Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 16

Source of citation

.To be or not to be. -- Shakespeare To do is to be. -- Nietzsche To be is to do. -- Sartre Do be do be do. -- Sinatra

The first and last are pretty easy. But are those in the middle real? If yes, where from? Quest09 (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The middle two are probably just made up for the purposes of the joke. I've seen the Sartre quote attributed to Kant as part of the same joke. —Kevin Myers 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"The way to do is to be" is often ascribed to the Tao Te Ching and is in this interpretation (47.2). "To be is to do" seems to be a commonplace although this guy ascribes it to Plato in his Sophista with the equivalent greek but I can find it in no other translation. What is the actual source for the 4th one. meltBanana 04:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The 4th is a reference to Sinatra's famous (or infamously bad) scat singing at the end of Strangers in the Night. —Kevin Myers 06:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

History of Vision and Mission Statements?

Can anyone shed some light on the history of vision and mission statements? I'm curious how long they've been in widespread use. Did Henry Ford have one? How about the East Indian Company? Hudson Bay? Wikipedia's V&M page lacks any historical context. The Masked Booby (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Google books does not provide any results of the use of "vision and mission" in a coorporate context prior to 1970. This is the earliest, but it does seem to use the terms in a context that implies familiarity with the term. However from the results I would think it was a term coined in the 20th century, probably in the later half, and thus none of the companies you mention in your question would have had vision and mission statements (I know for sure that the East Indian Company did not, but was not certain whether perhaps it was a term Ford himself could have coined). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

They've been around a long time in the form of general aims or aspirations, but in the sense of a formally worded and specifically named pair of utterances called "Vision Statement" and "Mission Statement", it seems to me they took off in the 1980s in the corporate world. Once there was a critical mass of them, it became unacceptable for an organisation not to have them - but typically the people who wrote them had no idea of the difference between a vision and a mission, and as often as not just wrote them off the top of their heads during a break between meetings, rather than consulting widely within the organisation to find out what anyone actually thought about where the joint was headed. They were rarely if ever given more than lip service, which is why they're now a lot less prevalent. Trends come and go. Like outsourcing. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The OED has four quotes for "mission statement". The first from 1967 is from Management Science journal but has an aviation or military context: "Particular stress is placed on the type of mission to be flown by an aircraft. Each respondent was given a mission statement." The second from 1972 uses the phrase in the modern sense in the field of education, refering to "'mission' statements" in college catalogues. The third, from 1986 uses it in a business context, but coming from a book called The IBM Way seems to refer to a practice that existed for some time previous in the company. "Vision statement" isn't in the OED.

So from that evidence they may have originated or first become popular in education in the late 60s or 70s, moving into business some time soon after. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

When my company decided to concoct a mission statement in 1989 or 1990, it had to explain to us workers what was meant by such a beast, since the term wasn't yet in wide use. However, the message to employees did point out that a number of large US-based corporations had recently adopted mission statements (I'm in Canada) and they were all the rage, so this is consistent with a mid-1980s origin. IBM was a source of a lot of corporate fads in those days so the book mentioned above might well mark the beginning of its spread. And yes, nobody refers to our mission statement anymore. We've moved on to other fads. -Xuxl (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether it was called a vision statement but as Encarta owners may know, Microsoft was founded based on Bill Gates's vision of a computer in every desk and in every hope, at the time (in the 90s) they had never and would never waiver from that vision. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OP here. I appreciate the help everyone - very useful! The Masked Booby (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Politics and war several in 1

How many times has each political party taken the UK to war? Which party has taken the UK to war the most? And which political party was in power for the majority of the Victorian Era? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

See List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom#Prime Ministers under Victoria (1837–1901) for political parties "in power" during the Victorian era.

As for "taken to war", you may need to define some parameters first. Do you start counting from the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801? Or would you look further back to, say 1541 or 1603? That said it is probably meaningless to look too far beyond the 18th century given the focus on political parties. But what about wars conducted by one of Britain's colonies or territories? Do the various invasions of Canada count as Britain going to war? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You will also need to decide what is "war". If you are looking for what is a war at law, then you'll need to stop after World War II and exclude, for example, the Korean War. An alternative is to look at what in common terms is regarded as a "war", which is similar to but may not be the same as what in international law is regarded as an "armed conflict". It may then become a little uncertain what is and isn't a "war", and you may find that a lot of minor conflicts in the 19th century for example suddenly looks a lot like a war in a modern sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

what type/field of logic is used when thinking in...

chess, xiangqi, weiqi, maths, sudoku, iq tests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.69 (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Every type of logic is used in maths. IQ tests are rather not precisely defined. You can call anything that you want an IQ test, so here any type of logic can also find an application. For mental games like chess, try combinatorics. 212.169.187.62 (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Who originally said "good judgment comes from experience ... experience comes from bad judgment"?

Who originally said "good judgment comes from experience ... experience comes from bad judgment"? An Internet search turns up many hits of variants of that quote, attributed to different people. It's not clear who originally said/wrote it. Can someone help? --173.49.10.170 (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not new, as I first heard it decades ago. A "rebuttal" to it goes, "Experience means applying yesterday's answers to today's problems." Obviously, sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Will Rogers seems to be credited for it frequently, but no source is given. I have a book of Will Rogers quotes, complete with dates at least, but that specific quote is not in there. It is rather interesting, though, that the form attributed to Rogers is, "Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." Notice it doesn't say that all experience comes from bad judgment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a really old sentiment - I think I remember a cognate being used by Socrates, but I'd have to check. basically the idea is "Wisdom comes from being a fool and then learning better", the idea being that the two mistakes you can make are trying too hard not to be a fool, and not trying hard enough to learn from your own foolishness. with respect to the actual phrase - it sounds a bit like the way Twain would have put it, but that's just a feeling, not a fact. --Ludwigs2 16:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

vulnerability to radicalization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What are the imperfections in the American legal and political systems which might make a loyal and law abiding American vulnerable to radicalization? --Inning (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Try again, in plain English, please. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ignore him, Inning. There was absolutely nothing unclear or any unnecessary use of words in your question. Although it does sound rather like a homework question, which we don't really do unless you can show you've had a go yourself already. --Viennese Waltz 16:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it is NOT clear. What does "radicalization" mean? Violent revolution? Changing party affiliation? Switching TV channels? What? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Its clear for anyone who has heard about the current hearings of Rep. Peter King. --Inning (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a matter of clarity of definition, which is not what you were complaining about. You were criticising him for not using plain English, which is something else entirely. In any case, "radicalization" is a pretty commonly understood term these days. We even have an article on it. --Viennese Waltz 16:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The answer in America, as anywhere, is "desparation". That's usually driven by disenfranchisement and alienation, not by "flaws in the legal system" as such. And you're right, it sounds like a homework question. Or it's another way of approaching his theory that the law should somehow be driven by "pure logic" rather than case-by-case flexibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean driven by desperation over disenfranchisement and alienation resulting from flaws in the legal system. --Inning (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It does sound like a homework question, but it sounds like a very bad homework question because it presupposes that such flaws exist and that they can lead to radicalization. In other words, the question takes a controversial hypothesis for granted and asks the answerer to provide examples of it. Only a poor teacher would give his students a question like that. Pais (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is what we teachers call a student classifier question, you know the questions we ask in order to make the proper seating assignments. --Inning (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) You're right that it's a loaded question – it assumes that the drivers are legal and political, rather than personal. If I was answering this homework question, I would point out the loadedness in the question, and then go on to discuss that the drivers may be legal, political and personal. --Viennese Waltz 16:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a loaded question, and would require books to answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because all of your answers are loaded does not mean the questions are. BTW being objective does not mean viewing everything from a contrary POV. --Inning (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Some might consider this "Tea Party" stuff to be "radicalization". Yet it's actually operating totally within the American system, as far as we know. No responsible citizen advocates violent overthrow of the government, but rather change through the election process. That's the beauty of having a "system" instead of a "cult of personality" that the typical dictatorship feeds upon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have often imagined a scenario where Congress invokes the Necessary and Proper Clause in order to give the President emergency powers, which in turn leads to an organized rebellion. I'm forgetting which I saw in my childhood which caused this scenario to be implanted in my head... schyler (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It happened to some extent during the Civil War and World War II. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

One such imperfection is Buckley v. Valeo, the legal precedent holding that all political and campaign spending amounts to speech, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This legal precedent has allowed moneyed interests to dominate the American political process, by making it virtually impossible to limit campaign contributions and thereby making political candidates effectively dependent on, and subservient to, wealthy campaign contributors. The Supreme Court recently extended this precedent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruling that political spending by corporations also amounts to constitutionally protected speech. This ruling makes U.S. politicians even more dependent on and subservient to corporate and moneyed interests. The higher the office and the greater the size of the candidate's electorate, the greater his or her dependence, since modern campaigns require expensive television advertising for any hope of success, and the cost of TV advertising is directly proportional to the size of the audience. These legal precedents effectively give a right of free speech to individuals and corporations that is proportional to their wealth, so that a billionaire has a freedom of speech billions of times as great as that of a citizen with only a few dollars in his pocket. As a consequence, corporate and moneyed interests effectively dictate policy in the United States. They also shape the political discourse, with the result that the interests of the bottom 98% of the wealth distribution have little effective voice in U.S. politics. In such a context, in which the interests of the vast majority are ignored when they conflict with those of the wealthiest, there is a risk that the majority will come to give up on the wealth-driven political system and turn to radical solutions outside of a system of electoral politics that serves only the wealthiest. Marco polo (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How is that factor really any different than it was 100 or 200 years ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me give an example of the kind of flaws I am looking for. When someone is found guilty who is innocent on the basis of psychological illusion rather than on the facts and on the law. --Inning (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Got an example for us? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, innocent get in jail sometimes, and sometimes that's due to faulty evidence. If that's "psychological illusion", I don't know. Quest09 (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Inning is trying to lead us somewhere with all this, so we're waiting for the next tidbit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bugs, for your information case law is already written in stone. --Inning (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The only place this is leading anyone was to the truth - a subtle reminder now of what the Wikipedia can not handle except by cover up, diversion or deletion. Pathetic. --Inning (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of The Truth, what ID or ID's did you used to edit under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Protests in Middle East and North Africa

Of the countries in the Middle East and North Africa, which of them have not had, are not having, and probably won't have similar protests to those that have happened recently? 128.223.222.23 (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Israel would be a good bet, as it's already a republic that holds elections. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is another relatively stable democratic republic. Marco polo (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Iraq is not stable, but they don't have a dictator to fight against, only each other to fight with. Quest09 (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So much for that theory: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/17/iraq.protests/index.html?iref=allsearch --Soman (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The King of Jordan seemed pretty confident when interviewed on UK TV. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Jordan has had protests, and the King shuffled the cabinet...I'm sure he's pretty confident about his own kingship, but people still aren't happy about the government. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Quest09) There was a blurb in the paper saying Lebanon and Syria were both unlikely to see an Egypt sort of protest revolution. Lebanon was particularly interesting, given that they are decidedly not a stable government. The argument went, though, that Lebanon's government is composed of many factions working against each other, and that it's very hard to get a large group of people to work towards a common political goal. I can't find the article off hand, I think it might have been in the Chicago Tribune a couple of days ago. Buddy431 (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof says here: I don’t know which country is the next Egypt. Some say it’s Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Syria or Saudi Arabia. Others suggest Cuba or China are vulnerable. But we know that in many places there is deep-seated discontent and a profound yearning for greater political participation. And the lesson of history from 1848 to 1989 is that uprisings go viral and ricochet from nation to nation. There are also a lot of comments to his blog post here discussing the topic. There are also some maps of how "democratic" countries are in the Democracy article. Jørgen (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Crescent Moon

What is/was use of crescent moon as symbol in rural America in last century ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I'd call this example a symbol of "rural America", but the crescent is present on the Flag of South Carolina. The "History" section of the article mentions a bit of history on the crescent symbol. --Zerozal (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Satirically, at least, it was well-known as the shape of the vent opening in the door of an outhouse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's it. I asked because I read in a Stephen King story (set in rural America of 1920s (infact the story itself is named 1922)). In it a character asks the other the way to toilet and the other answers something like this. So it was "the shape of the vent opening in the door of an outhouse" as Baseball Bugs put it. Thanks Bugs !  Jon Ascton  (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There's an article about that at this Straight Dope link. Dismas|^(talk) 19:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I used three familial outhouses many years ago, and none of them had any crescent symbol carved through the door. For ventilation, there was sufficient spacing around the door, and between the walls and the roof. It seems to be something popular in cartoons ridiculing rural existence. Edison (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly time for someone to mention The Specialist by Chic Sale. The Outhouse Preservation Society also deserve a mensh. DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Generation identity

While reading the responses to a previous question, I was very surprised to see someone claim "everyone who's a Gen X knows they're a Gen X", and that generational identity became much more important after WWII. I had no idea which generation I belonged to. Not surprisingly, after looking it up, I found out that I had never heard of it before.

My question is, how many percent of people know which generation they belong to? Does this depend on age? For example, if I tell a random person born in 1997 that he's in Generation Z, will he likely know what I'm talking about? --99.237.234.245 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If s/he is from Generation Z s/he would -I expect- know that s/he is too young to belong to Generation X and viki verky.--Aspro (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like the type of question which would have any research devoted to it. Vranak (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure why you would say that. I can easily imagine sociologists being interested in how different groups of people self-identify when it comes to being in a "Generation" or not, and whether those self-identifications line up with the date ranges imposed by the sociologists. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There's actually been research on this, especially the international differences. Even very similar countries may count their generations differently - the baby boom lasted longer in the US than in other countries, so the "Boomer" generation runs from 1946-1964 there, as opposed to 1946-1959ish elsewhere. I'm a boomer in America but a Gen X in Canada. --NellieBly (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's very culturally specific? I have no idea what generation I'm supposed to be. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Breastfeeding

Reading a question on the science desk reminded me of something that I find, in my European ignorance of USian ways, mildly mindboggling - the apparent aversion of some in the US to breastfeeding and the staggering amount of research that appears to be done into whether mothers milk or formula is better for the child. Me, I was totally incredulous when I first heard this debate even existed - how could anyone possibly claim mothers milk, nature's own baby nutrient could be bad for a baby and some artificial foodstuff could be better? That sounds obscenely non-issue to me. Our articles don't shed much light on this, but they are cluttered with "citation needed" and "POV" markers, making it obvious some people really do find this topic controversial. So why the controversy? Why the debate? Why the aversion and stigma? Is it because of the ridiculously puritan nature of some Americans who consider a mother breastfeeding a child a pornographic scene (for reasons utterly beyond my fathom)? That's the only explanation I can think of, but I'm not too happy with it. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The assumption that mother's milk is the "perfect food" does not necessarily stand up to scrutiny. If the mother is insufficiently healthy or is lacking the optimal body chemistry, the milk is likely to be inferior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How can anyone possibly possible make such a claim... indeed! Nestlé boycott--Aspro (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not assume the person they are indented as a reply to, and partially quote to form a direct reply? 86.164.25.178 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the comment doesn't make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm an American and I have to admit that Americans tend to show either aversion or embarrassment around a breast-feeding mother as opposed to Europeans, who don't even seem to notice. Americans are also more inclined to complain about a woman's attire if it is too revealing or avante-garde.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In 50 years, European women will be wearing burqas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't post inflammatory crap to the Reference desk. 91.125.195.163 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A few European women wear them now, but the majority of young European women I meet will definitely not wear burqas at any time of their lives. Have you spoken to any European women recently?Itsmejudith (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I know for a fact that my teenaged European daughter has no plans to include the burqa as part of her future wardrobe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In 50 years, she won't be a teenager. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 13:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not? I've been a teenager for the past 40 years.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The roots of the controversy are deeply embedded in US attitudes about science. Basically, back in the 40's and 50's (in part due to the spur to science given by WW II), the scientific community developed this conception that everything scientific was inherently better - science's job was to improve upon and replace nature. Scientists didn't really think that mother's milk was bad, but believed that science could produce a better and more nutritious formula for infants (and yes, it's still called 'baby formula' in the US). This attitude was picked up by the general public in some bizarre ways: for one, the general public doesn't parse 'better' well, but tends to reduce it to a good/bad dichotomy (which is where mother's milk started to get a 'bad' rep). for another, the mother's milk issue started to mix with middle-class prejudices - women of a certain class were averse to nursing because it was primitive/animalistic, might make their breasts sag, went against puritanical attitudes about the display of breasts, and in other ways tweaked bourgeois mores. This was particularly true because (during this period) women were moving into the workforce, and "women's issues" were a hot-button issue in the workplace. So we ended up with an oddly strong cultural prejudice against breast feeding, and those kinds of prejudices sometimes take generations to displace. --Ludwigs2 19:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sort of an echo of "Better living through chemistry", combined with cultural norms, then? Thanks guys, this is very informative. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Another factor at play here is that most American mothers need to work to earn a living. Paid maternity leave is a benefit offered only by the better employers. Consequently, millions of women are forced to work full time within a couple of weeks of giving birth. As others have said, Americans have a kind of cultural taboo around the exposure of women's breasts that other cultures might reserve for genitals. As a result, a majority of women, who do not have the benefit of a private office, are unable to collect their milk during work hours for feeding the baby the next day. Of course, the baby cannot be allowed to go unfed through the entire 8-hour work day, so women are forced to resort to packaged formulas. They want to feel that they are doing the right thing, and the companies that sell the formula want to convince them that they are doing the right thing, hence this discourse that apparently doesn't exist outside of the United States. Marco polo (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In Australia, there's been a big shift between this (2003) and this (2009). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A major problem with this (and many similar questions) is the assumption that there is an "American attitude" towards something. I have been to many countries and spend much of my time talking to people from around the world. The United States is the most diverse place that I've been. The only consistent American attitude is that everyone is unique in the United States and no attitude is consistent. So, for every person in the United States that is pro-breastfeeding, there is one against it. For every one against exposure of breasts for feeding, there is one for it. I believe that foreigners fail to understand this because they come from countries where there are general attitudes towards most things. Then, they apply that mindset towards what they see in Hollywood movies and make wild assumptions such as thinking that there is an American attitude that infant formula is superior to breast milk. -- kainaw™ 20:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oof, I got schooled. Kainaw, you are correct to an extent. I did assume this was an American stance in as much that from what I can find on the Internet, there are people making an issue in the USA (and apparently Australia, judging by Jack's links) out of what just seems like a non-issue to me - but notice also that I was careful to word it in a way that doesn't encompass the entire population. I asked this not because I want to stereotype but for the exact opposite reason - I wish to educate myself and understand something that I am not equipped by my upbringing and background to understand - and I got some helpful answers and some insight that would otherwise not be available to me. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You've got it. People who come from what I call "conformist" countries just cannot figure the USA out. It's like anarchy here by comparison. In fact, I don't know of anyone in America who's "against" breastfeeding. Americans are just not so apt to expose themselves on a routine basis, in contrast to the stereotype we have about Europe (which is probably false also). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop moving the goal posts. The OP simply points out that the US middle class populace, commonly demonstrate an aversion as if breast feeding is something only non-human beasts do. It is a bit like in the UK, were the Queen is well known for never visiting the loo (bathroom). --Aspro (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The American middle class has no "aversion" to breastfeeding. That's a myth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Always nice to see your nuanced political thinking, Bugs. "Us vs. Them: Right Versus Wrong!" --Mr.98 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, while I am not "against" breast feeding, I do think the health benefits have taken on a totemic quality in lefty circles (the same lefty circles I run in, mind you — I am not distancing myself from the left!) that often far outpaces the actual benefits. There have been some articles recently on this. Yes, yes, the Nestle boycott, but that was some time ago, and the formula they use today is really pretty nutritious. The "breast is best" movement strikes me as having severely problematic, anti-feminist undertones that are plastered over a "woman power" position. The women I know in my own life who use formula (in the case of one, because the baby was adopted, so there is no other option) have far more autonomy in their lives, their workplaces, and their home relationships. They need not be always "on call" for the baby or even the primary caretaker — their division of baby chores is far more equal. The women in my life who swear by the breast are essentially attached to their baby for at least a year if not more, and end up performing activities which look striking like the kinds of 1950s gender roles that they are supposedly against. They participate in this because the swear to the miraculous benefits of breast milk, benefits which are not exactly derived from actual science. (There is some benefit, on average, but it is quite small.) So anyway — I'm not against breast feeding. But I am dubious of the current breast feeding culture in the United States. When the friend of mine with the adopted baby feeds her baby in public from a bottle (she is not lactating; there is no other option), she gets horrible, nasty glares from other women, as if she is feeding the baby poison. It's a little out of hand. Some of this is my locale (extraordinarily lefty), I admit, and am not sure the glares would be there if I were doing this in a "red state." In any case, this is not just my opinion — similar opinions have been voiced on Salon.com fairly recently, if I recall — though it is admittedly a minority opinion at the moment. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. 98 is correct that breastfeeding is fashionable in certain (left-leaning and/or more educated) circles in the United States. In my post above, I was suggesting that there is a class dimension to this. In the United States, breastfeeding amounts to a luxury that only the more privileged can often afford. Marco polo (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Pull the other one!. When Jeanne Boleyn mentioned the mater of fact attitude in Europe I didn't mention that I disagreed because I happened to see many instances of breast feeding in public in America. One place (or area) I remember was in Maryland. However, when I got out the map and showed the places I had been exploring, my host went slightly pale and said you really shouldn't wonder into those places. Rich they weren't! --Aspro (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All this debate ignores the immense, irrational hostility shown towards public breastfeeding by a significant number of college-aged men. They tell each other stories about breastfeeding women spraying passers by with milk and screaming about "their rights", "their rights" over and over again, all the while painting breastfeeding women as complete sociopathic monsters. Because of this, I suspect that much of the anti-breastfeeding furore in America is plain old boring sexism (ie. women are irrational subhuman idiots, so whatever they are in favour of must be ridiculous and wrong and evil and meant only to hurt men), fuelled by the belief that breasts should only exist to turn men on. It's bizarre and counterproductive. --NellieBly (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That reads very trollish. Have a good nights sleep and come back to this in the morning --Aspro (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not trolling at all. That's my honest dispassionate observation. And I'm not sure why I need a sleep at 4 PM - are you implying then that "not agreeing with Aspro" is the same as "not being rational or sensible enough to agree with Aspro"? --NellieBly (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

“breastfeeding women spraying passers by with milk” and you don't call that trolling? --Aspro (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that observation. I wouldn't generalize it to the entire male population, as responsible fathers aren't likely to cop such a weird attitude toward their nursing wives. (Hope not, anyway.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Even most college-aged guys aren't that entitled and self-absorbed. --NellieBly (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway breastfeeding in public and associate sites obviously need expanding. Maybe some of the contributors here are well placed to fill in the gaps. --Aspro (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I know this is not really the point of the debate here, but sometimes breastfeeding just doesn't work out for whatever reasons, and using formula is an excellent way to feed a baby as well as keep the parents from going insane. It's possible to raise a perfectly healthy and intelligent child who was fed exclusively with formula. I'm sure breastmilk is better, but formula isn't poison. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hell, I was raised in the early 1960s when formula was routinely viewed (by doctors no less) as being better, safer, than breast milk. Full of vitaminy goodness and what-not. Of course doctors in those days also recommended you smoke Lucky Strikes... but that's besides the point... what I am trying to say is that both medical science and cultural perceptions change over time.

To get back on track... I don't think there is an American aversion to breast feeding... there is an American aversion to breast feeding in public. This has nothing to do with health... its related to the American cultural taboo about women baring their breasts in any public situation. It isn't the milk that is the no-no in America... its the "naked tit". Blueboar (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

From my Google search for breastfeeding product discreet modest, I found several web pages with information about products for discreet, modest breastfeeding. One of those web pages is http://dirtydiaperlaundry.com/baby-bond-stylish-and-discreet-nursing-cover-review-and-giveaway/.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

advanced question: how to play honorable poker

This goes way beyond etiquette or anything like that. Obviously it's perfectly elegant and acceptable to make a "come-hither" bet (a tiny raise, hoping someone will reraise, whereas you've had a monster all along). Nobody would object. But once, somewhere, I heard a real pro (who I won't name) who said that he thought that was a cowardly, dishonorable thing to do. That really impressed me. I would like to know what other such things any poker player has ever said about being a truly honorable player. Well beyond the rules, the etiquette, etc, what are some things that the most honorable players in the world simply never do? (despite the fact that lots of other people do so). I can tell you one thing straight away: you muck your hand, it's already been taken away, after the round someone can ask you what you had. If you lie (strategically) no one will think the worse for it (well, hardly anyone). But obviously that's a dishonorable thing to do. So, I would never lie about what hand I had. (Though I might dissemble about how strong I had thought it would play). In other words I'd never say "pair of sixes" if that's not what was in my hand. What else? What other things do the most honorable players do? Thanks. 109.128.173.122 (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you shouldn't show your cards when folding, and many players think it's sneaky and dishonorable to Check-raise — as that article states, there's often a house rule forbidding it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

moar please. I like that check-raising example (and didn't realize that before). Do you have moar? 109.128.173.122 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find it very difficult to believe that a real pro would actually say such a thing, unless it was as a joke. I'm excluding home games, where the primary object is different from regular poker. In the latter, small bets to build the pot are 100% acceptable, as is check raising. In either situation, you should never say what cards you folded or comment in a way that affects the play if you are not in the hand (e.g. "one of you must have a flush"). String bets are also frowned upon. Slowrolling (dragging things out unnecessarily when you have or believe you have the best hand) is one of the worst sins IMO. Check out the flak Phil Hellmuth got from other top pros when he did this to an amateur (and his richly deserved comeuppance). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I read about it when I knew even less about poker than I do now, in our article: Post_oak_bluff, which ends by saying "Doyle Brunson described the move as "gutless" and he claims that he never makes the play." So it was "a real pro saying such a thing", but not exactly the thing I first wrote. It's not the come-hither bet that's gutless, it's bluffing and making a pretend come-hither bet as part of your bluff. 109.128.173.122 (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the book in front of me, but "gutless" in this context likely means ineffective, not dishonorable. Funny though; Dan Harrington wrote that he learned about the expression/concept "post oak bluff" from Brunson. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brussels! Nice to hear from you again on this topic so soon here. :)

Purely inexpert personal opinion here, but I think it would probably be okay for your purposes (or per your concerns about honor etc., whichever way you want to look at that) to "dissemble about how strong [you] had thought it would play" whenever you think that might be worthwhile.

(Also: may I ask you, Brussels, since you have gone on quite a bit about this sort of thing in the past: could you outline, with examples, the sort of response you feel would be most helpful to you, or which in whatever other way would benefit you most, and which you believe we here at the RD can provide? Do you really need all that much moar from us here on this issue? Please be as specific about those criteria as you can be, thanks! :) WikiDao ☯ 00:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

One way to be honorable would be to play purely based on the odds. This would preclude bluffing. But from personal experience some people think it's dishonorable to do perfectly rational things like bankrupt a new player on the first hand when you know for certain you have better cards. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are not cheating, you are playing honorably. Everything else would be part of the game. Googlemeister (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Professional or competetive poker is built on deception and manipulation.. seems strange some kinds are accepted and others aren't. Games amongst friends are a different story, but that's largely dependent on the group in question.

February 17

King Charles' Letter of Thanks to the Cornish

Several Cornish churches have a copy of a Letter of Thanks from Charles I to the inhabitants of Cornwall. Does anyone have a link to an online text of it please? DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's OK, have found a couple, one here and another here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Michel Foucault geopolitics view

What was his geopolitical view or approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.137 (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the context in which you're asking this? I don't think of Foucault as having a particular geopolitical approach. His general approach to power and politics is looking at the relationship between the state and its subjects, or the more subtle ways in which power percolates through everyday practice. I'm not sure I've ever seen him write about nations qua nations, much less their relationships with one another. But I am certainly not an expert on Foucault, and have only read the "main," major works. My immediate thought, though, is that asking what Foucault thought about geopolitics is kind of like asking what Marx thought about the ontological argument; you could probably come up with an answer through a very creative reading of his works, but it's really just not the right question, as its a somewhat different domain from what he does. But maybe someone else on here will have a better answer than this. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 98 - Foucault was much more in the sociological vein than the political. I can't remember anywhere where he spoke analytically about the relationship between states (though I dimly recall that there might be some material relating to immigrants and states in one of the interview books...). --Ludwigs2 08:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, people who write about geopolitics often incorporate perspectives derived from Foucault. So you might find something useful in theory chapters of geopolitics textbooks. Or textbooks on human/social/political geography. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I would probably try to figure out what geopolitical thinkers get out of Foucault. I wouldn't necessarily be trying to chase over Foucault's works for his own geopolitical views, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Apart from his writings, Foucault personally was an active anti-imperialist. See this discussion. Although the linked discussion lacks citations, my doctoral advisor was personally acquainted with Foucault and remarked on his street activism. Marco polo (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What could that number of gold coins buy in the 1300s?

In a Facebook app game called Verdonia, I have 1.49Q gold coins. You've read that right: 1.49 Quadrillion gold coins, thanks to hyperinflation of Zimbabwean proportions in the in-game economy.

Now, if a traveler from the future landed in the 1300s with 1.49 quadrillion gold coins (This technology makes it every bit authentic, atom-by-atom), and it was somewhere on the British Isles, what could it buy the traveler back in those days? --70.179.187.21 (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If gold held it's value, the Universe, probably. But it wouldn't. I suspect you'd find it was basically useless, for anything except ship's ballast. Actually, I suspect that much gold is going to have a gravitational field all of it's own, though I'm not going to do the maths. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That's a tricky question. According to the gold article, all the gold that's ever been mined is 5.3 billion ounces. If each of your gold coins is 1/10th of an ounce pure gold, you'd have about 28,000 times all the gold that's ever been around, let along the gold supply of 1300. The sudden appearance of this much gold, without any increase in real economic production, would cause a catastrophic collapse in gold prices relative to everything else, and the medieval world would switch to silver or some other measure of value. Incidentally, I don't know how you'd carry your 149 trillion ounces of gold. The gold article says the 5.3 billion ounces would make a cube 20.4 meters on each side. Presumably, 149 trillion ounces of gold, then, would equal a cube about 571.2 kilometers on each side, or half the size of LA and reaching into space. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)What happened to Spain would be instructive. Spain, commanding much of the New World, was able to import large amounts of gold and silver from the Americas. This was initially a boon, as Spain paid off a large portion of its debts, but inflation drove up the price of goods, as gold suddenly became plentiful, and everything else stayed the same. - By the way, your math is a bit off, as you've forgotten to account for the cube. A cube 20.4 meters on a side is 20.4m*20.4m*20.4m = 8500 m^3. If this weighs 5.3 billion ounces, this would put the 149 trillion ounces at 8500 m^3 * 149 trillion / 5.3 billion = 240 million m^3 or a cube about 620 meters on a side (as 620m*620m*620m = 240 million m^3). That 240 million cubic meters of gold would cover the whole of England to a depth of 1.8 mm, (~1/16th of an inch), or the city of London to a depth of 15 cm (1/2 foot). -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In the real world, gold is a traditional inflation hedge because there's only a finite amount it around, so that type of hyperinflation can't happen with it. As for the volume of the coins, I get 149 trillion troy ounces (31.1 grams/troy ounce) = 4.6e15 grams, at 19.3g/cm³ = 2.4e14 cm³ = 2.4e8 m³ = a cube 621 meters on a side, much less than 571.2km, but still a completely ridiculous amount. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You could pave the streets with gold! I estimate that the modern USA interstate system could be paved to a depth of 10cm with your coins. The roads in medieval England should be no problem at all. APL (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to put it in a medieval context, the ransom demanded for the release of Richard I of England was 150,000 marks or 65,000 pounds of silver. This was considerably more than the English Exchequer could raise - only 80,000 marks were paid in the end, which was enough to build a new city with. Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

1st Follow-up by OP

Ah, 620 meters to each side. The future traveler would have to hollow out a hill by teleporting the innards to some other location, before beaming the massive cube into place, if he's going to hide it.

Alternatively, a teleportal could be used to deposit the coins to the user at a command, but to limit the influence of future tech, hiding it in a hill might do it a little better.

Now, for as long as the economy doesn't "find out" that there is a sudden, overabundant hidden stash of gold coins, I suppose the traveler could use the funds to build a Channel Bridge and even bridges to Ireland and the Isle of Man. (Throw enough money at innovation, and it'll happen, sometime.)

Then as a time-traveling civic servant, how would he perfect the medieval society of the British Isles with all that cash? (I'll start you off: By making all levels of education free to everybody. By paving all poorly-kept roads. Now, your ideas?)

Unless you could buy a cure for the plague, all that money probably isn't going to help you mid-century... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Antibiotics work pretty well on plague, if you can bring some back with you. The archetypal novel about time traveling back to the middle ages with modern (i.e. 19th century) knowledge is probably A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain, a very entertaining read. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If antibiotics (and a way to make them) were introduced in the 1300s, would we have a problem? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I might suggest in a very Adam Smithian way that this approach to innovation is likely to lead to stagnation. What you want is a populace that will innovate independently. Giving them all everything at once won't lead to that. In fact, much of England's innovations in the 17th century, just to jump ahead, occurred because their capital outlays were quite limited, creating opportunities to develop what we now consider the tools of finance. In any case, at that time period, your biggest enemy of innovation is the fact that your European population is ridiculously low. You can't fix that quickly even with a lot of money.

Anyway, if I wanted to stimulate medieval innovation, I'd become a notorious moneylender. Nothing would be given out that wasn't expected to be paid back — I'd be injecting capital, but in a way that guaranteed it would be put to profitable use. I wouldn't need the profits, of course, but if your borrowers aren't scrambling to get profits themselves, you're not going to end up with innovation. In other words, act like a Medici, and hope for a few Leonardos and Galileos. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're not referring to that epitome of charm, grace and benevolence, that incomparable mistress of good deeds - Catherine de' Medici (Shudder).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The RPG sourcebook GURPS Time Travel mentioned several ways that you could raise the "local Tech Level" by several "points" when you travel into the past, improving countless lives, just by bringing back some information; no gold required. Instilling hand washing and the germ theory of disease, and getting the locals to stop bloodletting would all be very important, though of course you, the time traveler, may get yourself burned as a witch, so be careful. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Living in Beijing with only $550 US a month

If my lodgings are paid for, how comfortably could I live on $550 US a month in Beijing? I would need to pay for my own food and bills like phone and internet. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish to know, too, but with my SSI payment of $674/month

If I studied abroad in Beijing, then how well would I live on the SSI standard payment?

(I'd more likely study in a least-expensive college town of China that has some type of international study program with K-State.) --70.179.187.21 (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As a rough guide, I'm told a US dollar (exchanged) in China has about 3x the purchasing power as in the US, so you can live reasonably comfortably on those amounts. That's for basic non-touristic living-type stuff like food, housing, clothes, etc. Mobile phone service and internet service are also quite cheap, but internet connections to outside China are rather slow. Imported goods, high tech gadgets, and gasoline are about as expensive as anywhere else, so having a car is a luxury. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

US$550 is CN¥3600, or thereabouts. ¥3600 is not a small amount of money once rent is taken out of the equation. According to Google (and Baidu), a primary or secondary school teacher generally gets a take-home pay of ¥4000-5000 a month, and they have to pay rent.

The real question I think is whether you can live in the "domestic economy" rather than the "international economy". If you have the language ability and the lifestyle adaptability to shop locally and eat locally (etc), then ¥3600 is plenty to live on. You will find US$1 has 6-7 times the purchasing power it does in the US for local equivalent goods or services. However, if you can't live without, say, Starbucks (¥20 for a cup of coffee, last time I checked), or you eat out at expat-orientated places rather than local restaurants, then your US$1 will have approximately 1-1.5 times the purcahsing power at home, maybe even less, and your ¥3600 will become a bit tight quite quickly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, then it's decided. I need to study abroad to China sometime soon! --129.130.96.147 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course you must make sure to check to make sure of what you need to do to still qualify for the payments, including qualifying as a resident of your state. Our article seems to say that if you are a student who'll be studying abroad for less than one year then you still qualify as a resident, but the decision is too important to rely on the Wikipedia article — you need to check with the source. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

M1911's small magazine size

According to our M1911 pistol article, the only magazine available for the M1911, the primary United States military pistol from 1911 to 1985, holds 7 rounds. This is puzzling to me because 7 rounds seems really, really low and awful in combat. It would seem that with the M1911 pistol, you would often be frantically reloading in mid-combat while the enemy is taking you down. The situation would be especially bad when pinned down alone in a firefight against two or more enemy combatants. By comparison and contrast, the M1911's post-1985 replacement, the M9, has the much larger (over double) magazine size of 15 rounds. Does anyone have any insight into this? Is the figure of only 7 rounds given in the M1911 article wrong? Or if that figure is correct, why was the US military willing to accept such a low magazine size for so many decades? Am I correct in thinking that even without considering its other improvements, the M9 is already vastly superior to the M1911 on the basis of magazine size alone? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 13:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

One possibility is that the M1911, as a side arm, is as much a mark of rank or authority as an actual weapon. While you could use a pistol in combat, given a choice, you might have preferred to employ:

• The M1917 Enfield rifle (in World War I), with its six-round magazine and five-round clip
• The M1 Garand rifle (in World War II and Korea), with an eight-round clip
• The M16 rifle (Vietnam to very recently], with a 20-round magazine

...or perhaps something like a bazooka, a hand grenade, a mortar round, or an artillery barrage.

My non-expert impression is that any of these rifles would have greater range and overall effectiveness than a pistol most of the time. Consider the final fighting scene in Saving Private Ryan, which has Captain John Miller, fatally wounded, firing his sidearm at an advancing Tiger tank. He has no expectation of stopping the tank; the pistol's the last weapon he has, since it's part of what he carries as an officer. If he'd had a more effective weapon, he'd have used it. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that pistols are normally secondary to rifles in combat. But there are definitely times when you have to resort to your secondary weapon (not to mention that rifles are unwieldy in very close quarters combat). Also, pistol-carrying was not limited to officers; the rank-and-file carried pistols as well. The fact remains that the small magazine size seems to make the M1911 a horrible choice for a combat pistol. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 15:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

9mm, second from right versus .45 cal, 4th from right.

First, rifles of the same era did not have large magazines either. The standard revolver were either 5 or 6 shot, so seven is actually an increase. Second, the .45 has a much larger round (takes up more space) than the 9mm. There were concerns over the stopping power of the smaller 9mm round in the military and in some police forces. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I would second 75 — the point of comparison is a six-shot revolver. The likelihood of an infantryman having to use a pistol to shoot lots of rounds is low, and you have to balance things like weight and complexity when deciding on a sidearm. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But clearly the US military did eventually decide that a larger magazine size was better, since they did select the M9 to replace the M1911. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 20:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There are entire books written about the military's weapon choices and why they preferred particular calibers over others. The story I'd always heard, and is cited in our M1911 pistol article under the History section, is that the .38 long colt round used before didn't have the stopping power needed in the Philippines. List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces is a good place to at least compare. The .45 ACP is a larger cartridge too than say the 9mm used in the M9. Trade-off between number of rounds versus the strength of the round are common sources of debate. Police departments, militaries, and citizens make these kinds of trade-off decisions every day when they select a gun. Shadowjams (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The political and military aspirations of the US led to the taking of control of the Phillipine Islands from the Spanish in the 1890's. Thereafter, Phillipine rebels opposed US control See Phillipine Insurrection, 1899-1902, when the US failed to grant independence to the Phillipines. US Army forces found that 38 calibre revolver pistol rounds lacked "knockdown" capability, such that a Phillipine nationalist might be fatally wounded by pistol bullets, but still proceed in his attack on US forces, even if only armed with a machete, to the point of killing or injuring one of the US occupation forces. The US armorers responded after the Phillipines insurrection by developing the 45 automatic, whose goal was to open such a large exit wound that the attacker would fall down very quickly due to rapid blood loss and decrease of blood flow to the brain, rather than continuing the attack. The 45 automatic could carry 2 more rounds 7 plus one in the chamber) than its predecessor 38 revolver, so it was not seen as being deficient in the rounds available. If quick reloading was needed, the automatic was still quicker than the revolver. Edison (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of forums on the net with threads like this or this; "In terms of military operations, pistols are nearly useless." is a commonly expressed sentiment. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is if that applies to any kind of warfare (including urban combat) or only 'traditional' fighting (you know that of Saving Private Ryan and such). 212.169.181.138 (talk)

Cold war

Many people misuse the term cold war means that U.S. and Russia are cold climate countries. Is there any definition that have been misuse to term the era?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.158 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 17 February 2011

I'm terribly confused. I don't think people mis-use it to mean that US and Russia are cold climate countries. They sometimes pun on the "cold" metaphor (especially since Russia is quite cold much of the time), but I'm fairly sure that is intentional. I have no idea what your second section is asking, sorry — please clarify. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mr.98: I have never ever heard of anyone thinking that the term Cold War referred to the climate (as in weather, not as in political climate) of the US and the USSR, and I don't understand the second part of your question either. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 15:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the US a cold climate country, unless you compare it to Mexico. It is actually mixed climate, with all types of climates represented, from arctic to desert. Quest09 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been told that Russians have a perception of the U.S. as practically a tropical country, that what in the U.S. is the stereotype of Florida, Hawaii, and Southern California (warm weather, sunny beaches, palm trees) is in Russia the stereotype of the entire U.S. (Maybe they need to read yesterday's TFA, Climate of Minnesota, especially the section on its portrayal in popular culture.) Pais (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Canada, wouldn't Canadians also have such perception of the US? 18:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah. A lot of us live next to the cold parts of the US, and we know our neighbours very very well. Besides, we've seen Fargo and we've observed Mister Rogers (he doesn't wear a sweater for nothing). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See Cod Wars for wars in a cold climate.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See also the "Codpiece Wars".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It was "Cold War" vs. "Hot War", the latter being conventional war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Winter War. Which was cold. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

1970s-era photos

Here's one for example

I have loads of photos taken in the 1970s. When these are enlarged I see that they are made up of tiny dots which ruin the enlarged image. Is there any technology currently available that can eliminate those horrible dots? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you blowing up prints, or enlarging from the negatives? you'll have better luck with the latter - a print will have granulation and other flaws at a certain level that will magnify along with the rest of the picture.

If you're stuck dealing with prints, and if you're digitizing them, photo manipulation apps (like GIMP or Photoshop) often have despeckling filters or other tools that might improve picture quality somewhat, but only to a certain extent. the photo just doesn't contain enough information to give a perfect enlargement. --Ludwigs2 16:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The negatives have long since vanished. I'll try Photoshop. Thanks. Why did they use the speckles back then? Just like old newspaper photos.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a scan for us to look at? Old newspaper photos used halftone screens because newspapers were not printed with any grayscale capability; halftoning the photo allowed gray-looking areas of a photo by using only black ink. Surely your photos aren't that bad. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I uploaded it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Are these pictures printed on photo paper, e.g. the end product from rolls of film that were dropped off at the drugstore / chemist and picked up four days later? How are you getting them into the digital format? Scanner? Have you checked the scanner settings? --LarryMac | Talk 19:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the print smooth, or bumpy? It looks to me like it was printed on fancy "textured" print paper and all those artifacts are the little bumps. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The print is bumpy and I believe they were called silk finish. I used the scanner to uload them into digital format.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I recall that finish. Rounded corners, no borders, and built-in lack of sharpness. Check to see if your scanning software has a "descreening" option, which might help somewhat. --LarryMac | Talk 20:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So I believe the problem isn't that the photo is halftoned or composed of tiny dots, but that during the scan, the bumps on the finish are reflecting light from the sides in a way that creates these artifacts. Sorry, I don't have any experience scanning such prints. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case you could probably get better luck with a copy stand. That's can be a lot of effort if you don't already have one set up. APL (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The main thing that is happening is that the pixel-size for the scanner is interacting with the dot-size in the photos, in an effect known as aliasing. The best solution is to scan at the maximum resolution you can handle, and then scale down the image after scanning. There are, as other responses have said, tools to despeckle images, but in my experience the results for images like this are almost always disappointing -- you get a result that just looks dull and blurry. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that aliasing is the main problem — look at how the artifacts are all short vertical lines. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You are copying prints with the "silk" texture, so to avoid the dotty artifacts, you must get control of the lighting. I would aim a digital camera down at the print, and first try using a pair of lights clamped onto something such that you can move them in and out to vary the angle at which they hit the photo. For photo copying, a 45 degree angle was standard, but that was for glossy photos. You might do better with the lights at a greater or lesser angle. Phase two of the project would be to place a polarizing filter screen over the lights. With the correct orientation of the polarizing filter material, you should be able to minimize the artifacts. A polarizing filter installed over the camera lens can also be helpful. Edison (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely considered the drastic option of changing the texture of the photos, by coating them with a thin layer of clear varnish such as floor polish. 81.131.44.21 (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you using your own scanner, or have you had them professionally scanned? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Assuming these are printed photographs and you are scanning with a flatbed scanner, what happens to the scan results if you turn the print to some other angles and rescan? Astronaut (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

One wonders if you took three scans — each one 45º to the other — and then aligned them in as layers and played with some of the various layer transparency options (e.g. Screen or Multiply or etc.), if that might end up having some kind of canceling effect for the white spot differences. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the linked photo the actual size of the scan? If so, I recommend scanning to a much larger size than the actual picture is, and see how it looks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the actual photo is smaller and square in shape; this has been cropped to cut off the background details. There are several others similar to it. I would take the originals to a photographer to see what can be done but am afraid of losing the photos. They were taken on my 16th birthday and rather precious to me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Scanning and the links at the end may help. Your scanner software many have a descreening option, althouigh its probably optimised for halftone rather than what you have. When I used a median filter in Irfanview it did improve it a little. Some of the commercial software listed here Noise_reduction#Software_programs may do the job. If you still have the negatives, then they could be scanned directly to give much better quality. 92.15.16.146 (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a new Photoshop-despeckled version. It may be a bit blurrier, though. (Feel free to just revert back to the speckled one if you think it's better or if you'd like to try to play around with improving that version yourself -- nice 70's pic btw! :). WikiDao ☯ 15:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, WikiDao! Thanks a million.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, no offense to anyone, but that looks worse to me than the version with the artifacts. It looks like it's been crudely Photoshopped by hand. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

JSF, GE & UTX

So this morning the news reported that the U.S. House of Representatives voted to end funding for the "extra" engine being developed by GE & Rolls-Royce Corporation for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Assuming the decision isn't overturned, this would seem to be detrimental to GE and a bonus for Pratt & Whitney, which now would have something of a monopoly.

This morning, though, GE stock went up quickly and stayed there throughout the day, and UTX (Pratt's parent company) dropped ~0.5% and has stayed there. Even considering the fact that traders probably anticipated the Senate's decision, what could account for the counterintuitive response in the market? Or is it more likely unrelated and due to other factors? jeffjon (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Searching for "GE" at finance.yahoo.com just now, the JSF engine story wasn't even on the first page of search results for me. It's such a huge company that there are plenty of investors who buy it and sell it as a proxy for the US economy, so your last sentence is presumably correct. Another story of today that may have affected GE stock: this story claiming the Obama administration favors lowering corporate taxes on income earned abroad. Unfortunately the answer to why stocks fluctuate is almost always "who knows?" Especially annoying to me are the 100% BS quips that you hear on TV and radio where the business-news announcer makes incredibly broad claims about causality like "Stocks rose today after the new jobs report came out" or "Stocks fell broadly after Libyan police were reported to have killed demonstrators." Every hour, people and companies buy and sell stocks for millions of different reasons that are not correlated. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, The Pentagon itself wants the program killed, but congressmen and senators keep re-funding it because of the pork barrel. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the major producers of those engines just happen to exist in the Congressional districts of John Boehner and Eric Cantor. Corvus cornix_talk 00:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

They have to be in someone's district. Googlemeister (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

GE's revenue is about $18 billion a year. The amount at issue was $450 million, and who knows how much of that would have gone to GE. Plus, the vote wasn't that much of a surprise. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The $18.7 billion that Mwalcoff notes was revenue for the aviation segment of GE's technology group in 2009; the segment's profit was $3.9 billion. For all of GE, consolidated revenue in 2009 was $157 billion. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

February 18

Presidential bodyguard

Okay, so Lincoln had one incompetent bodyguard with him at Ford's Theatre. When did the President of the United States first acquire a bodyguard? Did Washington have one? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the US Secret Service (Early Years section) says they assumed formal repsonsibilty for Presidential protection in 1902. Dalliance (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Washington had the Commander-in-Chief's Guard, including Thomas Hickey. Warofdreams talk 09:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Washington didn't have the Commander in Chief's Guard as president, just during the war, a decade before he became president. Hickey wasn't a bodyguard per se, just a private in a security unit. —Kevin Myers 14:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a book for free online reading, ""Through Five Administrations : Reminiscences of Colonel William H. Crook, Body-guard to President Lincoln" by Crook, W. H. (william Henry), 1839-1915 " which might have some information on the guarding of the President, 19th century style. Edison (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Here we go. Apparently Franklin was the first who seriously wanted to avoid being Pierced. Thanks all. Hopefully there's the makings of an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Here is a book for free online reading, "Through Five Administrations : Reminiscences of Colonel William H. Crook, Body-guard to President Lincoln" by Crook, W. H. (william Henry), 1839-1915 " which might have some information on the guarding of the President, 19th century style. In 1864 the DC police department assigned four police officers to guard Lincoln. The author joined that detail January 4, 1865. Two policemen accompanied Lincoln wherever he went from 8 am to 4 pm. One policeman was on duty 4 pm to midnight, and was relieved at midnight by another who stood guard until 8 am.(pages 1-2). The night guard was to accompany Lincoln if the left the residence, and otherwise to patrol the corridor outside his room. They were armed with revolvers. Lincoln was of the opinion that a determined assassin could kill him despite guards and precautions. P.45 tells of the sort of screening that was done of unknown visitors who wished to talk to Lincoln, in this case likely one of those plotting the assassination. When Lincoln entered Richmond in March 1865 he was accompanied by one policeman and 12 armed sailors. Officer John Parker rather than the author (Crook) was on duty the evening of the assassination (p 68).P 72 notes Parker's absence from the usual spot for the guard outside the theatre box. P 92 and 93 describes armed "cranks" trying to force their way in to see the new President Andrew Johnson. Nov 1865 Crook became a "private policeman " guarding the President(p94).Crook said the Secret service at that time (1867) was very politically involved, with one official offering $10000 for evidence of collusion between Johnson and Jefferson Davis(p 208), and with incidents of bribery and perjured court testimony(p211), indicating the organization was not the apolitical force we know and respect today. Edison (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Help needed to identify type of fallacy

Some government minister of some country said this in a speech to a particular group of people:

"Biting on wood is good for you. Dont believe those folks who said that biting on wood is bad."

Apparently biting on wood is a political issue which the minister is using to appeal to certain demographics. But the problem is: no one ever said that biting on wood is bad.

Is this even a fallacy? If so, which type? There are so many here in wikipedia i dont know where to start. Thanks 115.164.42.81 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that comes under fear mongering. In this case the object of the fear is an imaginary propaganda campaign, rather than an imaginary apocalypse, disease, invasion, or so forth, but the basic idea is the same: Did you know that you have enemies? Well now you do - but I am on your side! Therefore vote for me. 81.131.29.156 (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A form of Ignoratio elenchi? --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is plainly just a special case of the straw man fallacy. Vranak (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't, though. That was the first answer I considered, but the purpose of a straw man is to misrepresent an argument which challenges your position. In the situation the OP is describing, there is no argument which challenges the minister's position, and he has no interest in arguing a case, even by misrepresentation. He simply wishes to be seen to be on the side of the people whose affection he wants to win. The superficial resemblance to a straw man is a red herring. 81.131.27.250 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I said special case, meaning that it isn't precisely a straw man by its formal definition, but it's so similar we may as well just call it that rather than dig up obscure and lesser-known terminology. Vranak (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Edison was well known for biting wooden phonographs to hear through bone conduction what his deaf ears could not. His tooth marks on his phonograph can be seen today. He also bit the wood of pianos. By association, early 20th century folks probably had a positive image of wood biting, at least by deaf people. A "bad association" with humans biting wood was the ill reputed King John of England, who gnawed on wood and straw "like an animal" in a fit of anger when forced to sign the Magna Charta in 1215. Edison (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Dang that was a decent spot of gratuitous research. ;) Wnt (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

petitio principii. see also card stacking. In the sense that it attacks a group rather than addresses the political question, it is a form of ad hominem. It could also possibly be a form of argumentum ad populum if the speaker is arguing for populism. It will mostly depend on the context and what the speaker was hoping to accomplish here. Gx872op (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fallacy. I believe this is a (crude) example of reductio ad absurdem. basically, someone is advocating something that will be bad for people by representing it as good for people, and this minister is using a hyperbolic analogy to point out that it isn't good for people no matter what some people might say. --Ludwigs2 22:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

How best to make known political policy wishes from the grassroots in the UK?

I have a few policy wishes that as a voter I'd like to see the government doing. What would be the best realistic way of making these suggestions? If I wrote to my MP, then only if they happened to be interested in the topic would it be taken up, and in any case I would like to reserve that for local issues. The wishes/suggestions are: 1) that the Bank Of England be given the broader goal of the long-term prosperity of the UK rather than just the foolishly narrow mono-goal of very low inflation; 2) that the scandalous rental discounts of (un-evictable) council tenants be done away with; 3) that the multi-million state benefit hand outs to the royal family be at least reduced to not more than what other European royals get, and preferably to no more income or property than what the Prime Minister enjoys. The things I have in mind are sending an email or letter, not doing a whole campain. I know its possible to do petitions somewhere on a downing street website, but nobodies going to sign up if they do not know they are there. Thanks 92.15.7.1 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be better to support existing campaigns along the lines you mention. The campaign group 38 Degrees is worth a look. Dalliance (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dalliance. There's no reason why a politician would take notice of your views unless they agree, or they know that you have lots of support. Given that you're not looking to organise your own campaign, the only realistic way to demonstrate that support is to join an existing one. Warofdreams talk 13:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You could try starting an online petition at the 10 Downining Street website, and see if lots of people agree with you. The petition against selling-off Forestry Commission woodland was remarkably effective. If no-one agrees with you, you're probably wasting your time. It's a funny old game, democracy! Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Politicians are there to represent the people's wishes. Representing any individual person's wishes - well, that's a rather different story. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As "the people" consist of individuals, then good politics would represent as many individual people's wishes as possible. 92.29.119.194 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless it is their own wishes. Politicians seem to like to represent those. Googlemeister (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Erm... that's kinda how a parliamentary democracy works. They tell us what they intend to do and if we like it, we vote for them. Simples. Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If we don't like it, then the voters are very discontented until they are able to vote them out at the next election some years away. Finding out what the grassroots want to do is a better way of doing things. And surely you've noticed that politicians pre-election promises are seldom kept? 92.29.119.194 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering, following the advice above, what group would someone join to support replacing the House of Lords with an elected senate or witan chosen by proportional representation from amongst leading figures in business, religion, education and so on? 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know, but a house of lords made up of celebrities would be a monumental disaster. 92.15.16.146 (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You could join either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats - "Following the election of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government in May 2010 it was announced that the two parties had agreed to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation".[1]. Watch this space! Alansplodge (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Electoral Reform Society, perhaps - [2] Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Witan would be a really good name for whatever replaces the House of Lords. "Senate" sounds rather too Americanesque. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that the UK is not England, and going back to a term used a thousand years ago isn't exactly progressive.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And neither the UK nor the USA are Ancient Rome, and going back to a term used two thousand years ago isn't exactly progressive.... DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We all speak English and Witan is an English word. The defence rests its case. Alansplodge (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Or you could go a little further back and just have a thing. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is coming from a U.S. perspective, but certainly, in that country, (most) legislators are interested in what their constituents have to say about an issue. Some will keep running tabs on how many calls/letters/e-mails they get for and against a certain bill or issue. They may not vote that way -- the politician may independently have his or her own viewpoint that won't be changed by the opinions of constituents, but widespread support or opposition from the community on an issue may swing him or her one way or the other. At least you'll get back a nice form letter with his or her signature. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste PhD

Recently, the German Defense Minister was discovered to have copied and pasted at least 118 times for his PhD dissertation of 400-some pages. How would universities around the world deal with that? Do you have a chance to remake it? Could the PhD of others of the same university be considered illegitimate? 212.169.181.138 (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as you accredit the source and put the " " marks correctly, you can copy paste quite a bit without getting out of line. Googlemeister (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Both universities that I work with would take back the PhD (one uses the word "recall" and the other uses the word "repudiate", both of which I read as "take back"). Each year, multiple students from a specific country (that I'm purposely avoiding to incriminate) get dismissed from the graduate school that I attend because they appear to be taught to copy-paste their papers in junior school before coming the United States for graduate school. -- kainaw™ 20:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Pls, Kainaw, pls. What country is that? It has to be a country with plenty of students immigrating to the US. Canada? Mexico? India? Quest09 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

China is the usual culprit in these kinds of stories. There is some debate about whether there are culturally different expectations regarding copying, etc., there. See e.g. [3] [4] [5], just to pick a few of the most recent articles that come up when you Google "China plagiarism." --Mr.98 (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading regularly the German press, I know that he didn't bother to put the " " correctly or cite or whatever. And that's the problem. To the OP: in less notable cases, you can be sure that any serious university won't accept that and that your academic career is over. The same applies to invented data. Quest09 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google search confirms that some universities certainly do withdraw PhDs if plagiarism is discovered afterwards. [6][7][8]. I doubt whether anyone would discredit other degrees from the same institution on the grounds that a dodgy one got through, although eyebrows would be raised if a pattern emerged. Karenjc 20:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the chance to remake it, you also have the chance to litigate in order to keep a title that has been revoked by your University. In the case of the Schön scandal, for another German example, the Administrative Court in Freiburg recently overturned the University of Konstanz's ruling, and Dr. Schön gets to remain Dr. Schön (for the time being). This was a case of falsifying data though, not plagiarism. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Dr. Schön didn't invent the data of his PhD dissertation, but of scientific articles after it. Quest09 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Plagiarism#Praisings of plagiarism in art, playwright Wilson Mizner said "If you copy from one author, it's plagiarism. If you copy from two, it's research.". And I remember hearing a joke that went something like "I do research, you copy, they are outright thieves" though I can't find a reference for that. Astronaut (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Der Spiegel on February 19 said that he also, in his capacity as a government official, ordered a researcher at the parliament's research service to write a 10 page paper on the topic of his dissertation, and incorporated it in the dissertation, without crediting the researcher. Is that more than "failing to add quotation marks?" Edison (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think enough is known to figure out all the issues. Ghost-writers do exist - authors who voluntarily surrender all credit - and one might try to argue that certain works for hire don't require attribution. Conversely, someone might accuse Guttenberg of plagiarizing articles even if he were an author on them, because other co-authors existed - but he might have written those sections all on his own. Or what if he just presented those passages to other co-authors for a few comments? Things like plagiarism and copyright are seldom as clear-cut as people make them out to be. Wnt (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol cask of amontillado

The coat of arms of Montresor-how does it relate to the characterization of Montresor, how does it relate to the plot, how does it relate to the theme of the story and does it relate to the irony of the story?

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. You may find our article The Cask of Amontillado useful to start. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at Nemo me impune lacessit for the inscription of his coat of arms. I wouldn't necessarily call it irony in itself, but it does add to the irony of the whole story. schyler (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The real meaning is that the cask contained Scotch whisky. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason your teacher asked you to answer this question isn't simply because she wants to know the answer- she probably already knows the answer- but because she wants you to have the experience of figuring out the answer. Education isn't so much about getting information as it is about learning to use your brain to work things out. Take it one step at a time, first identifying what the arms are, then applying them, first to the character, then to the plot, then to the theme. By then, you'll probably understand more about the story than you did before, enough to express an opinion about irony. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

February 19

Name this genre

Think of Dylan's Desolation Row or The Show by Joseph Brodsky: the narrator introduces a lineup of well-khown real and fictional characters, who are only accessories to his real message - they come and go without trace. At times is sounds like a ballade, but there's no storyline. It's just a long list of unrelated names weaved around something else.

Is there an English name for this genre? NVO (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is sometimes simply called "name-dropping", though as a technique, not as a genre. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

List song?--Wetman (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to remember a Gogol story

At least I think it's Gogol. It revolves around an incident in which a military officer is surprised by a kiss in a dark parlour - the kisser is a woman who mistook him for another man with whom she had an assignation. Can anyone tell me the title, please?

Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean "The Kiss" (1887) by Anton Chekhov. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sluzzelin - you're quite right. Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Parallel time

Is it scientifically possible that parallel time exists in another dimension? Another question is where does time actually go? Is it kept alive by our own memories and documentation or does it also move onto a different plane where the past, present, and future can be observed by those watching light-years away? Sorry for such profound questions, but they came to me last night.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Time is a dimension, do other "dimensions" as you conceive them exist? if it is parallel then why wouldn't it be the same thing? Anyways as you posted this in humanities I feel justified in [supplying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXeh742_jak] the most humane expression I know of such weighty questions meltBanana 13:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is possible. However it is kinda hard to prove or disprove. AFAIK, time doesn't "go" anywhere - it just is. There are "places" and they don't go anywhere - eg North 51deg 13.0min, West 0deg 33min is close to where I live and it is a fixed place on earth. Meanwhile 1923-Dec-17 is a date about 90 years ago and it is a fixed time. A different place has a distance from the first place. A different time has a duration from the first time. It doesn't "need" anyone watching. Because light travels at a finite speed, events that happened a long time ago are seen by us now - super-novae etc.That doesn't stop them having happened in the past. Imagine that you are in the laboratory (or whatever it is) listening to the Greenwich time pips being generated. You would hear them at "o'clock". If you tune your DAB radio and listen to them, you'll hear them again a couple of seconds later. That doesn't mean you have performed time travel (other than the normal advance of 1 second per second we all do), just that the pips have taken time to reach the DAB radio. Hope this helps. -- SGBailey (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So as I sit here typing on my computer keyboard someone 400 light years ahead could be observing me with a powerful telescope. Just like we could watch the Battle of Agincourt take place if we could view the earth from a vantage point 600 light years away.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A light year is a distance. So you mean 400 light years AWAY. So yes, if there is a 'little green man' looking through his telescope in 400 years time in this direction, then he will be seeing things happening here "now". Imagine a earthquake. Someone at the epicentre will experience the earthquake 'now'. Someone a thousand miles away will experience the tsunami perhaps 2 hours later. Of course for the little green man to see you, you'll need to be outside and not under clouds or tree cover. -- SGBailey (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I had meant to say away. Einstein's theory was that time was relative, hence time travel is theoretically possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that time isn't a place you can travel to. It's a measure of "how fast things happen", and when Einstein said it was relative that means that how fast things happen can be different for different observers. But it does not mean you can time travel. In order to time travel the previous state would have to continue to exist, but that is not how time works, and especially because different observers would see time at different states every single possible situation would have to be "stored" in order for you to "go there". So no, you can not time travel - there is nowhere to go. Ariel. (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Time is not a place, it's a "vector". Forward time travel is not only possible, but we're all doing it, i.e. we're all traveling on that vector. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Random observation - wouldn't this question fit better at the Science Desk? Exxolon (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

UK Gift aid

My understanding of Gift aid was that if you bought something from a charity and filled the form in that the charity could claim the tax you paid on the amount of the payment back from the government - thus increasing the charities revenue about 20%.

I recently donated a chair to a charity shop and they wanted me to fill a gift aid form in. No money changed hands. Any idea what was going on here? -- SGBailey (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

When you donate goods to a charity shop, the law regards their subsequent sale as converting one form of donation (giving something tangible) to another (giving money). Therefore, it makes sense for them to claim GA on the realised value of your donation. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but surely that only requires the purchaser to gift aid his payment. Why do I need to get involved? -- SGBailey (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

When you buy something from a charity you can't gift aid the purchase price. What you can gift aid are donations (which can include membership fees). So, when you gift a chair, the charity can claim gift aid on the value of your donation, and they assess the value by the price someone pays for it. They are claiming gift aid on what you gave them, not on what someone pays for it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Gift Aid donations must be voluntary donations, like your chair. The purchaser of your chair is not making a voluntary donation, but is being charged a fee. Whether they really can claim the money they receive for your donated chair against the tax you have paid on your earnings is another matter. (I am not a lawyer but that's the way I see it. You should really ask them, or a lawyer.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears the charity is using the Gift Aid clause about acting as an agent to get around the fact that your gift was in kind, not in cash. This guidance explains it thus: Goods donated to charity for resale cannot be gift aided as they are not donations of money. However, the donor can agree that the charity sells the goods on their behalf as agent. Provided the donor has the option of keeping the proceeds on sale of the donated items, the donor can then give the proceeds to the charity under gift aid. HMRC provide guidance on their website on how these arrangements should be done and it is important to follow them carefully. The paperwork you filled in probably included a form of words specifying that you had the option to claim the proceeds of the sale if you wanted, but were choosing to donate them to the charity and Gift Aid the donation, allowing them to reclaim tax on it. -- Karenjc 15:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Tortuous, but that makes sense now. Thanks. -- SGBailey (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"All men are created equal" and slavery

After American independence, how did white people in the US explain away the contradiction between AMACE in the Declaration of Independence and slavery? Thanks 92.15.16.146 (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We have some discussion of this at All men are created equal. There were some who thought that it meant outlawing slavery; there were others who said it was just about rebutting the divine right of kings. Keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence is not a binding legal document, like the Constitution. Then, as now, people had a wonderful ability to interpret things in the way that was most favorable to them, however hypocritical it appears to be to those who disagree. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps slaves were not considered "men"? They were certainly regarded as lesser beings. Surtsicna (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, to refine the question, it isn't "white people" who needed to explain the contradiction, but rather "slave owners". Some American slave owners were themselves black, and many white Americans were anti-slavery (and many lost their lives fighting against slavery). Wikiant (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

See Three-fifths clause. schyler (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

'Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another... I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects... They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.' -- Abraham Lincoln, June 26, 1857

-- AnonMoos (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The ultimate answer is that most people don't actually believe that all men are created equal... we are fine with the statement when it applies upwards (I am equal to anyone who claims to be my social/political/economic superior), but we have a lot more difficulty when it applies downwards (those who I see as being my social/political/economic inferiors are equal to me). Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for "most people don't actually believe that all men are created equal", Blueboar? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 16:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Madness! Anybody would think this was some kind of "reference" desk! 91.125.174.22 (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope... no reference... just personal observation of human character. Thankfully we are not required to provide references ... even on a "reference desk" like this. Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a specific reference, but I have noticed that people are, by and large, not totally identical to each other. With the myriad ways genes are expressed, I don't doubt for a second that no two people are completely equal at everything: this one's a little better at synthesizing vitamin D, that one's hearing is slightly more sensitive, that guy over there has a slightly warmer nose, and so on. Matt Deres (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

All men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, some Italians are also more equal than other Italians... TomorrowTime (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You might also be interested in our Equality before the law article for more recent interpretations of the notion of "equality", in addition to some of the historical views mentioned by Mr98 above. WikiDao ☯ 01:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also relevant that the Declaration of Independence didn't, and doesn't, have legal effect in the same way that the U.S. Constitution does. Shadowjams (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Mr. 98 said that way up above. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If only people had read it the first time. Maybe then RD questions wouldn't devolve into opinion fests Shadowjams (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Proceedure for issuing palaces to the royal kids/grandkids

All the UK royal children and at least some of the grandkids live in their own palaces - ie very large mansions set in country estates that would cost many millions, likely tens of millions, to buy privately. I'm curious as to what the proceedure is/was for issuing them to their occupiers/owners.

1) Is there a stock of royal palaces held in reserve ready to be issued to offspring? 2) Were some or all of these palaces bought on the open market? 3) Is it possible to find out how much was paid? 4) Do/did their owners/occupiers have to pay for them? 4) Who technically owns them in law? 5) Do they have mortgages? 5) Where did the money come from to pay for them? 6) Where did that money come from? Thanks. 92.15.16.146 (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

List of British royal residences is a good place to start looking. (It's not just the royals; Dorneywood and Chevening are for the use of cabinet members and frequently stand empty.) Marnanel (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And Chequers. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It may surprise you but many of these palaces are owned by the State rather than by individual members of the Royal family. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those would be the ones marked "Official" on the list linked above; they are (rather luxurious) places of work. Those in the "Private" section have been bought out of their own pockets (like Highgrove House) or bought out of the pockets of their forebears (like Sandringham House or Balmoral Castle). An example of a private house which is currently unoccupied is the late Queen Mother's residence, the Castle of Mey, but it's rather out of the way. It's open to the public as a tourist attaction for most of the year. Holyrood Palace is not used much, but selling it might upset the Scots and it did give us somewhere to entertain the Pope on his recent visit. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

See also Harewood Park. They can buy the land, persuade the local authority to give them planning permission, and put up a new house - just like anyone else. (LOL, as they say) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If the gist of your question is, that if we became a republic, we'd have a property windfall to finance public services with - it may not work out like that. The President of France for example, has no less than five official residences. The President of Germany, who has fewer powers than our Queen, has two full-sized palaces at his disposal; the Chancellor has another two. If the new republic wanted to get its hands on the Royals' private homes, which it could be argued, are really the property of the State, they would have to enact a Bolshevik style edict stripping them of their personal property. The Russians took the precaution of bayoneting their royals in a cellar to prevent any expensive litigation. It's not going to attact many votes is it? Still, you could try an online petition at the 10 Downing Street website - see above. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There are more than just the two options, as you are trying to suggest, of either a) bayoneting them or b) having to hand them £X00 million a year. 92.15.29.177 (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. You'd better go and start a republican party then. Alansplodge (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

...or join an existing campaign. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Who said I want a republic?? You do not have to be a republican to to be unhappy with the huge amount of money that the richest/greediest family in Britain is taking from the taxpayer. (If they had any conscience they'd volunteer to decline it - think of all the libraries, schools, hospitals, police etc it could pay for). I don't particularly object to Liz's role as President, I just think she (including her family) ought to get paid no more, and occupy no more property, than the Prime Minister does (ie posh house in central London plus large country estate). Wishing for that does not mean you want to make Britain into a republic. 92.15.31.249 (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:SOAPBOX might be of some use to you: "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." 91.125.174.22 (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Just reponding to the inflamatory and untrue putting-words-in-my-mouth "If the gist of your question is, that if we became a republic, we'd have a property windfall to finance public services with" which is not true. 92.28.245.90 (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

List_of_official_residences is also relevant to people's discussions above: the UK seems to have many times more than anywhere else on earth. 92.15.29.177 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Err, what about the US? There seems to be at least one for each of the 50 state governors, for a start. Proteus (Talk) 14:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And the UK list contains some rather tenuous ones - the Archbishop of Canterbury's gaff for instance. Alansplodge (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Each U.S. state is technically a different government, so while it is true that the U.S. may contain over 50 official residences, that number really isn't comparable. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather off the topic, but the US has a population about five times that of the UK, and 10 would be a small number for the UK even after ignoring the Archbishops "palaces". 92.28.245.90 (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The length of the UK list seems not especially meaningful in itself, since some of the entries are fairly unremarkable terraced townhouses, which don't really compare with a Presidential palace or a royal castle; I suspect a comprehensive list of properties used officially by any arm of government would be somewhat similar in the majority of similar sized countries. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm disapointed that I have not had any proper replies to my questions, except for mention of Harewood Park. Can I remind people that I'm asking about the proceedure of how palaces are provided for royal kids/grandkids (and not eg how many there are of them, or about buildings with royal associations in general, which I had not asked about)? This topic has been rather hijacked by people soapboxing/trolling their own political views, which I had not asked about. So please stick to the questions asked. Thanks 92.28.245.90 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about it, perhaps none of it is very well known, which is why you haven't had a clear answer yet. Here goes for a state. 1) The royal family own and/or have access to many large houses. As little princes and princesses grow up, discussions are ongoing about who can live where. The young royals usually have spells in the armed forces or at university, when they don't need a home of their own. They spend holidays with parents and grandparents; the royals love family get-togethers at Sandringham and Balmoral. After that, marriage may be on the cards. All that time, officials from Buckingham Palace are working out with them and their parents where would be a suitable place for them to live. 2) the articles on the various palaces will tell you their history. None or hardly any were bought on the open market. Hampton Court was seized from Wolsey. Was Buckingham Palace bought from the Duke of Buckingham? Can't remember, but you can find out in seconds. 3 etc) All interesting. You just have to follow the history back to when the palaces came into royal hands. For a long time there was no distinction between state property and the monarch's own property, not sure when the distinction became clear, perhaps Tudor times. You might be interested in former palaces too, such as Nonsuch Palace, Eltham Palace and Palace of Placentia. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The answers to all 6 of your initial questions can be found by clicking around in the very first link Marnanel gave you. Some are official Crown property, some are leased, some are privately owned by the people living in them. There is not going to be a single answer about 'procedure' given the variety of properties which are owned in a variety of ways. Perhaps if you chose a specific property, researched it as far as you could, and then asked about any difficulties you had in understanding or finding the information you want? 86.161.110.118 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, "The answers to all 6 of your initial questions can be found by clicking around in the very first link Marnanel gave you" is not true - the answers are not found there. 92.15.2.17 (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

images of Indian nationalist movement

I am looking for images of Indian nationalist movement (freedom struggle). Any collection (like British Library Museum collections)available online? --117.201.249.84 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons has a lot of media available at the Category:Indian independence movement there, if that is the sort of thing you are looking for.

You might also try asking here at Portal talk:Indian independence movement (though it doesn't look like that page has been too active for awhile). There are also probably various other online resources that someone here may direct you to soon. Good luck! :) WikiDao ☯ 16:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A section in the Bible

I'm looking for a section in the Bible that roughly says, those who make doubters out of true believers will receive the worst punishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.54.59 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I was able to find these by knowing that the Catholic Church calls leading others to sin 'scandal', and was able to search the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the references they use when talking about this. Mt 18:6 1Cor 8:10-13 Lk 17:1. That is:

Matthew 18:6, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

1 Corinthians 8:10-13, "For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall."

Luke 17:1, " Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come."

There are probably others, but these are (I think) the biggies. 86.161.110.118 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

By extension, the true biggest sin must be encouraging mere doubters to become scandalous ones. Wait a second, didn't I just describe that Dawkins book? Guy is in more serious trouble than he realizes... 109.128.192.218 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if we are looking at another instance of translation controversy. What is the semantic difference between a mere doubter and a scandalous one, and is there really a text that makes this difference? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I went cross-reference hunting and Revelation 2:14-16 came up. Pretty much it's a warning from Christ to not follow false teachings or else he will "fight against them with the sword of [his] mouth."
Of course the fulfillment of Jesus' statement at the above linked Matthew 18:6 is found at Revelation 18:21 where a strong angel casts Babylon the Great into the sea "like a great millstone." schyler (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

But as far as I can see it is not a clear example of someone being made to "doubt" his original thought. It just sounds like the standard warning against people not following the faith. I would think that there would be something specifically targetting "doubters" as opposed to outright heathens. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I also had Matthew 7:15, but that was more about the danger to the person following false prophets with their untrue prophecies than about the danger to the prophets themselves. What do you think, Schyler? Should I have also included this one, although it doesn't seem to directly fit the OP's question? 212.183.128.78 (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

German hazmat team in orange?

I found a video on Youtube showing vehicles of a German hazmat team: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rVEzAi8cGk. They are orange. Is this the usual color of such units/firefighters/emergeny responders in Germany? I thought they are red there. --84.151.195.63 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The de:ABC-Zug (Civil Defence) use orange suits for petroleum spills.[9] Google shows multiple hits for images of other orange vehicles. Nanonic (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, most of the cars that can be found on Google for "ABC-Zug" are red. The cars of the fire brigades are red as well. That is why I wonder if the orange color of the cars in the video has a special meaning. --84.151.179.23 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the Safety orange article. Corvus cornix_talk 19:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that the orange appearance of the vehicles in the video is due to the light conditions. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Which Irish party?

There's a general election about to happen in Ireland. I've never given a politician my vote before and I'm at a loss. Irish politics seems to me to be tribal. Is there a resource where I could answer questions and be guided towards the party that suits me? Stanstaple (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You could start with our article on List of political parties in the Republic of Ireland and follow the relevant links to get a feel for the policies of the various parties. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried [10]? --Saalstin (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

February 20

Wisconsin brouhaha: article?

I'm interested in what's going on in Wisconsin right now, so naturally I check Wikipedia hoping that here I'll be able to read up on the background and on the current events. But I can't find out if we even have an article on what's going on right now. Can someone direct me to the article, if there is one, and failing that, toss out a few good links where I can read up? Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't think there should be an article right now. After the fact it will be clearer what exactly the event was, and how it should be framed in encyclopedic terms. For right now there's Wikinews. I'll see if I can find you a link. --Trovatore (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I can't find it there. Maybe not enough contributors? --Trovatore (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few CNN links: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/02/19/lin.wi.protests.cnn?iref=allsearch http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/19/democratic-leaders-join-protests-in-two-states/?iref=allsearch http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/19/wisconsin.budget/index.html?iref=allsearch --Trovatore (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Before someone starts an article on this topic, please read WP:NOTNEWS. Lets see how events play out, gain some perspective on what impact they had, and then write an article about it. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever "this topic" is. It'd be nice if you folks conducted your private conversations elsewhere. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My first guess was that Wisconsin must be a suburb of Benghazi. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't get CNN in Oz?... look at the links that Trovatore provided and all will be explained. Short version... political cat fight in the US State of Wisconsin between States who are trying to cut expenses and public service union members (teachers, government workers, etc.) who do not want the cuts to impact them. The Democrats in the State Senate (who support the Unions) are hiding out in another State, to procedurally prevent a vote from taking place on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we get CNN here, but it's not compulsory to watch it. My comment was about the nature of questions needing to be evident and explicit: a reference to a "Wisconsin brouhaha" and some links provided by someone else do not cut it. If nobody can be bothered to come right out and say what the issue is, I treat it as a private conversation and ask that it be conducted elsewhere. Thank you for letting me into the secret, Blueboar. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Indian newspaper compares it to Egyptian protests, wow.[11] I don't know what kind of paper that is though. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to the BBC, it's the U.S. protesters themselves that are comparing it to the Egyptian protests. (That's the BBC's main story on it, not a sub-story about the comparison.) For a sense of international perception (harking back to Jack's comments above), the BBC News front page for UK viewers has no story at all on this, out of about fifty headlines. If I click "World News", though, there is one headline about it, under "Other news from around the world". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a severe case of hype on the part of the Wisconsinites. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So how is Belgium functioning?

Belgium today overtook Iraq for the longest period for a country to exist without a government. I understand that many institutions of state do not require political supervision, hence why the UK functions during election campaigns etc, but 250 days? What happens when a major decision has to be made, as one would expect to happen during a period of well over 6 months? Surely not all controversial decisions can be delayed, and what legitimacy does anyone have to make them? Prokhorovka (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As our article Belgian federal government points out, the last government (Leterme II) remains in office as a caretaker government. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Could Germany invade Belgium now? 81.47.150.216 (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol. I'm sure they could, but these days it's really more a question of "may Germany invade Belgium now?" And (most likely) no, they may not. WikiDao ☯ 13:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Does Germany actually need to invade anyone anymore? Given how economically dominant Germany is tocay, I would think they could simply foreclose and take possession. (not serious). Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Germany has no incentive to invade Belgium today and obviously it's a ridiculous notion, but on the other hand, think of how quickly Belgium would get a new government if it did :) And I'm betting an invasion would also do wonders for the ailing Belgian national unity... TomorrowTime (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that Germany has no incentive to invade Belgium, but Belgium has an incentive to be invaded. Perhaps some bizarre provocation stratagem... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.162.13 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Mouse that Roared. 86.161.110.118 (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Revenge and inner peace

Does any psychologist recommend revenge -instead of pardon - to reach inner peace? It sounds socially disruptive, but psychologically possible to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.150.216 (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Revenge may be of interest to you. WikiDao ☯ 14:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(I'm the OP) I don't see any recommendation there, does that mean no psychology will ever say 'hey, take revenge on that bastards.'? (evil, but psychologically, could be sweet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.179.172 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to think that's what it means, no. WikiDao ☯ 18:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you have a look at the Function in society section of the Revenge article? There's a quote from a philosopher there, and a philosopher can sometimes be a little like a psychologist. I do not have any psychologist in mind myself that I would like to refer you to beyond that on this issue, though, sorry. Maybe someone else will provide you with a more specific reference to what you are looking for. It's a very interesting and thoroughly-considered topic, though, so I'm sure you will find a wealth of information about it in the literature if you care to research it further yourself. Good luck! :) WikiDao ☯ 20:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Back to the original question, and your reference to "pardon". I guess you're talking there about what's usually termed "forgiveness", which is not about condoning whatever they did, but is about you stopping blaming them, and you stopping allowing them to hold you back from getting on with your life. Much more liberating to realise that, no matter what they do to you, you're always in the driver's seat of your own life, and notions of revenge don't cut it at all. Mind you, it's very human to desire revenge, but it's also very human to be able to rise above it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant forgiveness. And, no, I didn't ask if I should forgive. I asked for a reference about a psychologist who accepts revenge as a means of obtaining closure.212.169.179.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

I don't know any psychologist who recommends getting even. Why would they? There are other alternatives: forgiveness, assertiveness, not clinging to offenses ... Maybe you don't find a psychologist who does it because psychologically it makes no sense to take revenge. You won't feel better and in the cases of people with mental problems (often these get advice from psychologists), it can get dangerous to suggest they should get some payback. Quest09 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be asking about negative vengeance. It is common to hear the the best vengeance is to do whatever the offender doesn't want, such as going on to live a very successful and happy life (positive vengeance). Only among less educated/civilized do you hear that one should enact physical retribution against the offender. This isn't a new concept. The old phrase "an eye for an eye" was not made to create revenge. It was made to end revenge. Previous to this mandate, the idea was "If someone makes you mad, kill their whole family, burn down their house, destroy all their crops, etc..." The mandate stated that revenge must be limited to an eye for an eye - no more. So, the idea that negative revenge is bad has been around long before any concept of psychiatry. -- kainaw™ 23:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The endless cycle of violence in the Middle East is a pretty good illustration of how well revenge "works". If a psychologist advocated harmful retribution, it's fair to say that someone should pursue getting his license revoked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Most psychological theories acknowledge the human need to live within society, and so behaviors like vengeance (with its implicit unsocial, egocentric motivation), are generally not considered to demonstrate psychological health. At best they are acts of immaturity or uncontrolled emotion, and at worst are actually anti-social. In order to legitimize vengeance, a psychological theory would have to assert that the expression of idiosyncratic violent impulses were more essential to psychological health than long-term pro-social behavior. I've never seen that done in any theory, and have a hard time imagining it as an analytical premise. Even terrorists and advocates of the death penalty justify killing people as an act of justice or necessity, not vengeance. --Ludwigs2 07:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you take pride in living by some modern version of a chivalric or gentlemanly code (eg see Knightly Virtues), and feel shame at any lapses, then you would be above taking revenge. However it would be acceptable to tell others of the facts of what you felt was unjust, and seek redress through the courts or some other judicial proceedure. A side effect of taking revenge is that it implies that you consider your opponent to have enough esteem or status to be worthy of revenge, rather than just being despicable scum not worth further attention. 92.15.2.17 (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

He's known more as a philosopher than psychologist, and it's just a scrap, but I remember Nietzsche using the phrase 'good will to revenge' in perhaps The Gay Science. Certainly sounds like a sanction at first glance, though he also rails against revengeful 'tarantulas' in other texts. Vranak (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Searching on Google for Neitzsche revenge produces many interesting results. However Neitzsche became more and more obviously insane as he grew older, perhaps due to syphillis, so what he writes cannot be considered reliable advice. 92.15.2.17 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

He plainly had issues with sanity, but that does not diminish the fact that his writings can provide challenging and stimulating food for thought. Just as long as you don't look to him as a moral authority. Vranak (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

collective bargaining

Is the right to bargain collectively a protected right or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.85.168 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends on your location - different countries have different laws and regulations governing unions, strikes, ballots, collective bargaining, closed shops etc Exxolon (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And in the US the laws are different from State to State. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that technically this is true of all rights in all places, and the level of protection often varies even within protected rights. The right to life for example is a protected right almost everywhere (since it is illegal to breach it), but in some places it has the extra protection that not even the state can breach it (no death penalty). The right to collective bargaining is the same, some places will have no right, others very strong protections. No right is intrinsically protected, since protection is by definition something that must come from an external source. 130.88.162.13 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

For the US, see National Labor Relations Act. Relevant: Our Collective bargaining article notes that the right to join a trade union is claimed as a fundamental human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though that doesn't mean it's a "protected right" everywhere, by any means. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Whispering columns of Jerash

In Flushing Meadows Corona Park, Queens, New York city, USA, there stands what some say is the second oldest artifact in New York city, "whispering column of Jerash" from about 120 AD; the oldest being "Cleopatra's Needle" from about 1500 BC in Central Park. The column of Jerash, according to the plaque nearby, was donated to the city by King Hussein of Jordan on the occasion of the 1964-65 World's Fair. The link from the official New York City Parks department is: http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/fmcp/highlights/12405

I would like to know more about the column's origin, about the temples from which this column came, the temples that evidently the Romans built in present day Jordan around 120 AD. Also I'd like to know why they're called "whispering" columns of Jerash. Thank you. 166.248.6.11 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't seem to have an article (see, WHAAOE doesn't always apply), but googling "Whispering column of Jerash" turns up over 5,000 hits. Check that out first, and come back if you have any more questions. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

WHAAOE always applies: You may want to look at our article on Jerash, where some photos - including the collonaded street (cardo massimo), which shows similar Corinthian capitals - are included. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a case of WMNHAAOLEBIVAALHAAOSRTWYLF. For the uninitiated: Wikipedia may not have an article on literally everything, but it virtually always at least has an article on something related to what you're looking for. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

poem that C. S. Lewis referenced

In chapter 13 of That Hideous Strength there is a reference to a 'poem about Heaven and Hell eating into merry Middle Earth from opposite sides' -- does anyone know what this is? 128.194.35.175 (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell comes to mind, but doesn't seem to fit the context as well as it might, and I could not find any source saying definitively that that's the one alluded to in your reference. I'd be interested to know, too, though, if anyone else can find out anything more about that. Good question! :) WikiDao ☯ 20:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a good guess- Lewis was a bit hung up on The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. His The Great Divorce (at least the title) is his response to Blake. So I wouldn't be surprised if he referenced it elsewhere. Staecker (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This book—if you can see the same snippet that Google Books gives me—connects the idea with a (not explicitly identified) "medieval English lyric". I don't recall such a lyric offhand, and I don't know how much trust to put in Mr. Lobdell. I'll try to track it down, though. Deor (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought this page might have the answer, but it only says "??". If anyone finds an answer, they would probably appreciate hearing it too. Marnanel (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Dieter Dengler

If he was captured and held as a prisoner by Pathet Lao, why he was "greeted as a celebrity by the Pathet Lao" after his rescue? --Jortonmol (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The destruction of the Temple of Artemis.

I'll start by just pasting in a few lines from some different pages.

"The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was destroyed on July 21, 356 BC in an act of arson committed by Herostratus. According to the story, his motivation was fame at any cost, thus the term herostratic fame." (Main page)

On the page titled, "Chersiphron"; this is said,

"...it was destroyed in 550 BC, rebuilt, burned by Herostratus in 356 BC and rebuilt again."

Can you just explain this?

I've been recently reading up on this and it's really interesting me, I'm just curious as to what happened after this/why it wasn't preserved etc.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycosa19944 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Temple of Artemis should answer all your questions. It was destroyed and rebuilt numerous times; in fact the most famous incarnation was built after Herostratus' arson. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops, no, the one Herostratus burned was one of the Seven Wonders. But the one they built after that was also pretty famous. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You want the truth? I did it to impress a girl. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically we aren't supposed to mention him by name at all, not that anyone seems to care about that any more. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

February 21

Directors of Turism for San Juan Puerto Rico

Hector E. Pineiro was the first "Director of Turism" for Puerto Rico under Governor Luis Munoz Marin. 

Pesquera and Galliza were his asistant at the time. Later on they became directors. But the department was not created under Governor, Luis Ferrer. It was under Luis Munoz Marin.

Hector E. Piniero was my father. Sincerely, Vanessa Pineiro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.42.198 (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to see an article about your father, make sure he meets the requirements. To see the article, you don't have to post here or wait. Be Bold! Go ahead and create it! Schyler! (one language) 03:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind it's spelled turismo in Spanish, but tourism in English, having come to us via French. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Omnivore's Dilemma

Does anyone know of similar books (about where food comes from and stuff) written in other countries? This one is mostly (although not exclusively) about the U.S. I am thinking particularly about China, but similar books about any country would be interesting... rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

peace and harmony

I'm thinking about what it would be like if I did something really nice for a group of ladies' singles figure skaters. Two are Japanese, two are French, one is Italian, one is South Korean, one is Chinese and one is Chinese Taipei. I've been imagining them living together in peace and harmony. A house I'd been imagining they were living in would be in Alameda, California. Is there anything wrong with all of that?24.90.204.234 (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

They might prefer to live in Europe or Asia, but if these are real people, you could try and contact them and ask them. If they are dream people, happy dreaming! Itsmejudith (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

They might even prefer to live at home with their families. At least you're not inviting Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, but what do you mean by "wrong"?

–Practically speaking, like maybe you don't have enough funds to make your fantasy a reality...?

–Emotionally speaking, like maybe they won't all actually get along too well if they had to live together...?

–Ethically speaking, like you want to exploit that situation by broadcasting it as a "Reality TV program" without consideration for what real-world effects that might have on the subjects...?

Or "wrong" in some other sense? WikiDao ☯ 12:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Grade

In the summary of 'The Lord Grade of Yarmouth', you state that he was married to Jane Levinson. That is a bit confusing as her first name is Penelope and she was always called Penny by friends and family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.195.36.115 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed"Penelope" was left out when the infobox was created, though it was left in in personal life section. Corrected. Astronaut (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The ease of accessing each of the Mayan Ruins in Central America

I wish to visit many of the Mayan Ruins across Central America. However I am finding it difficult to gain an appreciation of what the relative ease/difficulty is to access each site. Is there a list of the ruins which shows this? For instance on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was easy and 5 very difficult then Tulum would be a 1 and El Mirador a 5. I need some indication for all the other ruins86.151.211.208 (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Missionaries and near-naked/naked tribes

How did Christians view the unclothed tribes they encountered? Did the lack of self-consciousness over human genitalia conflict with their interpretation of the story of the Garden of Eden? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

They viewed them as primitive, but they made no connection to the garden of eve whatsoever. A lack of clothes would have made them view them closer to animals if anything.AerobicFox (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of "near-naked" does include the description of Adam and Eve found:

“ Then the eyes of both of them became opened and they began to realize that they were naked. Hence they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves. ” — Genesis 3:7

As far as fully naked peoples, this would be viewed as Popular Culture. Just like it is popular to wear something today in a certain place, it could very well be popular to not wear something in another place. Indeed it is becoming more and more popular to wear less and less. Schyler! (one language) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The tendency was to try to put the men into full loincloths, and the women into so-called "Mother Hubbard" dresses. AnonMoos (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Has everyone given up on providing references, or citations, or any backing to their words altogether? (I know, I'm as bad as anyone.) Marnanel (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I linked Mother Hubbard dress... AnonMoos (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

True: that was the best we had here. On the other hand, that page makes no claim about its relevance to the question which isn't plastered with [citation needed]. Marnanel (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, such encounters also inspired the idea of the noble savage, although the article unfortunately does not bring up the subject of missionaries specifically. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone told me not to "litter" the reference desk with citations from literature produced by Jehovah's Witnesses. If the OP asks fro a reference, I can give it. Schyler! (one language) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

MLA

How does one cite, in the MLA style, a study that is not part of a journal but is not a book either? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This should help. Schyler! (one language) 18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you give us a little more information about what specifically you are trying to cite? --Mr.98 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't Egypt invading Libya?

Right now, invading Libya to depose Ghadafi and free Libya seems like an all-win situation for Egypt: they are seen by the Libyans as liberators, the world witness how they defeat yet another brutal dictator, they increase their geopolitical standing in the area by forming a united republic with Libya and they take the world's 9th biggest oil reserves to boot. What's stopping Egypt from "freeing" Libya?--Leptictidium (mt) 20:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You're trolling, right? Politics in the real world is not a gung-ho RTS style affair. On the off chance that you are being serious, here's at least two reasons: Egypt has its hands full with restoring some semblance of statehood back in its own backyard right now, and the immediate gains would be far outweighed by the international backlash such a dick move would generate. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to expand on that a little... I've not really been following Egypt's progress since Mubarak stood down, but I don't think the country is "free" in the sense of being run by "the people" just yet. So they're no freer than Libya is, just maybe moving in the right direction. Plus, "liberation" can easily be welcomed to begin with (remember the intial welcome when the West liberated Iraq?), and then end up being a resented occupation, in fact sometimes even to the extent that the entry of a foreign power is the one thing that gives a dictator some authority back and allows them to reconsolidate their rule. (Especially if one goes in with the intention of getting hold of the oil reserves.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trolling, TomorrowTime, are you? What backlash would "such a dick move generate"? Liberating an opressed people? Leptictidium (mt) 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think Egypt is now a liberal democracy just because Mubarak retired, you might investigate some of the things the Egyptian military has been up in the interim. Vranak (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Leptictidium, I agree that the Egyptian military now has its hands full, so a Libyan intervention is certainly out of the question for it. Even if it were in a position to intervene, I can think of three varieties of backlash against such a move: 1) It would violate the international principle of nonintervention and would generate condemnation by the international community and especially by Egypt's neighbor's, who might reasonably fear that they could be next. 2) It would very likely not be welcomed by Libyans, who would prefer to resolve this internally rather than through what they might well see as an aggressive move by a much more populous neighbor. Indeed, an Egyptian invasion might be Qaddafi's best hope of rallying patriotic Libyans behind him. 3) Egyptians would be likely to object to such an aggressive move, especially at a time of instability at home, both out of sympathy for Libyans and because such a move could signal a hunger for power on the part of the Egyptian military and a lack of commitment to a democratic transition in Egypt. Marco polo (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

airport scanners

Do celebrities have to go through airport scanners, or are they exempt? K4t84g (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would they be exempt? While there are a number of ways for the very rich to get limited security (esp. depending on the airport), all people using airport terminals are required to go through security scanning, whether they are a celebrity, an elected official, the head of the FBI, what have you. Here's a nice set of paparazzi photos of Lindsay Lohan going through security like everyone else. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that if you want to imagine a model in which they would be exempt, you have to figure out how you'd define who was a "celebrity" or not, how you'd determine that the person at the gate was in fact a "celebrity" (and not an impersonator, or someone with the same name), and so on. The overhead would be enormous for zero social gain. There's also absolutely no reason to suspect that celebrities are any more "secure" than anyone else (and plenty of reason to suspect against it, when you consider the number who get arrested at airports for smuggling contraband, like drugs). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II or Obama? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think politicians traveling with a Secret Service detail are exempt from screening. I seem to recall that John Boehner doesn't have to go through it. Lucky guy [12] Qrsdogg (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Population of U.S. if there was no Civil War

I am trying to make an estimate as of how many more people there would be in the United States if there was no Civil War. I am not too sure how to go about it. Can someone help me out?--69.245.43.176 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me that the number of counter-factual assumptions you'd have to make is rather huge. (Would slavery have gone away without it? If not, how would that have affected immigration?) But I imagine that the most simple spherical cow model would just say, take the number of people who died in the war, assume they reproduced at the same rate as survivors, and extrapolate what factor the current population would be multiplied by. But if you're looking for that kind of model, you'll probably get better results on the math desk. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

1963 Mona Lisa visit

While reviewing events for 1962 I saw the Mona Lisa visit to U.S. National Gallery of Art listed for January 8 with accompanying illustration. I realized this was incorrect because I saw this work there in 1963 and was not in the Washington area at the time stated. Although innumerable sites repeat this misinformation, NGA site and contemporary news accounts confirm that correct date is January 8, 1963. I do not have a wiki account and have limited computer skills. When I looked at edit procedures a notice indicated that edits were suspended until July due to vandalism. Is there someone I can reach who is authorized to correct this either now or later this year or will this query in itself make it likely that someone will step in and prevent this inaccuracy from propagatig further? I would prefer a more experienced person to deal with this, especially as there is an illustration involved. Thanks64.122.208.145 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That checks out. I've moved her. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How And where Thomas Ellis Hardee was Murdered?

I am doing some family research and would and have tried to find out about, How and where Thomas Ellis Hardee was Killed? I know he is buried in St Marys Ga at Oak grove Cemetary, Any help would be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddSurber (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Women musicians in antiquity

Where there proffesional female musicians and singers in ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt and among the Celts? I am speaking about the cultures in ancient Mediteranian and Europe. I do know that courtesans as well as priestesses (?) both sang and played music, but where there women who exclusively played music for a living? I vagely remember, that there where women musicians who played music for the men and the courtesans at parties in ancient Greece, without being courtesans themselwes, just musicians, but perhaps I remember wrong - I don't remember what they where called. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Mona Lisa Visit

Thanks Clarityfiend. L.H.O.O.Q. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.208.145 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

do freelance coders or graphics designers or translators who basically just "use" their laptop and sometimes phone ever travel the world while doing so?

It seems to me that there are a lot of kinds of work that the person just does on their laptop all day, like translating documents or coding. If that is the one thing that needs to be constant, does anyone ever just travel all the less expensive countries of the world (all the latin american countries, all of the asian countries, etc), and nmost of Europe, renting a cheap room for a few weeks, continuing to work, and then just moving out? It seems if your "base" (contact) are from a rich city like Bay Area, New York, Paris, London, etc, then your money should go a reeeealy long way. What is keeping these people anchored to their own (very expensive) city? If you're going to be in an apartment, and just use your laptop, why do you have to really be in that city, instead of anywhere in the world? 109.128.213.73 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)