their crime is no longer victimless. Googlemeister (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the "victimless crime" concept is a red herring. There is one context where where the claim is essentially true, and that's the presumption of innocence at law — or, in other words, the fact that criminal cases in court aren't about whether you committed a crime but about whether you can be proved to have committed it.

The extent (if any) to which that principle might be extensible to other contexts is a matter for one's personal morality. --Anonymous, 19:07 UTC, March 19, 2010.

They're true in the sense that you won't get prosecuted for something if you aren't caught at it, and thus don't necessarily fit the legal definition of the crime. In a non-legal (e.g. moral) sense, this doesn't work. Even in a legal sense, getting away with something, in the sense of not suffering a criminal conviction, does not mean you are off scot free (as O.J. Simpson found). --Mr.98 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the UK MPs expenses "scandal", it was a common feeling (in England at least) that the MPs felt that the real crime was not claiming expenses to which they were not entitled, but that they had been caught doing so. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Related quote, from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels: "To be with another woman, that is French. To be caught, that is American." --Mr.98 (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Italian saying: "Where there is no police, there are no speed limits." Gabbe (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at it from an entirely pragmatic point of view, then the difference between a legal act and an illegal one is that you get punished for the illegal one but not the legal one. Since you don't get punished if you don't get caught, it can only be illegal if you get caught. It's not intended to be sound logic, it's more a redefinition of legality in terms of the consequences, rather than the act. --Tango (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"It isn't _____ if you don't get caught" could most properly be filled in with "punishable". If you drive 50 in a 35 zone, you've broken the law, but if you don't get caught, then you "got away with it", and as far as the legal system is concerned, you're clean. I could pose a more extreme example: If you murder someone and are never caught, does that mean you are not a murderer? No, you're still a murderer, except not in the eyes of the legal system (yet). I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes from The Adventures of Superman, in an early episode where the writing was a bit crisper, in which Clark Kent wants a man detained despite a lack of evidence, and Inspector Henderson admonishes him with, "The law, Kent, what has he done to break the law? This man might beat up his mother every day and twice on Sunday, but as far as the law is concerned, he hasn't done a thing." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The imminent resignation of Hillary Clinton?

Intrade is giving Hillary Clinton a 49% chance of resigning from her post before the end of Obama's first term. I don't understand why Clinton would want or have to do so; why then is this probability so high? Insight welcome, 86.45.173.139 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The "quotes" are based on user opinion and, for the most part, who is willing to click the green button or red button the most. It is not based on any tangible evidence one way or the other. It may as well be: "Do you like Hillary Clinton? Yes No." In other words, the website is purely for entertainment, not for factual evidence. -- kainaw™ 19:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Intrade.com contracts trade in real money. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless I misread the Intrade quote matrix, Clinton's resignation has only been traded 31 times, so that's probably not a reliable sample...--达伟 (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not a sample but the entirety of the bids, but yes, the low volume lends to a less credible probability. 86.45.173.139 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been rumors of an eventual Clinton resignation for a couple months now. The recent spike was due to New York Governor David Paterson's troubles, with speculation that Clinton would step down and run for governor. See here for example. Additionally, the current state of US relations with Israel probably feeds speculation that Clinton won't be around for the duration. —Kevin Myers 20:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha, that makes sense, thank you Kevin. Do you know who her main rivals might be for a prospective gubernatorial run? 86.45.173.139 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This poll by Rasmussen (the article was written March 2) says the front-runner is currently Andrew Cuomo (D), and the two Republican front runners are currently Rick Lazio (R) and "wealthy Buffalo developer" Carl Paladino (R). If it matters to you, Rasmussen has been noted to yield more conservative-leaning poll numbers than other pollsters. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Secretary of State to NY Governor? I can't see it - HC has been on the national/international scene for too long now, and there's no political advantage to her in stepping back from it. She might do something like that as a political statement if she had a good enough reason, but at 1 year into the current administration it would speak to some internal frictions or some looming political disaster that doesn't even appear on the Fox News radar (if not even they can stretch things to see that kind of trouble, what's the likelihood?) --Ludwigs2 22:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

She had an interview (with Tavis Smiley ?) where she was asked if she could imagine herself serving another term or even finishing this one, and she didn't sound optimistic. She also commented on how hard her job is. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Olympics question

What determines who can have an Olympic team? I mean, Puerto Rico had their own team, even though they are kinda sorta part of the US, so could say the Souix have a team as their reservation is only kinda sorta part of the US? Could Wales have their own team if they wanted, like they do in soccer? What are the IOC methods for determining this stuff? Googlemeister (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently they need a National Olympic Committee, who then petition for recognition by the International Olympic Committee. There are quite a hodgepodge of territories recognized, and at least one petitioner unrecognized, and Taiwan, who is only recognized so long as they call themselves "Chinese Taipei" to avoid irritating the People's Republic of China. As to whether the IOC would recognize the Sioux—who knows. They recognize the Palestinians, who are not quite in the same position of the Sioux, but it's not a huge stretch of an analogy (since the Sioux are self-governing). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Macau Sports and Olympic Committee have existed for years and have participated in international sporting events, it just has not been recognised by the IOC yet. I've not been able to find why this is. Dependent territories are certainly not barred from joining the IOC. Hong Kong's NOC has participated in the Olympics since 1952, it is now participating as "Hong Kong, China". On the other hand, the membership of Kuwait Olympic Committee has been suspended since Jan 2010 from violating "international regulation". From Kuwait's case, it seem the IOC requirements are stringent, technical and political. --Kvasir (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It is also a question of funding. Establishing a separate NOC from the mother country means you are now independent from the funding structure and need to raise your own funds for the athletes. Macau may have their own NOC but in the case of Olympic sports, the athletes may want to keep their access to high performance national training program and funds. --Kvasir (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As for Gilbratar, their non-recognition seems to based on the fact that its sovereignty is not "recognised by the international community". This Swiss source is in French. Apparently the Gilbratar National Olympic Committee is suing IOC in Swiss court. --Kvasir (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I may have missed something (my French isn't that great), but I think that document is only about the IOC itself and does not talk about what it takes for a new NOC to be admitted to the club. Just for fun and practice, here's my translation (a bit rough in places) of just the first paragraph:

For more than a century, international sports have been primarily governed by a system of non-profit associations centered on the Olympic Games and on the the world championships of the various disciplines. This system was itself designed under the name of the Olympic Movement and its principal agent is the International Olympic Committee (IOC), a club of individual members founded in 1894 by Pierre de Coubertin. Its members are responsible for perpetuating the modern Games. Despite the considerable evolution of sports in the 20th century and the growing importance of the Summer and Winter Games, the IOC has continued with no important change of structure through a century that has known, among other things, plenty of surprises. It was only in 1999 that the IOC was suddenly shocked to its foundations because of the implication of about 20 of its members in a corruption scandal linked to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. It was also at this same time that doping and sports-related violence began to strongly preoccupy governments, which perceived that the Olympic Movement had not taken serious control of these consequences. At the end of the century, across the news media, the IOC was all at once confronted with opinions and public bodies that put its legitimacy into question. (Chappelet 2001).

--Anonymous, 21:35 UTC, March 19, 2010.

The bit about Gibraltar is in section IV: L’harmonisation des dispositifs de régulation (Harmonisation of dispositifs of regulation)

La deuxième affaire date de 2003 et n’est pas encore tranchée par les tribunaux vaudois. Elle concerne une association qui se nomme « Comité national olympique de Gibraltar » et qui veut se faire reconnaître par le CIO, depuis la fin des années quatre-vingts, comme CNO à part entière. Cette association remplissait les conditions nécessaires au moment de sa demande, notamment avant que le CIO n’exige que le territoire concerné soit « reconnu par la communauté internationale » (règle 31 de la Charte olympique). Elle se plaint de la lenteur de la décision à son sujet du CIO qui ne veut pas en prendre une qui soit positive (et qui ne serait pas acceptée en Espagne) ou négative (qui risquerait d’être contredite par un tribunal vaudois du fait de la Charte en vigueur à l’époque).

Immediately above this paragraph was the bit about Taiwan, and most of us are pretty familiar with that. Don't worry about my quality of French translation, not a pro here:

"The second business dated from 2003 and is not yet "sliced" (decided?) by the Vaud tribunals. It's about an association called "Gibraltar National Olympic Committee" and that it wants to be recognised by the IOC since the end of the 80s as an NOC. This association fullfilled the necessary conditions at the moment of its request, notably before the IOC insists only that the concerned territory be "recognised by the international community" (Olympic Charter Rule 31). The association accuse the length the IOC has taken to make the decision be it positive (and which would not be accepted by Spain) or negative (that risked being countered vigourously by a Vaud tribunal over the fact of the Charter of the time.)." --Kvasir (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought I had searched the PDF for "Gibraltar", but I must've missed it somehow. Sorry to have been misleading. I suspect that "sliced" here means something like "scheduled (for consideration)", i.e. assigned its slice of time. In the last parentheses, "risked" should be "would risk".

So an interesting point here is that the rules seem to have changed since Gibraltar made its application, but in this paragraph they don't say how. I don't have time now to see if they cover it anywhere else. --Anonymous, 00:28 UTC, March 20/10.

Falkland War -- Thatcher Speech

According to Lexis/Nexis, Mrs Thatcher gave a speech to the House of Commons, which began thus: "The Falkland Islands and their dependencies remain British territory; no aggression and no invasion can alter that simple fact. It is the Government's object to see the islands are free from occupation". Lexis Nexis finds that bit in a NY Times article dated April 3, 1982, apparently on the front page. I know it's probably a long speech, but I'm looking for the entire text. Can anyone give me a hint about how to find the transcript of that speech? Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This link [8] takes you to the Hansard record of her speeches in Parliament. You should be able to search it to find the official record of the speech you are looking for. DuncanHill (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• The speech you want is here [9] - the bit you quoted is a few paragraphs down. DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)(bit pointless now) It's not the beginning of the speech, but nevertheless, good ol' Hansard recorded the whole debate verbatim, so you know nothing's been cut. A mirror is at [10] . - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are quick, and efficient. Thanks so much. Llamabr (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's well worth reading the whole debate. DuncanHill (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The audio recording of the debate was rebroadcast on BBC Parliament on 'Falklands Night' in 2007 (marking the 25th anniversary); I have a copy and there may be others out there. Note also that all important Margaret Thatcher speeches, including those outside Parliament, are available from the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

History of the bound book

Can someone briefly explain the history and chronology of going from scrolls (for example the library of Alexandra hadnothing but scrolls in it didn't it) to bound leafs in a book that you can leaf through. Did scrolls and these bound books coexist for a while, or was itlike an Aha moment and as soon as the bound pages appeared no one wanted scrolls anymore. Thank you. This is not homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.107.105 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall that, in ancient India, they wrote on long objects (tree leaves ?), bound together into a book. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

From the article for Codex (bound books): "First described by the 1st century AD Roman poet Martial, who already praised its convenient use, the codex achieved numerical parity with the scroll around 300 AD, and had completely replaced it throughout the now Christianised Greco-Roman world by the 6th century." The introduction of that article, and its #History section, go into further detail. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Christians were very significant "early adopters" and popularizers of the book format... AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The British Museum had on exhibit a few years ago a pretty little bound book which had been buried with some British religious leader quite early, maybe the 6th century. I do not recall his name, only that it was a relatively early "book" as such, and rather nicely bound. It was definitely not the Codex Sinaiticus. (Now its driving me mad trying to remember the details, but I can see it clearly as day in memory). Edison (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this one: [11] Rmhermen (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The one I saw was older as I recall and in better shape, and was found in the tomb of some famous early religious figure in England, Ireland or Scotland. Edison (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We have history of the book, although it doesn't really seem to have the info we're looking for here. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The followers of Manichaeism were known as bibliophiles, and often had splendidly bound codexes of the major writings of their religion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

March 20

"Realistic" Visual Art Outside of the West

This question seems like an obvious one—but I'm having trouble finding answers (perhaps because it might be prone to controversy—but, still, I think it's a legitimate query):

Why does realism (i.e. photorealism) seem to be associated only with traditions in Western visual art? Strict representation seems to be the most intuitive approach to visual art—and the most straightforward criteria by which visual art can be assessed—but, most cultures seem to have traditions consisting of more stylized visual art forms, to the exclusion of more realistic approaches. Am I wrong?

Alfonse Stompanato (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you consider that maybe, let's take a very early example, Egyptians tried to portray people completely realistically and not in a stylized form, but just weren't talented enough to? I mean, by your standard, every 6 year old draws in a "stylized" form, and not a realistic form, even though a realistic one would "make more sense". You understand what I'm getting at. If you want to know how people long ago lived and thought, just think of little children. 82.113.121.93 (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been several serious scholarly tomes published about the "canon of proportions" in ancient Egyptian art, analyses of how Akhenaten changed things somewhat for a relatively brief period, etc., though we don't seem to have much specifically about this on Wikipedia, from what I can turn up. 10:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a school of painting in Song Dynasty China that portrayed figures in a realistic manner. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw a TV documentary which suggested that realistic depictions didn't happen in Europe until artists started using optical projections as a drawing aid. See Camera obscura. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A boring and tautological answer is "different styles of art flourish under conditions that promote them." The art historian would point out that the Western "realist" forms of art are no less stylized, specific to their period, and no more "objective" than the forms of art found elsewhere. Even in Western art, realism is hardly universal. Consider the difference between Ancient Greek sculpture (extremely "realistic" in its attention to proportions, etc.—e.g.) and Ancient Greek painting (which is "flat" and obviously stylized—e.g.). Of course, even here we are cherry-picking—if you look at Art in ancient Greece as a whole you see a whole variety of style of art (as one would expect for a period so long and so fruitful).

I think it is probably not the case that artists in other cultures couldn't have made "photorealistic" art if they had been trained to, had a tradition of it, thought it was what one should do. It is certainly the case that artists of those cultures can do it now, and I doubt it is because raw artistic talent has increased in those countries. I am not an art historian in the slightest, but I would suggest that the institutions of art—how it is taught, who pays for it, what it is used for, how "fads" and "trends" work within its dynamics, how it interacts with the larger culture in which it is embedded—probably is where we put the credit, here. The argument has been made in many other realms that the reason that Europe had such great diversity in philosophy, art, writing, culture, etc., was in part because of its long periods of very carved-up political ruling, where each little state had its own power structure, its own patrons, its own system of society. There are some limitations with such an argument (it is not like the rest of the world was exactly homogeneous), but it probably has some merit. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at just one aspect of realism: size. In ancient times, size was used to indicate importance. Thus, the king and queen always had to be bigger than everyone else (as in a modern chess board). This precludes the use of perspective to actually show distance correctly. Thus, the movement toward equality for all may have also been reflected in more realistic art. I don't think it's an accident that the Greeks and Romans, who at least flirted with the idea of democracy, had the most realistic art, while the Egyptians had neither. StuRat (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

While an amusing theory, this doesn't have any correlation with any historical or artistic understanding that I have ever seen. There are large and small depictions of kings and queens in every culture. The idea that "in ancient times" (??) kings and queens (??) had to universally be depicted hugely is completely silly. Go to any good art museum, StuRat, and you will see there is a lot more variation than this! --Mr.98 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Care to show me some examples ? (Note that I didn't say that depictions of kings and queens are always "huge", only that they tended to be larger than commoners, when both are included in the same peice.) StuRat (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Parting one's hair

I was just wondering when people started parting their hair. I've googled it and found nothing.149.125.176.38 (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

According to comb, the oldest combs found date to around 5000 years ago (although that doesn't mean they didn't exist before - we just haven't found any from earlier). I would guess that people started parting their hair at around the same time combs were invented (without a comb, you pretty much have to have dreadlocks or similar (or really short hair), so it can't have been sooner, and parting hair seems a pretty obvious way to comb your hair to me, so I doubt it was much after). --Tango (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I can part my hair with just my fingers. It looks a bit messy, but when I forget to bring a comb, it's better than nothing. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but only because you have non-matted hair. If you never combed it, you would develop dreadlocks (or something similar), and you couldn't part those meaningfully. --Tango (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The former article "Part (hairstyle)" is currently a redirect, but here is the version that existed before an AFD discussion redirected: [12] It has references, so you may be able to follow some of those refs to see if they lead anywhere. --Jayron32 20:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Step Will

I don't think this is a request for legal advice. Under England & Wales law, is there such a thing as a "step Will" and if so what is it? - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of a "step will" and Google doesn't find anything useful, but that isn't surprising since "step will" appears frequently in everyday language ("the next step will be to...", etc.) and just "law" isn't enough to narrow down the search. Unless someone hear has heard of one, we're going to need more context. Where have you heard the phrase? --Tango (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I've had a fair bit to do with wills in recent years, and it's not a term I have ever heard. As I suspect you have discovered, a pretty diligent Google search reveals no official-looking use of the term. If I was asked to guess the meaning, I would probably take it to signify either a will made with the intention of providing for step-relatives, particularly step-children, of whom there are many these days but who have no automatic right of inheritance from step-parents under the intestacy rules, or possibly a will in which the provisions are laid out as a series of steps and the eventual distribution of assets will depend on how the conditions in each step are fulfilled. But this is pure speculation. Is there a context in which you came across the term? Karenjc 13:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I heard of it in the second of these two meanings. If a, then b, else if c, then d else e. I hadn't heard the term before. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor have I. I think the term isn't in wide use because many, if not most, wills have such things in place. For example, for married folks, a standard will would be to leave everything to their spouse, unless their spouse pre- or co-deceased them, in which case everything would go to the children, unless their children pre- or co-deceased them, in which case... etc. Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Could it be STEP - the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (website), a professional group for people involves in wills, estates, and related materials? I haven't raked through their site, but they seem to offer courses and certification for such people, so I could imagine someone saying they're a "registered STEP will writer" or that they've been on a "STEP will course". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Payment in cash

Watching the show Pawn Stars, I notice that some people are reassured or otherwise made to favor a deal more by an offer of money as cash rather than (I assume) check. What is more desirable about cash versus whatever other payment methods may be used? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 12:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A cheque has to be paid into a bank account, which leaves a paper trail. Cash doesn't. That means you can easily get away with not paying tax on cash deals but can't with cheque payments (this is usually illegal, of course). A more legitimate reason would be to avoid bank fees associated with cheques or to avoid the delay in getting access to the money. The first reason is the real one, usually, I think. The other possibility is that people are favouring cash over credit (ie. being invoiced and paying at the end of the month, or paying by instalments over the next year, or whatever). In that case, you can expect a discount for cash since money now is worth more than money later (the time value of money). That doesn't apply if the credit option would involve paying interest, though, since not paying the interest would be the discount. You aren't usually charged interest when invoiced and given a month to pay, or similar, though. --Tango (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you've also left out the fact that checks can bounce, but cash cannot. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

True. Cheque guarantee cards are commonly used to prevent that problem when using a cheque to pay a company. --Tango (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Tango has hit the nail on the head when he mentions time. That's why people are in the pawn shop to begin with. It's probably mostly psychological (How else do you expect a pawn shop to pay out?) but that's probably the urge that's being played at here.

It's actually surprising how many people are super eager to get their money on that show. Sometimes he tells them straight out that for one reason or another a pawn shop is not the most profitable place to sell an item, but they do it anyway for a fraction of what it's worth because they want the money right now. APL (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've not seen the show, but our article on it suggests people go there to sell items. Why would anyone go to a pawn shop to sell an item? You go to a pawn shop to pawn it. That is, take out a loan secured to it. If you want to sell it, go to a shop that specialises in second hand whatever-it-is and you'll get a far better deal. --Tango (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And, even worse than a check can be a prize. At times game shows give away total crap, yet claim it's worth far more than you could actually get for it. That "one-of-a-kind" sculpture they say is worth $1000 may only sell for $100, and yet you're responsible for paying income tax on the "retail value", meaning you lose money in the deal, unless you can convince the tax assessor that the original valuation was wrong. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

One advantage of cash over cheques is that if you have an overdraft and pay the cheque into your bank account you may not be able to withdraw the full value after it has cleared. Cash in your hand can go to the pub and have a good time with you that very night. DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Pawn Stars" is not a game show. It's is a reality show about a pawn shop. It's clearly heavily directed and heavily edited, but the people on the show are supposedly off-the-street people who have showed up to either buy or (usually) sell something at a pawn shop. APL (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Pawn Stars" shop is in Las Vegas, and some sellers may wish to get their hands on whatever small amount of cash is offered so they can rush back to the casino and gamble it away to stoke their gambling addiction or to avoid a creditor breaking their fingers for nonpayment of debts. Edison (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Voice-over

How feasible of a job would doing voice-overs for radio advertisements, etc., be for high school/college income, and what would be its pros and cons? What other jobs are there in voice-over besides radio/television advertising? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Movies and video games often need voiceover, and your college may have programs in both. Of course a college department wouldn't pay much for such work. Anyway, I can think of several reasons this isn't a great prospect for a college student. Unlike a normal job, a VO actor gets an agent, provides them with a reel for potential customers to review, and then waits ... and waits ... and waits for a call. There is 0 income during that time. You may be asked by the agent to audition for a role, meaning you have to go into a studio and act out the script provided, on your own dime; and then you may or may not be selected against the 20 other people you are competing against. Depending on where you live, there may be very little demand for voiceover work, which reduces the prospect of income even further. We have an article, voiceover actor. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not intending to discourage you from pursuing this — if you have an interest in the field, then go for it, absolutely. Just don't think you're going to get more than "a pittance" for a long time in the way of salary. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this is stating the obvious... the folks who do voice-over work for ads on the radio are almost always the station's DJs, who are available, already trained on the equipment, and presumably have decent voices for the work. Some are the more experienced DJs, who provide some name recognition (at a higher cost), while some are the less experienced or fill-in jockeys who are doing it for less pay, but who need the exposure and experience. I was actually seriously considering starting that kind of thing as a career and attended some workshops on it. The field is not all that difficult to break in to, but it's not one you're likely to make good money on for at least a few years. Matt Deres (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not at all obvious to me and I am sceptical about it. Radio ads are produced by advertising companies and then sent to stations. I don't see why the DJs would have anything to do with the production. --Tango (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Campus radio

I must be full of questions today (three questions in a row!). With campus radio stations in the US, how commonly do campus radio stations feature local news and weather coverage, such as reporting from news scenes, severe weather coverage, etc. If it is not common, why would the radio stations not feature such programming (in addition to normal programming) as part of experience for broadcast media students? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This is WP:OR, but I never saw my university's radio station do any local news coverage; they read off nationwide news feeds. Local news coverage would require local reporting and journalism, presumably provided by the students, which implies a journalism teaching program; and at my university, that was available at the college newspaper. I think only one radio station person was really interested in doing journalism; the others interested in journalism gravitated to the newspaper. There's no reason of course why any university with both programs couldn't incorporate the radio station students into their journalism efforts. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

More OR, our campus newspaper office was about 20 feet away from the college radio station but I don't remember anyone who worked on both (although they shared the newsfeed). Perhaps the kind of people who are attracted to college radio are simply too culturally different from the journalism crowd. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

More OR. My campus radio studio many years ago had a news service and national and state news were read from there, along with weather. There was little or no local news reporting. Guys went on the radio either because they were geeks who liked the gadgets, or because they wanted to go into a career in broadcasting, or because it was a good way to meet girls who called in or visited the studio. This was back in the days when it would have been very expensive to have a remote radio link, so a "roving reporter" would have had to phone in a story from a pay phone or come back to the studio to report. Edison (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Slovakia during WWII

Did Nazi Germany annex parts of the Slovak Republic? I know that Hungary annexed the lower third and that there were some adjustments with the Polish border. I seem to recall that Bratislava/Preßburg was to be somewhat incorporated because of its large German population, but I'm not sure. I also came across this map: [13] but I can't find the legend.
Moreover, was Slovakia intended to be an independent nation after the war or there were plans for it to be annexed by Hungary or Germany (I know that Nazi plans where usually nebulous)--151.51.62.111 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This[14] page has details about the Karpatendeutsche (Carpathian German) minority in Slovakia and says that on 14th March 1939, when "the Slovak Provincial Parliament declared independence. The Slovak Republic lost territory...Germany received 43 square kilometers with 16,000 people, (Engerau, and the small city of Theben/Devin)." The Wikipedia article on Petržalka (a suburb of Bratislava or Pressburg in German) says "Petržalka is annexed by Nazi Germany on 10 October 1938 on the basis of the Munich agreement. It is renamed Engerau, and the Starý most bridge becomes a border bridge between the First Slovak Republic and Nazi Germany. Several thousand inhabitants of Slovak, Czech, and Hungarian ethnicity have to stay in Petržalka. They are considered citizens of Nazi Germany but are persecuted. The occupiers closed down all Slovak schools, and the German language replaces Slovak."

This[15] document confirms that: "The Germans did not occupy Pressburg but the bridgehead of the city, on the right bank of the Danube, Ligetfalu (Petrzalka, Engerau) was taken away from the CSR by Germany on October 10, 1938 without any previous notification. It was a great shock for the four-day old autonomous Slovak government, but the Germanophile Slovaks did not dare to disagree with Hitler" (p.157). "Hitler, accompanied by Marshall Goring, visited Engerau on October 25. This was not the only community which the Germans took away from the Slovak part of the CSR in 1938. On November 24 the German troops occupied, without incident and among the ovation of the predominantly German population, the zone of Devin (Theben, Deveny) on the left bank of the Danube at the estuary of the Morava River. It was considered a rectification of the borderline. (The Danube was the border at that point with Austria on the right bank.) As a consequence of this action, the waterworks of Pressburg fell in German hands 2 or 3 km from the city limits. The City of Pressburg requested that the government of the Reich rectify the borderline by several hundred meters to regain their aqueduct. This was the same friendly German government which two weeks earlier had occupied Ligetfalu" (p.158). Ligetfalu is the Hungarian name for Petrzalka / Engerau. Alansplodge (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Medicinal brandy

In Victorian (and maybe a bit later) literature, doctors seem to use brandy to cure pretty much any illness. For example, Van Helsing and Dr. Watson both use it. Did real doctors at that time use brandy the same way? If so, why did they think it would help? --Tango (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Because drunk people don't complain about their pain as much? Ethanol is a mild sedative and analgesic, so I imagine the idea was to provide a sort of general relief of aches and pains. --Jayron32 19:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

But it seems to be used to revive people that are barely concious too... --Tango (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It is good for what ail's ya... But seriously, I am not sure that pre-mid-20th century medical science would be recognizable as particularly "medical" or "sciency" in any way. Remember that until the 1940's they were still lobotomizing people. It was probably the "Take two aspirin and call me in the morning"-type diagnosis; i.e. "Damned if I know how to fix him. Give him a shot of liquor and see what he does" is probably the depth of the science behind such treatments. --Jayron32 20:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not being of age to drink, I wouldn't know, but perhaps it is the (or so I hear) burning-like feeling of drinking high-alcohol-volume drinks that revives them. This is probably a worthless answer (as a shot in the dark), but still a theory. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Brandy was considered a 'tonic' - in small quantities it induces a warm, sleepy, relaxed feeling that can offset some of the negative symptoms of things like head colds or flus. any curative properties come from its ability to help you relax and get some uninterrupted sleep, but don't discount the value of that.

This Google-cached page may provide some perspective (the webpage appears to be down). A Google search for medicinal brandy seems to provide a couple of useful links as well. Matt Deres (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, here we go. Our article on Armagnac (a kind of brandy) seems to be what you want. In short, yes, it was definitely prescribed for medicinal use. Matt Deres (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Until WWII, brandy or rum was used to treat hypothermia. It does make you feel warmer, but actually cools your body core. A good discussion here[16]. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A 19th century doctor giving brandy as a remedy would have been less harmful than the almost universal practice of bleeding (which quieted a person down due to loss of blood) and purging with a poisonous mercury compound calomel (which had dramatic effects like causing teeth to fall out and causing nonstop drooling). Give me brandy instead any day. The following is for historical reference only and is not presented as medical advice. An 1800 publication said(page 245) "The stimulating nature of alcohol has been generally acknowledged" and said it could stimulate the heart muscles, but mostly noted in vitro experiments with animal tissue. An 1849 medical publication said "The value of alcohol as a medicine is universally acknowledged," and said "brandy, wine and porter" were the most valuable forms. It was said to be "a pure stimulant" imparting "temporary vigor and exhilaration." Its use was recommended for a variety of ailments. A popular book on natural science from 1869 said that alcohol in small quantities affects the body "like medicine" but in large quantities "like poison. It was said to "increase gastric juices" aiding digestion, to "excite the brain and nerves" to "accelerate the circulation"to "strengthen the weary and him who is exhausted bodily or mentally." The book noted the negative reaction which followed such stimulation.The Lancet (British) (1872) noted that alcohol was sometimes given "in cases of atrophy in children and in tuberculosis" and for "marasmus (severe infant malnutrition)" It was then used for "wasted children" to make them "fatter and stronger." 1877 book by a medical doctor who was an official of the American Medical Association and allied with the temperance movement noted that alcohol had little food value and little medical value, except as a stimulant, with paradoxical properties as a depressant, that it had many impurities and lacked standardized formula, and that it was subject to abuse if self-administered. The book noted that thousands of doctors regularly prescribed it (pretty popular with the patients, I would expect). An 1883 scholarly paper concluded that alcohol's "chief therapeutic use" was as a stimulant, a temporary imparter of power, which shall enable the system to stand some strain of like duration." It might be given in event of temporary reduction of heart action or fainting, exhaustion, or blood loss. It could aid in food digestion, in fevers, and in typhoid, to treat snakebite or certain poisons, or to lessen pain. He cautioned against treating depression with it. An 1888 publication discussed medicinal brandy specifically and seems very much on point. Brandy was then the first choice as a medicinal source of alcohol, as a stimulant and nutrient. publications noted common adulteration of supposed brandy and said just use pure alcohol diluted and flavored if alcohol was desired for medicinal purposes. Some of these seem to be POV from the temperance movement. An 1899 publication said the earlier physicians regularly prescribed alcohol "to combat shock," but that that use was discredited. Edison (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it's very interesting. So doctors of that time had the impression that it was a stimulant, despite the evidence provided by drunks in gutters... It seems they were using it in a similar way to the modern use of epinephrine (although epinephrine isn't used as often). --Tango (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The tradition of using distilled spirits for medicinal purposes goes a lot farther back. In fact one of the earliest uses of it was medicinal, hence the name aqua vitae. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually brandy does have a medicinal use which doesn't require drinking it: see Clothes_hanger#Unintended_uses. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, alcohol as an antiseptic is a valid use. --Tango (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Warren Buffett valuing a business

In his 1989 letter to the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett invites business owners to contact him if they want to sell their company. He then goes on to say this:

We can promise complete confidentiality and a very fast answer - customarily within five minutes - as to whether we're interested.

What precisely is it Buffett looks at that allows him to make the decision so quickly? I suppose it has to do, at least partially, with finding a solid performance during the last ten years or so, but is it known more specifically how he values the business? —Bromskloss (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"as to whether we're interested" doesn't mean "we'll decide whether to buy in 5 days" - it means "we'll decide whether to start thinking about whether to buy in 5 days" -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in the booklet "Warren Buffet and the Interpretation of Financial Statements" (a play on the original "Interpretation of Financial Statements" by Benjamin Graham). It's an extremely simple and short book that captures the simple and short way Warren looks at non-financial businesses. Warren looks for steady revenue and profitability (in good times and bad), a good return on assets and conservative financing. He also prefers it to be a simple business that he can understand and that it operates in a market that isn't going away anytime soon. As long as those things are true, he will consider bidding on it, allowing the price he offers to determine his expected return (so begins the real thinking that Finlay mentioned above). My own interpretation is that he maintains this kind of folksy, non-threatening demeanor as part of his strategy appeal to private business owners who deeply care about the business they have created. He rarely changes the operations of a business and rarely involves himself in them. He rarely sells off chunks of the business or attempts to merge it with Berkshire's existing businesses. He limits his meddling to hiring - and setting up proper compensation incentives for - management. I believe that long term private owners would prefer to sell to Berkshire - and would accept a discounted price - because they know it's likely that their creation and legacy will continue in a largely unchanged way.NByz (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

He's also recently been talking about the scale of the business being an important factor. It's simply not worth his time to buy Furniture stores anymore, however successful and central to Berkshire's culture they might end up. NByz (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

His standard answer is that he looks for companies that have great management, a strong competitive position (a "moat"), reliable revenue streams, and a price that is far enough below fair value to provide a margin of safety. As for fair value, he is reported to calculate a discounted cash-flow that is based on what he calls "owner's income," which is EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) minus capital expenditures, and disregarding "one-time expenses" in annual accounting unless thay happen often enough to be a red flag. Using actual "owner's income" numbers for the previous five to ten years, he estimates a growth rate applied to the next five years, a smaller growth rate for the five years after that, and a low "perpetuity" growth rate after that (roughly the long-term expected rate of real GDP). He discounts this via a rate of 8%-12% depending on the reliability of revenue streams and baseline generic estimates of future cost of capital. The total derived provides the value of the company, which is reduced by a margin of safety to provide the purchase bid. 63.17.86.9 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

well, you should know that he never invested in technology companies, for exmaple, since his primary criterion was a good, solid, idea of how the company would be (and the world with respect to that company) ten years later. So, anything, such as high tech stocks, that no one has any idea of their market ten years later, he would not buy. By contrast, a family owned, 70 year old, traditional xyz manufacturer, now that he could start trying to picture. The main question he would ask within 5 minutes is: what is your durable competititve advantage. If the voice on the other end says "we, er, we always put 100% into everything we do, we work with such passion and dedication that, uh [click]. Hello? Hello?"
At least, that's how imagine it :). If you would like to know more about making a comapny that Warren Buffett will want to buy, you can leave an e-mail address for me, in a properly obfuscated form (for example email -at- gmail dotcom), so that it doesn't get picked up by spammers, and we can see where it goes from there. 92.229.14.140 (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.109 (talk)

Why did Argentina run its trains on corn when there was world famine after WWII?

Hi, I've been trying to read up on the food situation after World war II, when there was serious shortage of food in the years 1945 - 1948 and I came across something very strange.

Argentina, traditionally one of the worlds largest food exporters, especially during that era, were burning corn to use for fuel, at the same time that people were starving in Europe and Asia.

Why was there such a shortage in of fuel in Argentina in the years after the war, surely now with the needs of the war over the must have been more than enough oil to spare, and especially to trade for precious food?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, most of the world was rebuilding, which requires oil, and the US economy was booming then. Also, Argentina probably didn't want to get dependent on the nations that later became OPEC, like the US did. By the 1973 oil embargo, they may have been proven right. StuRat (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That is an extremely interesting question. Chapter 6 of this [17] book is dedicated to the era. It's affordable, recently published (2003) and, according to this [18] link, the author's area of study "...focuses on grain farmers, the state, and changing economic and political conditions between the two world wars in Argentina." This political and economic situation should set the stage for - and hopefully directly address - your question. I should also mention that your question has encouraged me to add that book to my Amazon wish list; Argentina's history is very interesting and in many ways is a counter-factual to the history of my own home country, Canada. NByz (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

American Culture

I live in Sweden, and in Swedish TV you can see quite a few American shows. One thing that I simply cannot understand is the doll-like appearance of men and women, especially talk-show hosts. Have a look at this picture, for instance: [19]. To me, and - I would be surprised if I were wrong - probably most Europeans over 18 years of age, the female looks more like an ever-smiling, plastic doll than a living human being with true emotions. (And the man is not far from this as well.) Please - believe me - I have absolute nothing against Americans, and I truly believe that everyone should dress the way she likes. But although I try my very best, I cannot understand why American TV show hosts want to look like this? (Now I am only speaking for my self, but when it comes to women I find they attractive when they look natural, as humans do, without makeup and strange clothes. And when they are not ever-smiling (unless they really are happy all the time - maybe Americans really are that happy).) I would guess that most mature Europeans almost could laugh at this American "phenomenon", and I find it very hard to understand in what way Americans are different. What is so different about the American culture? And again: please, trust me: I have nothing against Americans. I simply want to understand. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, how do Swedish talk-show hosts dress? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Less like I tried to describe above. Actually, I almost never watch TV, for most programmes in Swedish TV are ... sick (as I guess the case is world-wide). You know people arguing and huring eachother without any reasons, a lot of sex, very little respect and understanding etc. It has to "sell". However, public-service TV is still a bit better. (In Sweden the public-service TV company is called SVT.) But, to provide a couple of screenshots from SVT: [20] and [21]. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, the woman in the picture is Suzanne Somers. I have little idea her age, but I'd guess she's in her fifties. And though she has been a spokesmodel for the thighmaster for a number of years, I wouldn't be surprised if she's had a little plastic surgery. Dismas|^(talk) 00:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops... I guess she was older than I thought when I used to watch Three's Company as a kid. Somers is 63. Dismas|^(talk) 00:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The picture in link 17 is not from a talk show but from the 1990s version of the hidden camera prank show Candid Camera, the joke in this case being that people at the license bureau were given offensive license plates. A sweater vest like the guy in link 19 is wearing would seem incongruously casual, like they picked some guy up off the street to host the show. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Most Swedes would think wearing a suit just because you are a TV show host is like: "Hey, I am the president of the United States". In Sweden, TV hosts would not wear a suit unless it is some really, really major traditional, classy, formal event, such as the Nobel banquet. Nevertheless, I still do not understand why women tend to look so utterly plastic and unnatural. (I mean 50+ and trying to imitate a plastic doll?) I guess that many Americans react as I do, but it is still accpted. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing that feminists began griping about in the late 60s (if not much earlier), but it persists. The archetype would probably be Vanna White, who once joked that her job of turning the letters on Wheel of Fortune was challenging, "because you have to know the whole alphabet." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As backwards as this might sound, I don't think it's for the male demographic that women look this way. I don't know any guy (I'm a 30 something American) that likes the look of plastic women. They may like plastic women but not the look thereof. I think it's the women who find the plastic look most interesting in a "look what she can afford to do to try and look younger" sort of way. It's a sign of wealth and opulence. The older looking woman from the second link looks like she would fit in on an American news program but only if she were a more respected newswoman. Then she'd be able to "get away" with looking older. As my reference for this last statement, Diane Sawyer and Connie Chung. Dismas|^(talk) 01:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable (but, of course, a bit "sad"). Personally I really do not like when women alter their appearance. I think they look the best (and least "silly"/"immature"/"superficial") when they look natural, as human beings do look. (Also, I think that the wonder of (sexual) attraction is much about the insight that it is a real, living human being, just like youself, that has opened herself to you.) Now, of course, I am 22 years old, and like women of my own age, so I cannot really tell for sure exactly how much I would dislike the plastic appearance, but I sure would not like it. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, without getting into who actually wants plastic people, from a feminist viewpoint "women should look more natural and not alter their appearance, which looks silly and superficial" is not a great improvement on idolising barbie. After all, you alter your appearance. Do you think all men who shave or trim their beards look silly and superficial? This isn't intended as an attack on you at all, just saying not to be surprised if women don't generally look very happy when you make this argument. 86.177.124.127 (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is actually a very good point. But even if it is not a great improvement, I think we can agree that it at least is a small improvement. I mean, I shave my beard, but I do nothing else, and I am afraid that there is quite a lot else going on here (excessive makeup, daring clothing (even in 50+ persons, who should be more mature than that), maybe even plastig surgery, etc.). --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you provided pics of your public broadcast station, here's a pic from ours, PBS: [22]. As you can see, they all wear suits. There's a definite movement toward casual wear in most US jobs, but it hasn't made it to news anchors yet. And as for the Nobel prize ceremony, wouldn't that require a tuxedo ? StuRat (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is linked to the different TV systems. I find that when I watch US TV which is poorly converted from NTSC to PAL, the fine detail is smoothed out and the colours look false (unsurprisingly, NTSC is sometimes dubbed "never twice the same color"). This effect is particularly prevalent on entertainment/chat shows and studio news programs. Strangely, the same effect is not so obvious in syndicated TV shows. Add to that the excessive makeup, extensive plastic surgery, and expensive cosmetic dentistry, it is no surprise the skin tone appears unnaturally smooth and plastic-like. Of course, in real life Americans are just as varied as the rest of us. Astronaut (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

StuRat: Yes, I realised that was a potential bias in my post. But still, even in Swedish "crap TV" (i.e. not public service), it is very hard to find this "doll-imitating" tendency. But truly: the people in the picture you provided sure looks much more mature/trustworthy/understanding.

Astronaut: Well, the TV system might explain a few percent of the issue, but I doubt it can explain much more than that. But, I am curious, as a citizen of the United Kingdom, how do you react to this issue? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in the case of US news presenter Christine Craft, who in her late 20s was forced from her position because she was, in the phrase she made the title of her autobiography, Too Old, Too Ugly, and Not Deferential to Men (ISBN 0914629654). Note that this happened almost 30 years ago; the pressure for women on television to look a certain way is long standing. I commend your taste in not liking Barbie-look doll-women, but I would point out, on the other hand, that the potential girlfriends around you are Swedish women in their early 20s, who as a group are generally considered to be high up there on the attractiveness scale. (No, I don't have a source for that.) Taking your cohort into account, it does not surprise me that you find the doll-women unbelievable. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is also a very good point. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A good place to look into this would be the ideas raised by Naomi Wolf in a book called The Beauty Myth. It's been a long time since I read it, and what I don't recall for sure is whether she totally blames this problem on men, or also points out how women themselves feed into it and help perpetuate it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

March 21

Religion

Do you have an accurate % of how many people are Catholic in the U.S.A.? Thank you and God Bless you, Father Jason Joseph Asche —Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Asche (talk • contribs) 05:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion_in_the_United_States#Christianity says 23.9%. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, that is people that identify as Catholic. Not all of them will be practising Catholics. If you want the percentage of people that actually attend a Catholic church service on a regular basis, we'll have to do more hunting (the values differ depending on whether you ask people how often they go to church or ask churches how many people attend!). --Tango (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Such a caveat should not be restricted to Catholics, though. Many Protestants also are "only on holidays" churchgoers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Any truth to reports of Chinese people making cooking oil from sewage

I want to know if there is any truth at all to certain websites on the net suggesting that Chinese people in China consume food make from cooking oil which is created from raw sewage. For example this url

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/31712/

122.107.207.98 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably true that a certain amount of cooking oil is recycled in China (which is what that article is suggesting, it's not oil "created from raw sewage"). To what extent the particulars of the article - that oil is harvested from sewers, that oil is recycled in such large quantities, or the level of health risk - are true I couldn't say. How much credit do you give the sources (eg the Epoch Times)? FiggyBee (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That sounds bizarre. There are two possible re-interpretations. One form of cooking gas is methane, which can be extracted from sewage or manure, a process known as biogas. Another is the more general cycle of nature: farmers may use night soil to fertilise their crops, which might include plants from which vegetable fats and oils derive, sunflowers for example. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, y'know, you could have actually read the article he linked to before "reinterpreting" the question... FiggyBee (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

what about this url? http://www.recordchina.co.jp/group.php?groupid=40648&type=1 122.107.207.98 (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a gamer url talking about it. http://gbatmw.net/showthread.php?tid=13428 122.107.207.98 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We need some perspective on this. We in the West drink water (tap or bottled) that was flushed down the toilet by others. It's just properly processed to remove contaminants then returned to the rivers and lakes (from which it is drawn back out for people). The same can be done with oil. The differences are that some of the oil is 100% recycled by humans, while water is not, and the water treatment methods we use are better at removing contaminants that those used by individuals in China. Rather than stopping this process, they should have the government regulate it, so the oil never goes into the sewers, and is properly decontaminated, before being reused. Also note that we have a similar issue in restaurants in the West, where the same vat of oil can be reused for long periods, accumulating contaminants. Perhaps a system to continually decontaminate the oil and reuse it would be better. StuRat (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to that writeup, I have now sworn off cherry yogurt. —Kevin Myers 15:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Life of Moreshwar Ramchandra Kale

Please help me find biography of Moreshwar Ramchandra Kale. He had a lot of Sanskrit works but I can't find his biography. Thank you. --ธวัชชัย (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Israel and the Palestinians

What exactly are the issues between the Palestinians and the Israelis that no matter how many people try to help solve the issues, they are still where they were years ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.76.14 (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article Israeli–Palestinian conflict has many linked articles to help you get a full view. Remember, the Reference desk is not a forum for airing debate.--Wetman (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Palestinians assert that the territories (West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights) are occupied territories and demand that Israel vacate them so that they can form a new nation called "Palestine." The Israelis assert that the territories are annexed into Israel and that the Palestinians have no sovereign right to the land from any persepctive (historical, geopolitical, religious, etc.) I don't think anyone's been able to help solve their issues because the media spins the issues and very few people are informed about the history behind the present state or really care about the issues. (And as suggested by Wetman, this question will likely develop into a big mess because it's controversial -- but I think I outlined the basics pretty simply.) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's just the West Bank and Gaza Strip which are in dispute. Both the Jews and Palestinians claim the whole of Israel/Palestine. StuRat (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On what basis would the Palestinians claim the entirety? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all no Palestinian group claims the Golan heights as Palestinian. The Golan heights belong to Syria. Secondly, I think we must conclude that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not merely a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, but involves a lot of other, international, interests. The conflict could be settled quite rapidly, if the U.S. stopped propping up the Israeli warmachine and if Arab neighbouring regimes would end their hypocritical attitude of denouncing Israel in rhetoric whilst allowing oil exports to Israel in practice. --Soman (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It could also be settled if certain countries stopped openly vowing to destroy Israel and stopped conducting suicide bombings and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@baseballlbugs; no, on the contrary. The position that the conflict could only be ended by first enabling a sense of 'security' amongst the Israeli polity is the same as wishing perpetual conflict. The sense of security is elusive, and can never be obtained on forehand. Trust is something that is built in process. There are numerous examples (for example, almost all of Europe) were previous mortal enemies are now happy neighbours. It is acheived through normalization of relations. In this case the ball is in Israel's court. They can withdraw from the occupied territories, and thus change the dynamics of the conflict. Such a move would enable a peaceful solution to the conflict and in such a context whatever rhetoric that might come out of Tehran would be just as irrelevant as Gaddafi's statements on dissolving Switzerland (see the other thread above). --Soman (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the real problem is that each side says the other started it and won't back down from their repsective positions. In fact, Israel and Egypt settled their differences, and Israel pulled out of the Sinai because they no longer regarded Egypt as a threat. The "he started it" mentality is what fuels this situation, and what has always fueled it - and until that mentality changes, the fighting will continue. The bottom line of what you're saying is, "We'll stop the suicide bombings if you'll surrender." Would you trust the word of someone who said that to you? I certainly wouldn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the vast majority of the world's disputes, from international hostility to that argument with your neighbour about the size of his tree, could be sorted if you just sat them down, strapped some logic to them, and asked "But what's the point, really?" Vimescarrot (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ask yourself how the ongoing Israel situation has helped solidify and strengthen the resolve of all three major groups involved in the struggle, namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The answer to that question is also the answer to the question, "What's the point?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Kabul Times

Is there anyway to find an archive of the english language newspaper, the Kabul Times, later called the Kabul New Times, from the 1970's and 80's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.178.175 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

fishing sector of Canada 2

what were the main issues and controversies of the fishing industry of Canada?