Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 2

PhD thesis/science article being cited

It is certainly more common that a science article gets cited than a PhD thesis. However, how often do PhD thesis are cited? Quest09 (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In what field(s)? I ask because I imagine the answer will differ a lot. In the humanities it is extremely uncommon unless the thesis is not turned into a book (and turning a thesis into a book is an expected practice), though there is considerable lag time between the thesis and the book, which can account for theses being cited probably more than in the sciences. In the sciences, it is common to turn the thesis into an article, which is then the thing to be cited (or even the other way around — write an article, submit it as part of the thesis), and the lag time is a lot less (months not years), so you'd expect far fewer citations of theses, a priori, I believe. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about PhD in law. However, the question is valid for every science. I suppose the proportions apply to each relationship. Quest09 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't hazard to guess about law. I don't think it would be the same answer for every field — they each have different dynamics of citation and publication, what a thesis means to them. My experience leads me to think that citations of theses are fairly rare in the hard sciences these days, though it is not uncommon for maybe three or four citations in a history book to be from dissertations. I'm not sure where law would fall on that spectrum — it's a somewhat more odd field as it has somewhat separate academic vs. professional sides. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In theoretical linguistics, Ph.D. dissertations get cited all the time. Some people's dissertations are so influential that they remain the author's best known work well into the author's career as an academic. —Angr (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, in maths and science you often publish several papers while doing your PhD. Your thesis would, in large part, be made up of already published material so people wanting to cite that material would cite the first version. --Tango (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That happens in linguistics too, but people are more likely to cite the dissertation because it's the more refined, more fully developed version. What appears in your diss isn't usually an exact copy of the previously published paper, but a revision of it. —Angr (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are serious about the question, nowadays it is feasible to perform a quantitative study using open access literature databases such as MEDLINE or CiteSeerX. See also Open Archives Initiative. 130.188.8.14 (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You could also try Google Scholar, which I'm sad to say finds quite a bit more stuff than the open db's currently do. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because Google Scholar uses a number of proprietary literature databases. But as far as I know, there's no literature database in existence where the user interface lets you count the total number of references by type of cited article (PhD thesis or not). Unless you have serious money to get access to those proprietary databases, your only option is to use open access databases. 130.188.8.11 (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of Arctic Convoys when alternatives existed

During World War 2, from September 1941 onwards the Allied Powers could transport supplies to Soviet Russia via the Trans-Iranian Railway, and Soviet shipping could also transport supplies from the USA to Vladivostock until August 1945. Despite this, the Allies chose to send 78 Arctic convoys between August 1941 and May 1945 to deliver supplies to Russia's northern ports instead. This was in some senses a more direct route, but did that convenience (and the relatively undeveloped nature of the Iranian and far east Soviet rail links) really justify the loss of eighty-five merchant ships and sixteen Royal Navy ships, and the commitment of many more merchant ships and warships, when the merchant ships were desperately needed for the Battle of the Atlantic and the warships in many other theatres of battle? Or were there some other factors that made it seem worthwhile? Our article mentions the continuation of the convoys being increasingly for symbolic reasons and at Stalin's insistence, but was that all? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're shipping a truck from the U.S. Eastern Seaboard to Russia, then to send it through Iran, the cargo ship carrying it has to go all the way around Africa, and the truck has to be unloaded and put on a train for several hundred miles before it ever even gets to Russia. To send it through Vladivostok means that it has to travel by train across the U.S. to the west coast before being loaded on a ship, and then transit through choke points highly vulnerable to Japanese naval attack -- and that route would have violated the implicit Japanese-Soviet truce. AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Does doubling (tripling) the length of the journey from the USA mean that it instead becomes worth the risk of the truck (and the ship transporting it) ending up at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean? I'm not sure I understand your second point - Soviet ships were not vulnerable to Japanese naval attack until a state of war existed, and the Soviets importing supplies for their own use would not seem an act of aggression against Japan. Not all of the supplies would've originated on the U.S. eastern seaboard anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the Suez canal? 71.141.88.54 (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Suez route wasn't a practical option prior to the invasion of the Italian mainland. This is an interesting question though. I'm sure that the limitations of the trans-Siberian railway may have been a factor, but I wonder if one reason for keeping the convoys running was to tie up a significant part of German resources - the logistics of maintaining anti-convoy operations may have been a real drain on manpower etc that could otherwise have been better used elsewhere. Much the same thing has been said about the allied bomber campaign - it wasn't the direct military effect that mattered, so much as the consequences for German military resource allocation. Someone (possibly Stalin) described WWII as a 'battle of factories', and in such circumstances where you fight battles is less significant than the effect such battles have on your enemy's ability to continue the fight elsewhere. It probably isn't much comfort to some poor sailor facing U-Boats off northern Norway to realise that he is there in order to divert enemy resources from Kursk or Rome, and that whether he actually gets through is of secondary importance, but war is like that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Russia's life-saver: lend-lease aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II By Albert Loren Weeks (available in part in Google Books) gives comparative statistics for the various routes used: 8.4 Mt to Soviet Far East (Vladivostok, Nikolayevsk-on-Amur, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky), 4.2 Mt via Iran, 4 Mt to NW Russia via north atlantic (Murmansk, Archangel, Severodvinsk), 0.7 Mt to Black Sea (via Mediterranean), 0.4 Mt via Arctic Ocean (I think this means westward from CONUS to Archangel in the summer). The same source says most liberty ships were US registered, but for those that were Soviet this article says the Japanese did not always respect their neutrality. The trouble with putting more to Vladivostok is the Trans-sib - it's a double track most of the way with no alternate (so a problem halts everyone), with antiquated signalling and horrible weather, and the only land conduit for internal traffic (minerals, coal, wood) from eastern and central siberia. Plus such a long route requires many times as much rolling stock to properly service it. 87.112.36.212 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Baikal Amur Mainline notes the Soviets' fevered attempts later in the war to built this alternate to the eastern transsib, picking up the efforts of Bamlag and Amurlag the decade before. 87.112.36.212 (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A Liberty ship had a capacity of about 10000 tons DWT. It could carry e.g. 440 light tanks or 2800 jeeps, with a crew of around 40 people. A standard freight car can carry maybe 20 tons. So you need several 100 train car loads to move the load of one ship. Bringing that over a long-distance train connection through very undeveloped territory is very hard. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to everyone for the thoughtful answers to my question. I think my view of the situation was confused by my Anglocentric background. The Arctic Convoys are (rightly) famous, in part due to books like HMS Ulysses, but I was totally unaware of the massive volume of Lend Lease supplies that reached the USSR via Vladivostock and the trans-Siberian railway - as much as the Arctic route and the Iranian corridor put together. I might try to find the time to add these comparative figures to the relevant articles. I do appreciate how a land corridor and working railway was not the immediate solution to a problem - the Americans requisitioning every single railway locomotive of a particular capability in the USA, just to service the Iranian corridor, is pretty telling as to how difficult this could be, especially since the locomotives themselves would then have to be shipped out there too.

Andy has a point about the conflict-in-being - almost a version of fleet-in-being really. Stalin complained a great deal about the Western Allies' lateness in opening a second front by landing at Normandy, and significant efforts made to push convoys through the Arctic route may have partly compensated for that. Germany did use almost all of her small surface fleet in threatening the Arctic Convoys, although maybe they couldn't have operated anywhere else effectively anyway, given the earlier sinkings of the Bismarck and the Graf Spee by the Royal Navy. Equally, RAF, RN and Fleet Air Arm all used a fair proportion of their strength in dealing with the Tirpitz. It's related to this that, although 58 merchant ships sunk is a horrific toll, Germany also lost 30 U-boats in the process.

In the end this risks being a "what if?" history question (the hundreds of U-boats participated in the Atlantic theatre instead, the Stukas participated on the Eastern Front instead, the Royal Navy warships and all the merchant ships were used elsewhere too), but it does make clearer to me the balances made between the different methods of supplying the USSR. It must have been a great relief to the Soviets in 1945 when the trains moving back from west to east were no longer empty but instead carried their voluminous armies for the Invasion of Manchuria. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a 'what if' question, but one might well expect the Allies to have asked the same question at the time - there may even be records of such discussions, though I'll leave it to those more familiar with military history to suggest where. Following up on the question of Arctic convoys tying up the German surface fleet, it is perhaps possible they also helped divert part of the U-Boat fleet from the Atlantic convoys too - of particular significance as the concentration of forces ('wolf packs') became more necessary in anti-convoy operations. This is all speculation though, and it would be nice to know what the thinking at the time was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Romantic movies with non-stereotypical portrayal of scientists

Are there any romantic movies with non-stereotypical portrayal of scientists? I just discussed this with a Physics major friend and we both can't recall any. Just curious. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the Indiana Jones movies might be 'non-stereotypical', but Indy is hardly your typical archaeologist (he shaves, for a start). If you want to see scientists portrayed as more rounded characters, you are probably better off looking at TV series - even CSI and its spin-offs seems to make the scientists vaguely human - though it doesn't do much for an accurate representation of forensic science. Sadly, the typical Hollywood blockbuster has little time for character development, and male characters in 'romantic' movies are usually portrayed as socially inept, rather than technically proficient. Stereotypes make the script-writing simpler. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it depends on which clichés or stereotypes Lenticel is thinking about too. It could be argued that Indiana Jones is a very stereotypical Adventurer Archaelogist. ---Sluzzelin talk

Yes, that stereotype goes back at least as far as Professor Challenger (don't you love the name ?), in The Lost World, published in 1912. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Something the Lord Made, although they are more doctors/inventors, than scientists, and romance is only a small portion of the movie. You might also consider non-fiction, such as the portrayal of scientists couples like Marie and Pierre Curie, or Marie-Anne and Antoine Lavoisier, or this biography on Albert Einstein and his first wife: Mileva Maric: [1]. StuRat (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Archaelogists aren't scientists.
Sleigh (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Our archaeology article disagrees with you: "Because archaeology employs a wide range of different procedures, it can be considered to be both a science and a humanity". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Archaelogists don't use the scientific method so they aren't scientists.
Sleigh (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think archaeologists don't use the scientific method? —Angr (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly because they don't conduct experiments, but then neither do paleontologists or cosmologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colapeninsula (talk • contribs) 12:38, 2 March 2011

They don't conduct experiments, but they can still test their hypotheses, e.g. by acquiring additional data. —Angr (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Proof, possibly? Although granted, I don't remember the movie well enough to be able to say with certainty if it fits the romantic movie criterion. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the question means by "romantic movie" - one featuring a love affair? A romantic comedy? One full of adventure and swashbuckling, like Arthurian Romance/Romance (genre)? Or something following that classic Romantic text Frankenstein?

Sean Penn's portrayal of a mathematician in 21 Grams isn't very traditional, and it's certainly a film about relationships including romantic relationships. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Young Frankenstein. 92.15.8.168 (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A Beautiful Mind (film)? --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Weird Science's depiction of the lead "scientists" definitely isn't stereotypical!!! --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can count mathematicians as scientists, I would go with Goodwill Hunting. Googlemeister (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a reason the words "Good" and "Will" were separated in the title of Good Will Hunting - Matt Damon's character was named Will Hunting. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Solaris is (among other things) a love story between two scientists, and the fact that they're orbiting an alien planet and one of them is dead goes some way toward avoiding stereotypes, so there's one film for you – two really, since there's also the Tarkovsky original. Another way to escape the usual image of the scientist would be to look among historicals. In Angels & Insects the hero is a Victorian naturalist, and in the Patrice Leconte film Ridicule the heroine is an 18th century Frenchwoman given to conducting experiments in physics. --Antiquary (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Creation, about the Darwins? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... the examples here are interesting especially the real life ones such as the Curies and Lavoisier. Well it would be interesting if somebody would do a romantic comedy about scientists.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple more: Splice, a horror about two geneticists in a romantic relationship that comes under strain as they produce freakish creatures. Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley play the leads, wear cool clothes, listen to various critically-acclaimed rock music such as Holy Fuck, and rebel against their corporate masters. Also sort of romantic is Jeff Goldblum in The Fly (1986 film). Less convincing: Keanu Reeves as a motorbike-riding physicist in action movie Chain Reaction (film). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Long time since I saw it, but Altered States might qualify. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Local Hero was pretty romantic and had a (female) marine biologist, IIRC. Until the End of the World had some scientist characters, and a nerd like me might find it romantic, but perhaps it's not a "date movie", if that's what you're looking for. Roxanne was fluff but had a female astronomer or some such. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agora (2009) is a historical drama film centred on Hypatia, "a female mathematician, philosopher and astronomer in 4th century Roman Egypt who investigates the flaws of the geocentric Ptolemaic system and the heliocentric model that challenges it." The writers inserted some spurious romantic interest to make a block-buster biopic style of film. "Surrounded by religious turmoil and social unrest, Hypatia struggles to save the knowledge of classical antiquity from destruction." Directed by Alejandro Amenábar, starring Rachel Weisz, with love interests, of a sort, from Max Minghella and Oscar Isaac. "The story uses historical fiction to highlight the relationship between religion and science amidst the decline of Greco-Roman polytheism and the Christianization of the Roman empire." BrainyBabe (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How much of the Fairtrade premium makes it back to the growers

And why is this information apparently so hard to find? On the Fairtrade article there is one example which the Economist found which was 10%, but surely there is some broader data than that? 130.88.162.13 (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many different "fair trade" organizations and certification authorities. Each can set their own rules on what they consider "fair", and it will vary by product and market. --Sean 14:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough (no pun intended), but surely we can find an average, or at least a national average? And isn't there one official FairTrade, at least per country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.162.13 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering this too, since it seems to me I should be able to deduct this amount from my taxes as a charitable contribution. Ariel. (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No you can't, since the growers are not a registered charity. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As to who certifies Fairtrade products, our articles FLO International, Fairtrade Mark, and FLO-CERT should help. In the UK the Fairtrade Foundation is the relevant body. DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The FAQs on the Fairtrade Foundation website include a link to a document with this eplanation:

What is the Fairtrade premium, and can I be sure it goes back to the producers in developing countries?

Every time you buy a product carrying the FAIRTRADE Mark, the producer organisations, will have received the guaranteed minimum Fairtrade price plus an additional social premium to invest in their communities for the future. These payments are laid down in the published Fairtrade product standards and are not dependent on the retail price of the final finished product – in fact retail price fixing is against EU and UK competition law. To ensure they get the better deal, the farmers’ organisations are paid at the point when they are selling their produce for export – this ensures they receive the stable and agreed price promised to them. The international Fairtrade system monitors and audits the product supply chains to make sure the producers are genuinely getting the money, and that the farmers, workers and their local communities are benefiting from the investment of the premiums. You can find lots of examples on our website of how premiums are being spent by producers involved in the Fairtrade system

DuncanHill (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This chart compares Fairtrade prices for cocoa with open market prices, and in the notes at the bottom says the Fairtrde price is made up of the Fairtrade minimum price of $2000 a tonne plus the Fairtrade premium of $200 a tonne. Where the New York price is $2000 a tonne or more, then the Fairtrade price is New York price plus the $200 a tonne premium. There are links to some more charts here. DuncanHill (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Skip bombing

Why didn't skip bombing (amazing photo in that article) result in all the bombs detonating as soon as they hit the water? The article seems to mention this happened sometimes, but I'm surprised that it didn't happen all of the time. Our articles bomb, aerial bomb, gravity bomb, and detonator are all silent on what caused the detonation of a WW2 gravity bomb; I had assumed it was "contact with something hard". Comet Tuttle (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The skip bombing article says they were set off by a time delay fuse.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppose the article fuze deals with those aspects of how a bomb works.--Aspro (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally missed that on my reading. Thanks, Shantavira. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

And contact fuse is what causes the detonation of an aerially dropped bomb. I'll add mentions of it to a couple of the articles above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting that the design of such fuses could still have significant failings (although for a variety of reasons) nearly forty years later; the majority of the bombs dropped by the Argentine forces in the Battle of San Carlos (1982) failed to explode. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That was because the Argentine pilots dropped their bombs at too low an altitude for the bombs to arm themselves - a little spinner on the front has to turn a certain number of times before the fuse is activated. The pilots must have known that, but they also knew that flying at the correct hight would make them more vulnerable to the ships' anti-aircraft weapons; so they traded away the likelyhood of the bombs going off for a marginally safer ride. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The bombs weren't adjustable for the planned height? Ironically enough, most of the bombs that failed to explode were 1000lb British-built versions. Wait, wouldn't skip-bombing involve releasing the weapons from a similarly low height? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making this up - it's well documented. I refer you to Argentine air forces in the Falklands War#Armament; "Thirteen unexploded bombs hit British ships without detonating as they were dropped from very low altitude and there was insufficient time in the air for them to arm themselves." "Many of the Argentine bombs in the campaign failed to explode when they hit the British ships. The failure was probably caused by releasing the bombs from such a low altitude that the fuse-arming-delay time exceeded the weapon’s short time of flight; thus the fuse failed to arm and the bombs did not detonate." Also Sharky Ward's book Sea Harrier Over the Falklands. There were quite a number of US Mark 82 bombs too; "HMS Ardent..was hit by nine 500lb bombs". Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My question was serious, not a suggestion that you're making anything up. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

See also proximity fuze. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the jewish butchery (Kosher slaughter) cruel?

Some people told me the killing by itself isn't causing pain to the animal, but I have heard that some countries want to make it illegal. I'd like to know if there was a true scientific research, and what was its result. Thanks in advance! [There are probably grammar mistakes; sorry about that :)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.106.79 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Shechita is the article on Jewish ritual slaughter, though it doesn't offer any information on whether the animal feels pain, or on controversies around the practice. Legal aspects of ritual slaughter has some info on shechita. It is banned in Switzerland, Sweden, and some other countries. It's a murky issue because opposition to various forms of ritual slaughter (not confined to one religion) is often proposed from anti-semitism, anti-islamic feeling, or even opposition to Santeria, rather than concern for animal rights. PETA claim it is cruel[2], but you may say "they would". --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

For additional context, PETA also believes all pet ownership is cruel and should be avoided. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Professor Schulze and Dr. Hazem of the University of Hanover have done some comparative studies . They employed EEG to determine brain changes. The section Scientific data on traditional slaughter, religious slaughter and religious slaughter with preliminary stunning starts on page 16. Benefits of religious slaughter without stunning for animals and humans. There may be follow up on google scholar but I haven't looked. --Aspro (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Temple Grandin is a leading figure in animal ethics, and specifically an authority on humane animal slaughter. See her web page here [3] for detailed discussion of Shechita and Halal ritual slaughter. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that captive bolts fail to stun the animal about 5% to 10% of the time[4]. And when it does fail the animal experiences severe pain. Ariel. (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all very much! So are there no jewish\islamic communities in Sweden? And why don't anyone inform them about Hanen's research? (if the shechita is the same as the islamic slaughter, and the islamic one isn't causing much pain, then...) 12:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.109.76 (talk)

---

By the way, Jewish animal-slaughtering is almost exactly the same as Muslim animal-slaughtering and vice-versa... AnonMoos (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not true. Jewish shechita is far more stringent. Ariel. (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant in the methods by which the animal is killed (as opposed to accompanying rituals). AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

So was I. It's actually Muslim animal slaughtering that has more stringent accompanying rituals (they require a blessing, Jewish does not). Jewish slaughter has far more restrictions and exact details on the actual slaughter. Both are done with a sharp knife, so in that regard you are correct, but Jewish slaughter prescribes exact details on the manufacture of the knife, the cutting motion, the location of the cut, how the animal is held, etc. Ariel. (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

De facto UVF leader

Who was the de facto Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) leader while Gusty Spence was in prison? I know it had a Brigade Staff, but somebody had to have been in charge during Spence's absence. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As Spence wasn't in solitary confinement, there's no reason he couldn't have been in full charge of the UVF while in prison. Indeed, his article claims that he became commander while in the Maze. Warofdreams talk 17:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been hard to smuggle out orders from the Maze, that's for sure. I wonder who his second in command was though, the man who made sure his orders were carried out?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

recent movements in middle east and the role of western countries

Hi, I live in Iran and there are a lot of anti-western comments about the recent democratic movements in middle east and north of africa. they say that western countries are causing these "conflicts" to sell weapons in order to be able to stand against the recent economic crisis. they even claimed that Britain has sold weapons to libia last year. I personaly don't believe these claims, but since I see no other alternative explanation for this BIG SUDDEN changes, I also think I'm being brainwashed. so how much are these claims true( or false)?--Irrational number (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"They" are often wrong. For one thing, these changes are not very sudden. They have been building for many years, bubbling under the surface. The events in Tunisia was the spark, but hardly the cause. 17:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Government propaganda is often constructed on a foundation of a few out-of-context truths.EU arms exports to Libya: who armed Gaddafi?--Aspro (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is talking about arming Gaddafi, which would tend to suppress revolution, while Iran presumably is claiming that Western nations have armed the rebels, thus promoting revolution. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand the OP, they are suggesting that "the West" is supporting the insurgency, presumably to sell weapons to both sides. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, but the article Aspro linked to doesn't mention that, only selling weapons to Gaddafi. StuRat (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(E/C) I don't think the revolutionaries (whoever they are, exactly) have millions of Euros to spare. Nor do I see how successful removal of a dictator promotes future weapon sales. Perhaps the theory is that we're supposed to have sold weapons to both sides, carefully keeping a balance to prolong the conflict so that we can continue selling weapons. The rapid toppling of various regimes would therefore be explained by, um ... the revolutionaries being brave, noble and fearless and secret admirers of the Iranian government, according the the Iranian government and so naturally winning anyway. The other other thing the various EU countries behind this evil scheme failed to foresee was that sanctions against Libya, banning weapons sales, would be agreed by, um, the EU. 81.131.24.232 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that the great majority of those UK sales, in terms of price (€26.1m out of €27.2m), are sales of "electronic equipment". Not sure what to understand that as. 81.131.24.232 (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The spark appears to have been the Wikileaks revelations, which included some rather damaging facts about many Arab nations, leading to protests and then revolution. Additionally, the Internet has now spread to such a degree that repressive regimes are finding it difficult to control the movement of information, such as when and where the next protest was scheduled, which is vital to repression of revolution.

Also note that these revolutions aren't necessarily democratic or in the interest of Western nations. In Egypt, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an Islamic fundamentalist organization, stands to gain power, and there is concern that Egypt may no longer honor it's peace treaty with Israel.

Finally, the idea that the West could solve it's economic problems by selling weapons is rather absurd, as that would be several orders of magnitude below the amount of cash needed to make a difference. They might as well argue that the way to solve their economic problems is by selling off potted plants in government offices. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph is true. But the third is a non sequitur. Every little bit helps. And arms exports are, in general, not insignificant, if only for the reason that every petty dictator buys them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Put another way, making a million dollars in weapons sales by causing a revolution, then losing a billion dollars due to higher gasoline prices, and maybe a trillion dollars if it becomes necessary to invade some of those countries to restore a stable government, makes zero sense as a strategy. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The internet might not have helped as much as we would like to think it did - see here: Internet Revolution? Mubrarak switched Egypt's internet off, which seemed to have the effect of making more people get angry and leave the comfort of their homes. (It might have a similar effect on me.) 81.131.24.232 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

They just waited too long. Had they cut it off before the movement started, they would have had more success. StuRat (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that these claims are silly. The USA has consistently preferred "low oil prices" to "representative government" or "human rights" for fifty years in its dealings with oil-exporting nations, as has been seen by its support over the decades of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, and many other examples. Revolts or revolutions that endanger US-friendly autocrats will, at minimum, cause a jump in oil prices due to uncertainty (this has already occurred) and, at maximum, could cause a new government to nationalize oil production, or even embargo oil sales to the US (yes, that damages both countries, but it's a possibility). Even if the US's clandestine services were as powerful and competent as they would need to be to cause multiple revolts and revolutions in the region, this could be very harmful to the US economy; so the claims you cite seem to defy reason. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Israel gave up the occupied Sinai Peninsula in exchange for Egypt's recognition and statement of it's right to exist. If those are withdrawn, should Israel retake the Sinai ? This could particularly be an issue if an Islamic Brotherhood led government decides to arm terrorists in the Gaza Strip, which borders the Sinai. StuRat (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Egypt possibly not honouring its treaty (which doesn't seem too likely, commentators seem to be suggesting) or an Islamist party gaining more power makes it less democratic. It seems hypocritical to promote democracy on the one hand but then denounce the resulting, democratically elected regime just because it disagrees with your standpoint.

If the people of Egypt democratically decided they wanted to stop being friends with Israel (again, this does not seem to be the case), then that is part of their democratic right, and the decision is no less democratic just because Israel doesn't like it. In fact, if this were to happen (despite the slim chance of it actually happening) then Israel has no-one to blame but itself for antagonising everyone except for tyrants like Mubarak. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Being democratically elected is no guarantee that a government will be good, and no reason why Western nations should be friendly with them. After all, the Nazi Party came to power as a result of democratic elections, under the Weimar Republic of Germany. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

An Islamic state where the people have freedom? Are there any in existence at present? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bosnia. It has its problems, but it's a free country with a democratically elected government. Also, Indonesia. But then, those probably don't count in your eyes since they fail to reinforce your stereotypes. TomorrowTime (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Are Bosnia and Indonesia actually Islamic states? They're not mentioned in our article on the topic. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those nations are described as "Islamic Republic" in their articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, a government where laws come from God seems fundamentally incompatible to one where they come from the people. In the first case a group of religious "experts" would be used to determine the "will of God", (which, of course, turns out to be whatever improves the lives of the "experts") and what the people want is entirely irrelevant, if in conflicts. This seems to be how Iran operates, with a few symbolic and/or rigged elections tossed in, to appear democratic. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, my post above was a response to StuRat's post above: Also note that these revolutions aren't necessarily democratic or in the interest of Western nations. In Egypt, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an Islamic fundamentalist organization, stands to gain power, and there is concern that Egypt may no longer honor it's peace treaty with Israel.

My point was that parts of this paragraph reads like a non-sequitur. "Not being friendly to Israel" and "Islamist political figures being elected" do not mean "undemocratic". There are many reasons why a people may choose not to be friendly to Israel, such as Israel's treatment of Palestinians, its hostile attitude towards its neighbours (justified or not), its secret nuclear weapons program, and historical territorial disputes. Indeed, just as western nations are (perhaps justifiably) alarmed at the prospect of an Islamist government in Egypt, it wouldn't be surprising that people find the influence of Judaism on Israeli law and government to be alarming too. However, none of these make Israel any less of a democracy than it is, and similarly, corresponding attributes in a future Egyptian government would not make it any less democratic than it is.

As to Sinai, Israel illegally occupied Sinai, and if Egypt traded recognition for the territory, that is only because it had no practical way of enforcing its legal right to the territory. It's like offering a reward "no questions asked" for the return of a wallet - you are not doing it because you are legally obliged to pay a thief to retrieve your wallet, you are doing it out of practical necessity because the contents of the wallet are more important to you than the money and you have no realistic way of finding and prosecuting the thief. If the thief returned the wallet but you withheld payment of the reward, they can't sue you for it since they had no title to the wallet in the first place. Likewise, for Israel to re-occupy Sinai would be just as illegal as the first instance, even if Egypt were to withdraw its side of the bargain. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Israel occupied the Sinai as the result of winning the Six Day War. I'm not sure of the logic of saying that it's illegal for a victor to occupy lands won in battle, especially before a peace treaty is signed. Are all victors obligated to immediately return all lands won, as soon as fighting stops, even without a peace treaty ? Was it illegal for the US to occupy Japan following WW2, and would it have been, had no peace treaty been signed ? StuRat (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

StuRat, you seem to be referring to the pre-WWII notion of conquest and acquisition of territory by conquest. The right of acquisition of territory by conquest was extremely curtailed to the point that some legal scholars regard it as completely abolished following World War II by developments in international law, such as the UN Charter. No state has validly acquired territory after World War II by war or by conquest. If, as a reuslt of armed conflict or military action, a state occupies the territory of another, then it is subject to various obligations which are imposed on it by war law and international humanitarian law. For example, the US may attempt to justify its occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan as temporary and necessary to ensure peace and security in those countries, including the removal of threats to security of the US arising from those territories. Likewise, Israel may attempt to justify its occupation of say the Golan Heights as temporary and necessary to ensure peace and security there and to ensure against threats to the peace and security of Israel.

However, for Israel to re-occupy the Sinai Peninsula on the basis of an Egyptian withdraw of diplomatic recognition alone would be a far stretch. Withdrawal of diplomatic recognition, however provocative it may be in a diploamtic sense, is not a use of force and does not, per se, threaten Israel's peace, security and territorial integrity. Of course, the situation would be different if, for example, the new Egypt started launching rocket attacks at Israel, but that's not the situation you have been advocating.

To further clarify, a country has no right to hold territory purely as a "bargaining chip" awaiting the signing of a peace treaty. Even if no peace treaty is signed, if there is no justification for continued occupation of the territory, the occupying force has to withdraw. The reason occupation often ends with the signing of a treaty is becuase the peace treaty is usually a definitive sign that there is no further threat from the occupied state (or the state of which the occupied territory is a part).

For further reference, I think United Nations Charter, and the articles on Chapter VI and VII linked from that article may be of interest to you. Also see right of conquest (the former concept), international humanitarian law, military occupation and laws of war. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about "right of conquest", I'm talking about occupying a territory until there is no longer a threat. I specifically mentioned the likely nature of the threat from a Muslim Brotherhood-run Egypt, that they might then arm the terrorists in the Gaza Strip. Under such circumstances, reoccupying at least a portion of the Sinai would seem to be justified. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't occupy a country just because you don't like their leader or they don't like you. Unless the new Egypt actually started attacking Israel (or, in the views of a minority of commentators, at least are so close to actually attacking Israel that it would be regarded as imminent and unavoidable), then you can attack them. Withdrawal of diplomatic recognition definitely does not come even close to this criterion. Selling arms to the people of the Gaza Strip to defend themselves against illegal use of force by the Israeli government would still fall far short. Even selling arms, supporting, giving cash to actual terrorists in the Gaza Strip and encouraging them to commit acts of terrorism against an Israel who is not illegally using force against the Palestinians (which I doubt is likely to be the case in the foreseeable future) -- even that would fall short of the justification for Israel to invade and occupy parts of Egypt, unless these terrorists were actually under the effective command and control of the Egyptian government so as to amount to a use of force by the government of Egypt. Long story short, you can't just go and occupy Egypt unless they have actually started attacking you, whether with their own forces or by agents who act as if they were their forces. I know you would find it disappointing that Israel can't just go around invading its neighbours because they don't like it, but I'm not making this up - please read the articles linked to above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You keep making straw man arguments like "You can't occupy a country just because you don't like their leader or they don't like you". I've never said anything of the sort, so stop with that nonsense. Your standard for a casus belli would seem to have prevented the US/NATO attack on Afghanistan following the 9-11 attacks, launched from there, since you seem to think that helping out terrorists is never an act of war. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Israel has the right to protect itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No one has the right to use violence to protect themselves. —Angr (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do. In the US it's called Right of self-defense (on a personal level). On a national level, defense is recognized by the UN Charter and international law as a legitimate casus belli. WikiDao ☯ 14:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant morally, not legally. Not everything that's legal is moral. —Angr (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

So you meant "no one should have the right...". ;) WikiDao ☯ 15:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Angr, that's your opinion, and it's at odds with the opinions of most people in the world and most of the world's religions. In the case of Christianity, the Old Testament firmly supports the right to use violence, while the teachings of Jesus seem to be pacifistic. With a few exceptions, like the Quakers, most Christian sects have chosen to follow Old Testament teachings, in this regard (although I do question the use of the term "Christian", by those who ignore the teachings of Christ, but that seems to be the popular usage of the term, nonetheless). StuRat (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's my opinion, just as what you, Bugs, and PalaceGuard said before me are your respective opinions. I'll take your word for it the the OT "firmly supports the right to use violence", as I don't know everything written in the OT. I thought, though, that it was merely full of examples of people doing so - just as it's full of examples of people being less than exemplary role models (David ensuring Uriah's death so he could marry Bathsheba, Noah getting drunk and naked, etc.). —Angr (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous examples in the Old Testament where God commands people to use violence. Here is one example: "And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males." - Numbers 31:7. StuRat (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

See Third Wave Democracy and The Third Wave of Democratization. You might also read Sultanistic Regimes by Juan Linz. Iran and Iraq are discussed in that book as well as several other authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, both historical and current. Experts have thoroughly discussed the matter already. Gx872op (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Series of Shinkansen

Which series of shinkansen is this picture? --Posted on 18:20 on 2 March in 2011 (UTC) by Highspeedrailguy 18:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an E3, see also the category on Commons. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing special

Discussion closed

Should everyone in the United Kingdom leave their country so the original inhabitants who were ran off or killed,have their homeland back?76.178.113.225 (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Whaaaaaaat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Although there is a certain sense of justice in the repatriation idea, this is not the way that any country or people resolves the ethical consequences of "unjust" military invasion from decades or centuries ago. The typical way it's resolved is by the victor saying "Too bad". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC) (ec) Depending on your definition of "original", the descendants of many of the original inhabitants are in the United Kingdom, and it seems quite redundant to deport all of these people and then re-import them again. As for any original inhabitants who were killed - it's a terrible thing but we don't have any reliable way of resurrecting them so there are some technical difficulties with them "having their homeland back". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC) We're still here, you know. We're quite a tolerant lot really. If you keep your head down and put up with the newbies, it really does get better! (From someone who has traced their ancestry back beyond the Norman Conquest, you know)--TammyMoet (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC) The UK was first inhabited by humans over 10,000 years ago. All the original inhabitants are long dead... If you mean the descendants of the original inhabitants, then we're already here. Most (if not all) people in the UK today will have some ancestors that were in the UK 10,000 years ago. Either that, or nobody alive today has such ancestors (if the original inhabitants all died out). See Identical ancestors point for more information.. --Tango (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC) We could also talk about cultures, rather than genes, and suggest reviving old cultures which have been unjustly shoved aside ... apart from the fact that these cultures, like the genes, were mostly assimilated rather than destroyed (despite the elitism of the Normans), and that nobody knows what the most ancient ones were like anyway (who were the Picts, really? Would the most original inhabitants have had a culture a bit like the Sami people?), and that the upshot would just be that we gave undeserved privileges to neopagans. 81.131.24.232 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Something is fishy about the last paragraph of your Identical ancestors point article. Don't genes get mixed up so that you can pass on more than 2^23 different possible offspring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.96.10 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I am closing this discussion as it comes from the same user who keeps asking pointed questions about "Native Asian Americans" against whom he seems to have a grudge. The reference desk is not the place to air one's grievances. —Angr (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources for closing of Air France ticket office

Hi! I found on a forum thread that an Air France ticket office in New York City closed after December 31, 2010: http://nycaviation.com/forum/threads/38631-Air-France-Closing-NY-Ticket-Office-new-A380-Service

But I need a reliable source. I tried searching the Air France website and news.google.com and couldn't find any hits. Would anyone know a good place to look for RSes about ticket offices closing? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

March 3

Americans Accepting Foreign Honors

The United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 9) states:

"9.8 No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

Aside from that narrow restriction, I know of no other law regarding the acceptance of say, a Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth (via her government or not). Many Americans have been awarded and have accepted Knighthoods, including Alan Greenspan, Norman Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Caspar Weinberger, and a whole slew of American entertainers. And while it’s a widely held view that they may not use the title “Sir” in their names, I know of no law which prohibits it.

So my question is why do most people (including journalists) believe that say, Colin Powell cannot style himself "Sir Colin Powell?" —Preceding Old Rogue comment added by 173.53.170.111 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

He can call himself whatever he likes, but it's not recognized in the USA. If those folks were knighted while still in office, it's theoretically against the law, for the obvious reason that it could be a bribe attempt. So from the legal standpoint, accepting a knighthood has about as much significance as if the queen sent the guy a postcard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The journalists are correct. British knighthoods held by those who are not subjects of the Crown are honorary and do not carry the title "Sir". This is because of the honorary nature of the knighthood, not any matter of American law. See Debrett's on the matter. Marnanel (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't stop Powell from calling himself "Sir Colin" if he wanted to. In America, you can call yourself pretty much whatever you want. That doesn't mean the press has to buy into it. And Powell, being an honorable sort, wouldn't do something like that anyway. But by making it only "honorary", it is indeed roughly the value of getting a postcard from the queen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. There's nothing stopping him calling himself "Sir Colin", and there's nothing stopping me calling myself "Sir Marnanel", and it's about as meaningless either way. The point is that he has no reason he should be called "Sir Colin", since he doesn't hold a substantive knighthood. Marnanel (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's spot on. The only American I've ever heard of who is sometimes seriously referred to as "Sir" by virtue of a knighthood from a foreign power is the conductor Gilbert Levine. Despite being Jewish, he is the recipient of 2 papal knighthoods. Pope Benedict XVI in his wisdom called him "Sir Gilbert Levine", although such a title has never been promulgated for any papal knighthood. This was either a mistake or a joke - but for some people, the pope's word is law and they duly insist on calling Levine "Sir Gilbert". His talk page is pretty much all about this issue. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It must be very frustrating to make jokes as the Pope, since everyone apparently takes it literally. I've heard a couple of accounts of the current Pope saying something that was clearly a joke (the most obvious being a comment about dogs in the crowd when he visited the UK being "Catholic dogs"), and there's always been some people regarding the stories terribly solemnly. 86.163.4.134 (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone tell Sir Allen Stanford. We need a picture of him too. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but (the ex-Sir) Allen Stanford is a citizen of Antigua and Barbuda and therefore a subject of Her Majesty who is the Queen of that country. Makes all the difference. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, it did when he was a knight. But now that it's been revoked, he's back to Mr Stanford, everywhere. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Embassy/Consulate in Salzburg, Austria

Reading through Nazi denaturalization cases, I found out that in the 1940s and 1950s, the US had an embassy/consulate in Salzburg, Austria, but that embassy/consulate has apparently closed. What happened to it? 98.116.108.191 (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Salzburg Consulate General closed in 1993, a Consular Agent was put in place which remained until the Summer of 2005 and was closed as part of cost cutting measures, all consular services transferred to U.S. Embassy, Vienna. Nanonic (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

US Court outcomes

Is there a way to track US court outcomes? I'm trying to find out how this lawsuit ended. It was filed in the Manhattan Federal Court, if that helps. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you know the name of either party's lawyer, a short telephone call might reveal the answer. Lexis and Westlaw, commercial legal research programs, will have the status of the case. PACER will have the same results plus an indication as to whether the case was settled. (I think). These programs are very expensive. Often law schools allow nonstudents who are acting pro se to use their library for short periods. My first step would be to call a party or lawyers.75Janice (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)75Janice.

Here's a link for PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records), which is a service of the U.S. Courts. Depending on the documents you seek, the cost may not be all that high:

Access to court documents costs $0.08 per page. The cost to access a single document is capped at $2.40, the equivalent of 30 pages. The cap does not apply to name searches, reports that are not case-specific and transcripts of federal court proceedings.

By Judicial Conference policy, if your usage does not exceed $10 in a quarter, fees for that quarter are waived, effectively making the service free for most users.

PACER is available to anyone who registers at the site. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Lexis, there has been no court opinion for the case. Either the litigation is ongoing or it has been settled. Given that the description from the article indicates a voluntary withdrawl of the albums from the market, this may have been a settlement as the allegedly infringing material is no longer on the market. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pacer is the way to go on cases like this, since Westlaw and Lexis only have reported opinions. The case was dismissed with prejudice, by agreement of the parties, on October 12, 2007. If you want to go on Pacer yourself and see the court documents, the case is 1:07-cv-03067-RMB, The Royalty Network Inc. v. Columbia Recording Corporation et al, and you can access that particular court (the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York) at https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/ShowIndex.pl. John M Baker (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! To clarify, do I cite as follows? And what do I enter in the "court" parameter? {{cite court |litigants=The Royalty Network Inc. v. Columbia Recording Corporation et al |court= |date=October 12, 2007 |url=https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/ShowIndex.pl}} Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you the bluebook citation, and maybe someone else can convert that to an appropriate Wikipedia format: Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), Royalty Network v. Columbia Recording Corp., Case No. 07 Civ. 3067 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2007). John M Baker (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

typeface or not

I've seen Silver Streak. The opening and closing credits featured certain font styles. I asked someone on YouTube about them. The user told me the font styles were Serpentine Series. What I'm trying to ask is are there really Serpentine Series font styles? Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Just Google "serpentine font" and you will find plenty.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Identifont is a good site for identifying fonts and typefaces - here is Serpentine. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, I was trying to find Serpentine font stencils as well, along with Cooper Black font stencils and Peignot font stencils. Could somebody point me in the right direction, please? Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent educated Man fears losing connection with teenage Son & seeks scientific approach

I am not apposed to opinions but feel science holds the help I need. My Son lives almost 2 hours away by car. I'm in the process of trying to obtain residency in his school district so we can be together a few days a week. I won't get into Family politics because I don't think this is the proper forum. I will focus on facts. Please allow me a quick introduction before I state what help I'm asking for;

I need my Son to be well for me to be well & happy. My Son is basically well. Well adjusted,an honer student,outgoing,friendly & on his high school football team which is a AAA (triple A) division. We hope to regain our AAAA ranking this next season. (sorry, I like to brag about my Son). We are not able to connect well on the phone. I just started driving out to take him to dinner once a week. I can not afford to do this every week & strongly feel my Son needs more. I'm a self employed contractor & struggling. The area he lives in will be harder. I have calculated my savings & feel I may be able to hang on until he graduates high school in June 2012. I don't mind if this leaves me broke & obviously it will surely yield a difficult beginning to paying for his college. I have a contingency plan for college I won't get into at the moment. I have moved to be closer to him once before & was able to stay 2 years. Now he lives in a more economically challenged area that may surprise me with prosperity. My interest is in investing in my Son not my bank account.

Here is my request for help;

I don't know how to handle negative influences in his life. Significant people to him that love him & care well for him but are not honest. I do not discuss this with him unless he brings it to me. He has only brought it to me a few times. I feel attempting to bring this up with him would be crossing a boundary & put him in the middle of something he doesn't need or deserve. I know I play a part in this but can't see what it is. I am too close to this situation. I have & continue to try & find someone I can talk to who can give me professional scientific help. I have done some reading but need direction.

I'm open to suggestions please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Pinter (talk • contribs) 08:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. You say you need professional scientific help, you may well be right but unfortunately this is not really the place to get such help. I think you really need to contact a professional counsellor or therapist in your local area whom you can talk to about this. Don't just pick the first one you find in the Yellow Pages, contact the state or national association of counsellors (sorry I don't know what exact body that would be, someone else here may know) and find someone reliable and reputable. You may have to pay for their time but such things don't come free. Good luck. --Viennese Waltz 09:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What state, country? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Without straying over the limits here, I can suggest the following:

• get accustomed (and get him accustomed) to using video conferencing over something like Skype, instead of the phone. if you don't have computers, it will be worth the investment of buying him and yourself low-end, video-camera enabled computers and setting up DSL connections (even a $500 iPad would work well for this, if the new ones have cameras). Being able to see the other person's face when you talk should clear up the phone problems - people who don't connect well over the phone are usually suffering from the loss of visual feedback (from facial expressions, body language, etc.). This should help alleviate the distance problems.
  • I'm not convinced this skype suggestion has any value (video, especially crappy, laggy video, doesn't make me feel any closer to the other person), but in any case a yuppie toy like the ipad is not needed for it. A $100 laptop from craigslist with a webcam can do it fine. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not perfect, but if you have trouble with personal interactions over simple audio lines, the visual cues (however crappy) do help. and yeah, any webcam-equipped laptop will work; I'd just never by a $100 laptop, myself. --Ludwigs2 21:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• don't worry too much about *helping* with negative influences. Mostly kids in that age range (I'm assuming teenager) need stable sounding-boards. they can figure out the right thing to do on their own, but they can't necessarily do it in their own head - they need to say it out loud (in that vague teenagerish sort of way), and once they hear themselves say it they'll be able to focus on it better internally. "what's going on?" and "what do you think about that?" type questions are useful to get them to start talking about what's going on in their heads, and then just normal conversation and normal parental love and support are enough. don't worry if they get hoodwinked by dishonest people - learning how to understand and cope with people who are dishonest (with you or with themselves) is a normal part of life for teenagers. Buying into misinformation is sometimes the only way to learn that it is misinformation, and the only thing you can really do to help with that is ask the "do you really think that's true?" type of questions that get them to think it through on their own. --Ludwigs2 17:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps your son just wants a bit of privacy and the chance to begin running his own life. I certainly did when I was around that age, and I know others did too. Apart from you saying that you are both living in economically challenged areas, and that you do not like communicating by phone, you have not said what the problem if any is. 92.24.178.153 (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A two hour drive doesn't seem so bad, to me. Depending on your fuel economy, it might well cost more to move closer than it does to do the long drive, especially if that will result in you driving further to work and other places. However, if you need to do a 4 hour round trip drive, you might want to do more than just dinner when you get there. Make a day of it, maybe do fishing or canoeing or go to a sporting event. I would say that 7 hours together on one day a week is as good as an hour together every day. StuRat (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you all for your suggestions. I live in NY & my Son lives in PA. I do agree spending an entire day with my Son is better than dinner & maybe we will soon. Right now he says he wants to socialize on Saturday & Saturday night & I think he should. He spends much of his free time with his best friend who I like very much. Sometimes they visit with me but now that they drive & date their priorities have shifted. I feel that's a healthy shift. I like the skype idea but don't have high expectations for it. A 4 hour drive is a small price to pay if My Son's needs are met. I may have secured temporary housing in his school district by bartering with another contractor. I may rent a room out & use that income to secure a room to rent in his school district if I can find a level of privacy conducive for to just be. To connect without forcing anything. Someone stated interest in who these negative forces are. I'm trying not to mention anyone. I'm trying to keep this on me. I suspect by now this may be obvious. It seems my x-wife will try & hurt me without considering what it does to our Son. Facts have come out that she is not honest when she speaks to our Son in reference to me. Although this has put a rift in our relationship, my Son & I have been able to mend a lot of the rift these past 2 weeks. I will continue to be a consistent honest force & do a lot of driving. When my Son did touch on some of this I have tried to keep the conversation on me & told him what goes on between me & his Mom is between me & his Mom. He did say "that's what they do, that's what they do". He was referring to an out right lie. I told him he has had the same Mom he has always had & that she loves him very much. We both felt better. Myself & my x-wife were not good at being married but are both good parents. As he grows through college this (I hope)will have less & less significance. I am still looking for a good therapist. Thank you all !

Is this true?

Is this true? If so, in what states? http://www.ratemyfunnypictures.com/index.php/6033/rate-my-valid-stop-signs/ Reticuli88 (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked with SC and IN. In both states, this is complete BS. As I typed this, got a reply from MO. Again, complete BS. So, feel free to run a stop sign and then try to explain to the judge that you saw a picture on the Internet that said you didn't have to stop at the stop sign. I'm sure it will get a good laugh. -- kainaw™ 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, you don't stop at stop signs just because it's "the law." You do so because if people ran stop signs all of the time, we'd have a lot more pointless automobile accidents. People in my neighborhood routinely run a number of stop signs (why, I have no idea) and it creates an incredibly dangerous situation for other drivers, pedestrians, even the people running the stop signs themselves. I'm often tempted to yell (if I were someone who yelled at other cars), "if we were both as dumb as you are, we'd both be dead by now!" after narrowly avoiding one of these yahoos. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not nearly as simple as that. It depends on state and local laws and even private contracts with the police department. There is no easy way to know whether it is legal or not in any individual case.[5] Rmhermen (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was a response to me or not, but I've added a just to qualify what I meant above. I'm not trying to imply there aren't laws... --Mr.98 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As for British Columbia (Canadian road laws are largely the same as US ones), you have to stop at every stop sign, even if they are "fake" (put up by private citizens), even on private property. They, however, can be charged with an offence for putting up fake signs if it's on public property. I'd post a link, but the BC Highways Act is not online.

Also, Traffic Control Persons carry those portable stop signs, and you have to atop for them. I doubt they have that sticker, since the other side of the sign says "slow". Aaronite (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with 98 on this one. If there's a stop sign, there's a good reason it's there, and you should stop. Safety first! It's also worth pointing out that in many residential areas there are no stop signs at all, but the rules of the road compel you to yield to traffic and pedestrians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You have to stop at stop signs because the Federal government has mandated uniform traffic laws as a condition for federal highway money. Alternative laws and signs would result in the loss of millions of dollars. It's in the federal law, and the Supreme Court has decided that this is constitutional. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, 24, you're going to have to cite a source for your claim that you have to stop at stop signs because of the Federal government's arm twisting. All states had stop signs before there was Federal highway money. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You have to stop at stop signs to check this sticker at the back of it. Quest09 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A bit short on references, are we? Try this, from an actual lawyer! Some states specifically include publicly accessible driving areas (but privately owned) as subject to traffic laws, others are less explicit. Here's a case of a guy who got off for a ticket issued for running a stop sign on private property, in Colorado. He had to verify that there was no agreement between the store and the local police department to enforce private signs (there was none), and that the sign was on private property (it was). So it depends. Buddy431 (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to have a familiar ring. I think there was a question a year ago or so, about whether one has to stop at stop signs within privately owned parking lots. And the short answer was, "Yes." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that if you had actually bothered to read the references that I just supplied, the answer is "not always" and "it depends on the circumstances". Buddy431 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Muslim polygamy; more than four wives?

Hello! After having read a little about historical sultans and their harems, I just realised something which made me confused. I have always heard, that a muslim man was allowed to have four wives at the same time. Four, but never more than four. Despite this, however, there was many more than four women in the old harems of the sultans. The harem of the Ottoman sultans contained hundreds of women with whom he had sexual relations and issue. How could he have hundreds of women when a muslim man was not allowed to have more than four wives? Is it because he was not married to them? But that is still confusing. How could he have sexual relations and issue with women without being married to them, when sex outside of marriage was forbidden? How could he have concubines? Does Islam allow concubines, despite the fact that sex outside of marriage is forbidden? And wath is then the difference between a wife and a concubine? Was he simply allowed to break the rules because he was royalty? Can someone explain this contradictions to me? Thank you. --85.226.41.143 (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you eat bacon? Do you shop on the weekend? Do you look at Megan Fox (or Orlando Bloom, depending on gender and orientation ;-) with "unclean feelings"? All over history, people have ignored inconvenient religious strictures left and right, even if they otherwise earnestly believed in their religion. Also, the modern public image of Harems is very much tainted by Victorian romanticism (and Flash Gordon), and the modern public image of Islam is very much tainted by Fox News and the Taliban. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you assuming 85 is Jewish? Googlemeister (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, why? You might argue about the bacon (that was a restriction very conveniently dropped early on), but keeping the Sabbath holy and not committing "adultery" even in spirit are very much Christian demands (see Matthew 5:27-30, where the big J reinforces some of the commandments with a vengeance). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Five points for working the phrase "Fox News" into an answer. Negative ten, though, for neglecting to add, "It's George Bush's fault." Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's good to be the Sultan! ... It is not at all uncommon for people in positions of power to feel that "the rules don't really apply to me"... and if they are powerful enough they get away with it. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd generalize that to the "rules don't really apply to me" rule, engraved in people's mind. Powerless people, however, don't get away with it. Quest09 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is all guesses. Does anyone know what the rules said? Was there a rule about concubines? --85.226.41.143 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The hundreds of women in the harem of the Ottoman sultan where not muslims, they where non-muslim women kidnapped and sold to the harem, and the sultan genereally did not marry any of them. They where his concubines. Perhaps the rules where different in the case when the woman was a non-muslim? What did the rule say about non-muslim concubines? Surely they must have given some sort of oficiall excuse? --Aciram (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Christian monarchs in Europe normally had only one wife at a time, but also several mistresses (or mignons) – and everybody knew – even though this was forbidden by their religion. In both Christian and Muslim cases, one reason could have been – as mentioned above – that they felt to be "above the law" (even God's law), but it may have been also because their marriages were usually political and they often could not marry a person they were actually fond of or loved. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do not that. But what I am asking here is if someone actually KNOW about the actual rules, as I do not. If we start making comparassions about Christian and muslim nations, then this discussion will never end and it will change subject from what the question is all about. For example, I could say that muslim countries was after all more strict in a sexual sense even than the Christian nations in the middle ages. I could say that the officiall mistresses of Europe were women the monarch choosed of his own initiative. The muslim harems where institutions; harem buildings was erected with hundreds of rooms ready and built to hold hundreds of women. The hundreds of rooms in the harem where automatically filled up by the royal cort functionarys with women, even if the sultan did not want them himself; it was mandatory, every sultan had them, he did not take any personal initiative, as the Christian kings did, he was espected to accept a ahrem filled with hundreds of women even if he did not want them. But if I do that, that discussion will continue several pages. What I am looking for are someone with knowledge about what the rules actually said. --85.226.41.143 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think European royalty kept mistresses any more than the rest of the aristocracy (and possibly the rest of the population, although their history is less well recorded and I haven't don't the necessary research into it). It was just a normal part of the culture (albeit a largely unspoken part). --Tango (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

different regional and ethnic groups have different social conventions. several points to consider here:

• Most muslim sects are non-polygamous - they see polygamy as as an artifact of the old testament much the way Christians do.
• In those few areas where polygamy is practiced (saudi arabia, some tribal regions in north Africa), they have adapted to modern conditions. The original validation for polygamy was the high incidence of infant mortality and childbirth death among women - wealthy men would take multiple wives to increase the odds having some children be born and survive to adulthood. There were no limits on the amount of wives a man could have, but a man was unlikely to have more than a handful of surviving wives. With the advent of modern medicine those problems disappear, of course, and places like SA placed limits on the number of wives a man could have to prevent bizarre social inequities (where rich men snap up all the women they can possibly get just for status purposes). I suspect they chose four because four would have been something like what a rich person under primitive conditions could expect to have left after child-birth deaths.
• The Ottoman harems were a Ottoman-specific occurrence that was more political than connubial. Like Solomon in the bible, the Ottomans made political alliances through marriage. Most of the women in a harem were there to establish a blood tie between the ruler and some person of import, with the hope that the woman would produce a male child who would gain a position of power and benefit the family. Concubines were more a pragmatic matter. intra-harem politics was (I assume) brutal - women would get their status from offspring, so negotiating for the ruler's sexual attention was probably a full-time job. concubines could provide sex-for-pleasure, without the political angle. Being a concubine was actually a fairly desirable and well-respected position for a commoner in the Ottoman empire, and probably a lot more pleasant than being a wife. --Ludwigs2 17:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This was very interesting, Ludwigs. But if I look at the women in the Ottoman harem, they where not from political important familys. They where often non-muslim women kidnapped from peasant villages. Women from Russia, Ukraine, Greece, etc, with unknown familys of no importance, kidnapped and sold as slaves to the harem. Look for example at Turhan Hatice, who was a Russian girl sold as a slave to the harem: her parents was unknown. They where just inslaved peasant girls, so they would have no dynastical political value in the fashion of European dynastic marriages. I can understand the real reasons - sex, status, a need for many children, etc - but what I wonder about is the formall and officiall excuses and rules.

And what I wonder about is:

1. If the rule was four wives, which excuse did he give to break the rules?

1. If he was in fact not actually married to them, then what did the rules say about concubines?

1. What was the excuse for concubines when non-marital sex was forbidden?

1. Was it important that such women were non-muslims? Was that the reason to why the rules where different? Could muslim-born women also be given as concubines rather than wives?

--85.226.41.143 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

First, have you read our article on Harems? Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Our article Imperial Harem seems to answer the original question regarding having more than four "wives", particularly in the article section about the role of the concubines. Only four women in the harem were wives. The rest were "concubines" or "favorites", both being ranked below "wives" in the hierarchy. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thansk, I read it - but it did not say how the sultan could have concubines when non-marital sex was banned: it say why it was done, but not how it was excused and justified officially to the public. --85.226.41.143 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, it doesn't. I think I found answers for your other questions. The imperial harem: women and sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire by Leslie P. Peirce says on page 30, "Under Islamic law, the male owner of a female slave enjoyed lawful sexual access to her (unless she was married to another); any unmarried female slave of a male owner was thus by definition a potential concubine." It goes on to say on page 31, "Since the enslavement of Muslims was forbidden, concubines, like other slaves, came from outside the Islamic lands or (although technically illegal) from non-Muslim communities in Muslim-ruled states" ... "Slaves were converted to Islam and frequently manumitted after several years' service". This wasn't just a royal prerogative; a household harem (the book says elsewhere) could include up to four wives, yes, and an unlimited number of concubines. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see! So, a muslim man could in fact have sex outside of marriage and commit adultary, as long as the women he had sex with was non-muslims? He could only have four wives, but he could have as many concubines he wanted, as long as they where non-muslim slaves? Is this correct? Then, could a muslim woman have sex with a non-muslim male slave? --85.226.41.143 (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, adultery is not sex outside marriage. Adultery is sex with a woman married to a different man. Ariel. (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Who says? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

See Adultery, which says it used to mean that, but doesn't anymore. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

To Ariel: Adultary is of course not only "sex with a woman married to a different man", but also, as in this case, "a married man having sex with some one else than his spouse". --Aciram (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that a direct quote from somewhere, Aciram, as the quote marks might suggest? If so, I'd rather question their wording. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all; I was rather questioning the idea that adultary in general is impossible for a married man, because that looked like a general comment to adultary rather than an answer. If Ariel's meaning was "in the muslim culture, a married man can not commit adultary according to religious definition", then I have no knowledge about it. Is that the case? Can married men be unfaithfull with unmarried women according to muslim belief, because it is not regarded as adultary?--Aciram (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In polygamous (or more strictly polygynous) societies and religions (even those that no longer practice it like Judaism) adultery only occurs if the woman is married to someone else, even if the man is married. In strictly monogamous societies and religions, adultery is any sex outside marriage. Polyandrous societies usually restrict marriage to bothers, so I guess adultery would be with a man who is not a brother (but I don't really know). Ariel. (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Great Freudian connection there, Ariel (marriage <--> bothers).  :) But that aside, I don't know what you mean by "polyandrous societies usually restrict marriage to [brothers]". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

?? In polyandrous societies (i.e. one woman marrying multiple men) it's usually only multiple brothers, not multiple unrelated men. Not sure what Freudian connection you mean. Ariel. (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out, you misspelt "brothers" as "bothers", and when you juxtapose "bothers" with "marriage" ... well, maybe you need to have been there and found out for yourself what this means. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Even after you pointed it out I didn't see it. :) Ariel. (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I recommend browsing through that book; it goes on at length about the societal functions of the Imperial Harem; sex and reproduction were apparently only a small part of its function. (As our harem article states, it was only in the age of Romanticism in Western Europe when writers started fantasizing about harems as sensual dens of hotties with oiled bodies lolling around the swimming pool, waiting to please their master.) To answer your questions immediately above: Sex with a female slave was lawful and was not considered "adultery"; the woman with whom he wanted to have sex had to be his slave, not just be an infidel or one of the people of the book; yes, it was 4 wives plus unlimited slave concubines, though the rule was that the man couldn't favor any wife above another, nor provide better for one than for another; and no, women didn't enjoy the same sexual access privileges to the slaves as men did. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In the book about the Oufkir family, Malika Oufkir mention that the harem of the former King of Morrocco contained hundreds of women for the king, given to him by his family, and they where muslim women and still concubines. What was the circumstances there? --85.226.41.143 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I also wonder; where there no female servants in the muslim world? The seclusion banned women from meeting men outside the family. Did female servants exist? Or, for that mater: did male servants working in the household exist? By servant I mean a non-slave working in someone elses home for salary. --85.226.41.143 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

People may wish to see Ma malakat aymanukum and sex, which addresses sex with female slaves by their male owners, although that article is in poor shape and is horribly-titled. The right is not limited to sultans. I believe Ludwigs2 is mistaken about at least a couple things. Polygamy may not be common in practice among most Muslims, but it is recognized as legal under Islamic law. I'm not familiar with any Muslim groups that would say it is haraam, and they would probably get flak for saying so if they did. The rationale Ludwigs2 gave for polygamy may (or may not) be true in some sociological sense in hindsight, but such a reason was not stated by Muhammad. Muhammad said God said go ahead and do it, and that was enough. It has some relevance to Human trafficking in Saudi Arabia, not that it's noted there. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And in case anybody was wondering An-Nisa, Quran 4:3 contains the rule about four wives. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any particular organisations that argue polygyny is haraam but I strongly suspect there are some. Commonly these arguments pertain to whether it is possible to treat all wives equally (and what is meant by that requirement). In terms of Muhammad, it's easy to see arguments that he was special as god's messenger, god ensured he could fulfill his requirements. Polygyny in Islam mentions Shukria Barakzai although doesn't say whether she regards it as haraam. More commonly perhaps are groups and people who don't say it's haraam but argue the restrictions and requirements are not being properly enforced and that men are taking multiple wives for the wrong reasons and in particular that while polygyny is allowed, it's also discouraged by the Quran. E.g. Sisters in Islam is known for this stance [6] [7] [8] [9]. It's true many don't agree with such arguments e.g. [10] [11] but I think it's important we recognise there is a wide range of opinions on polygyny in modern day Islam rather then simply differences in how common the practice. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the range of opinions is important to be recognized. 4:129 doesn't discourage polygamy, though. I see how it could be interpreted that way, but it is an interpretation and there ought to be a source for that particular reading, and indicating how common or uncommon it is. Sunnis largely view Aisha as Muhammad's favorite wife on the basis of various hadith which would seem to indicate he didn't treat them entirely equally. He was also exempted from the limit of four wives (see Muhammad's wives, but offhand I'm not sure I know what justification was given for that by him. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

German Parliament

What does happen when a member of the German parliament resigns like in the case of Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg? Does his party have a seat less or does he get a substitute MP? Quest09 (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would expect there to be a special election in the Bundestagswahlkreis Kulmbach for a new MP, but I don't know for sure. —Angr (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends. Germany uses a mixture between direct and proportional representation. Normally, when an MP resigns (or dies), the next candidate from the election list substitutes for him. However, in this case, the Bavarian CSU has won more direct MPs than than it would deserve by vote proportion. The elected MPs can still all take their seat, but there will be no substitutes unless the party actually drops below their proportional number of seats. There are no special elections. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

income tax laws

Some US states apparently count Federal income tax refunds as income that the state can then tax. My question is, how is it logical that the money you overpaid the federal government during the year and is being returned to you income in any sense? Googlemeister (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Which states do that? The federal counts state income tax refunds as income, and also counts state income tax payments as deductions, which is all fair. If a state is doing that with federal it doesn't seem right, as it seems like double-taxing, unless they are counter-balancing it some way, such as allowing you to deduct federal withholding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if a state allows you to deduct your federal income tax, as I believe some do, then when you receive a refund, it means you deducted too much and need to pay state tax on the excess. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

For example, suppose you earned US$100,000 last year and sent the IRS a check for US$20,000, and you have no other deductions (for simplicity's sake). Your adjusted gross income as far as the state is concerned is US$80,000, so you pay taxes as though you had earned US$80,000. When the IRS ends up sending you a refund check for US$5,000, you have to go back and tell the state that your adjusted gross income was actually US$85,000, and so you're going to have to pay taxes accordingly. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Copland

What instruments did Aaron Copland write for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.130.11 (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Musical ones. Specifically, the ones mentioned at List of compositions by Aaron Copland. —Angr (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • For example, a perennial favorite called, "Holiday for Accordions". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Was Hindu harems less strict than muslim harems?

I once heard, that the hindu women of India lived more freely before the Muslim conquest of India; that the hindus begun the veil the hindu women and put them in harems influenced by the muslim conquest and the customs of the new masters. Is this correct? And I also wonder; what was the difference between hindu harems and muslim harems? Where the hindu women more free? Where they just as secluded as the muslim women, or where they allowed a little more freedom of movement? Where hindu women in 19th century India allowed to met men and participate in social life, at least inside the palace? Where they allowed to meet male guests? Were there any difference between the seclusion of muslim and hindu women?--85.226.41.143 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A few comments:

1) Only a portion of India was conquered by Muslims, the majority remains under Hindu control.

2) Most Hindu women don't wear a veil, or at least not the same type as strict Muslim women wear, that covers their faces entirely. I have seen transparent veils, similar to what you see in Western wedding dresses, but those seem like more of a fashion choice than a religious obligation. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

85.226.41.143 -- the main Wikipedia article is (or should be) Purdah. By definition, the women in a harem have rather restricted mobility, but in traditional societies, only a relatively small number of upper-class males can afford harems, and general social sex-segregation can pervade a society far beyond harems. Old Hindu norms, such as the Laws of Manu etc., laid great stress on a woman's subordination to her husband and the family she marries into (often a joint family structure), but I'm not sure there was any widespread emphasis on rigorous social seclusion before Muslim and/or Persian influences became strong. In the 19th century, there were some social reformers who were trying to lessen the then-traditional purdah system (all I can really find on Wikipedia is Brahmo_Samaj#Social_.26_Religious_reform). -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the article does say that the hindu harems was instituted after the Muslim conquest of India and thereby not originally a hindu practice. But what I am curious about is: Was the hindu harems exactly the same, or was the hindu harems less strict than the muslim harems?Was upperclass hindu women in the 18th- and 19th century, in contrast to muslim women, allowed to meet male guests and participate in social events, albeit only in the home, or were they secluded just as strictly as within the muslim harems? In short, was the hindu harems a little less strict?--85.226.41.143 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you will probably make very little progress in further understanding the matter until you grasp that purdah is not really the same thing as harems. AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If I knew the answer, I would not make the question. It is uneccessary to argue about words. I have no wish to argue, just to ask a question. Purdah and harem are both words describing a similar cultural phenomena; physically isolating women from men. Both, as I have understood it, can also refer to the wider meaning of separating the sexes in other ways, for example through veiling. Please do not be arrogant; I do not think that is a constructive attitude. I think most people can understand the meaning of the question perfectly. What ever word you preferr to use, I am referring to the habit of isolating upperclass hindu women in the household to prevent them from showing themselwes unveiled in public and meeting men they are not related to. This is the very same thing as a harem, even if you use a different word for it. The differences are exaclty what I am asking for, and thereby I can hardly be expected to know the answers to what I am in fact asking for. I used the word harem because most people would understand what I mean, and because I am an uneducated individual and did not know which word to use to describe what I meant. I thought that people in wikipedia would be kind enough not to expect people asking questions to already knowing the answers. Does someone else actually have the answer to the question?--85.226.41.143 (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that in 19th-century India, purdah applied to very many cases where every man in an extended family had at most one wife (and zero resident concubines), there were no eunuchs or guards, and the women weren't locked in -- something which would have been impractical given the range of household tasks or chores that they were expected to perform (though one part of the house where non-family adult male guests rarely or never came was reserved for their special use). This type of situation is rather remote from a classic Arabian Nights type of harem, and I'm not sure how lumping everything together which departs from modern European practices as a "harem" adds much useful clarity to the issue... AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hindu women from the upperclasses where hardly expected to perform household tasks different from what was expected from upperclass muslim women. Working class muslim women where not placed in "harems" either. Muslim upperclass women where separated from every contact from men they where not related to, and kept in an isolation which is identified with the word "harem". I have the impression that aristocratic hindu women where also kept in such isolation from men they where not related to. But I do not know if the gender separation was quite so strict as it was or muslim women. The article about purdah say that hindu women where physicially gender segregated after the muslim conquest of India. It was therefore not originally hinduistic, so it is possible that hindu women where not as quite as segregated as muslim women, at least within the walls of the house. I could imagine, that upperclass hindu women where, for example, alowed to meet male guests and participate in social events indoors, in contrast to muslim women. But I do not know if it was so. Does anyone know the answer? Was hindu women of the upperclasses as segregated as upperclass muslim women? --85.226.41.143 (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

March 4

Book Help

I'm writing a book about a kid who runs away form his home. Should I do like a journal,or should I do it as first person book, or should I do it 3rd person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.136.156 (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What matters most is how you utilize the perspective that you choose. In general if the focus of the book is the character's internal struggles(more like a confessional, or soul searching book) then you would want to use first person, if it is with external forces(more like an adventure into the world) then you would want to use third person. But mostly you want to determine the tone and feel for your work, and what you want to convey to he reader; after you have a more specific idea of what you want the reader to come away with the decision for first or third person should be more clear to you.AerobicFox (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit out of scope for the ref desk. You should write in whatever manner you feel inspired to write. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to favor a journal, which can be a powerful way to convey both the events of the day and the growing maturity of the kid, as in Flowers for Algernon, where the varying intelligence of the subject was apparent from his writing style. StuRat (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Third person narrative gives you a lot more scope for descriptive prose - The Lord of the Flies and Grapes of Wrath are examples - but you lose the personal touch. Alansplodge (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What I did when faced with the same situation was write out two copies of the same story in different styles and read through to see which was best. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It could be a good read if you used both styles - description, interleaved with diary-style chapters describing the characters' inner feelings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Who says you can't do all three at the same time? Schyler! (one language) 14:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Book written in the first person have greater realism and allow the reader to experience the thoughts and feelings of the protagonist more directly and with immediacy. As a reader I hate books that swap between two or more stories or viewpoints, as you find one of them more interesting and the others will become drudgery to read through to get to the more interesting part.

If you had a story where the protagonist was for example Julius Caesar, then it would be much more dramatic and emotionally charged to experience his life from the first person rather than objectively and distantly in the third person. "Show not tell" means use first person rather than third-person. Robert Graves' book I, Claudius was written in the first person: if written in the third person it would be a dull mediocre novel. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Any competent novelist can "show, not tell" using any point of view. First-person novels are in my opinion more likely to suffer from exposition overload, if only because the narrator's internal monologue often drifts into infodumping and "as you know, Bob"isms. It's also unsuited to novels containing multiple story lines, such as the works of Allende and Pratchett.

Choosing a point of view is nothing more than deciding which limitations you're willing to impose on yourself. First person restricts you to not just the narrator's point of view but also his or her presence - the only way to handle situations the narrator doesn't witness is through infodumping of some sort. (Graves handles this adroitly by allowing Claudius to assume the role of historical writer.) Second person carries the same restrictions as first person but readers (and writers!) often find it disconcerting. Third person is freer but that freedom is itself a challenge - do you want a limited or omniscient narrator? A subjective or objective one?

Keep in mind, too, that first-person helps the reader identify with the narrator. Graves was battling Claudius' reputation as a cruel tyrant; using first person humanized him and made the novels more plausible. You might not want to put your narrator in the same position. Robert Randisi also uses first person to humanize his Vegas pit boss, Eddie Giannelli, in his Rat Pack novels, but Lawrence Block uses third person to create an atmosphere of detachment in his "Hit Man" series of short stories.

A great resource is our article on narrative mode, by the way. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Defined Benefit Pension Schemes

I have to give a presentation on 'the effects of an ageing population on defined benefit pension schemes and their stakeholders' but have absolutely no prior knowledge (and, hence, understanding) of economic theory. Could someone please either explain to me in not overly technical language what the effects are or point me to somewhere that I can look into this independently? [I don't know if this is relevant but I'm a Brit and will be giving this presentation to fellow Englishmen, so perhaps it needs to be that way oriented?]

I have already googled this, and have not treated the reference desk as an easy way out of doing the work myself, but I have found it very hard to find something that simultaneously addresses solely the issue that concerns me and is easy for a noivce to understand. Thanks. 131.111.55.73 (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Defined benefit pension plan, especially the section on advantages and drawbacks. As it says there, it costs more to fund the pension for older employees than for younger ones. Hence, if the population is ageing, there is a greater cost to the public purse from defined benefit schemes. --Viennese Waltz 14:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There are basically two approaches to pension/retirement funds:

1) You save for your own benefits. That is, they take some of your earnings and save them until you retire. Some of these plans also have employer matching and tax deductions. One potential disadvantage here is if you need to take early retirement, perhaps due to poor health, but don't have much saved up yet. Low wage employees may also not have the money to spare to save for retirement.

2) Somebody else pays for your benefits. This is often done by using contributions for current workers and using them to pay the benefits to retired workers. The problem with this set-up is that you get into trouble when the number of retired workers becomes large relative to the current worker base, which tends to happen in mature industries, especially those which have downsized. Ultimately, it can become impossible to pay for the benefits of retirees from the small pool of current workers. Most government funded pension schemes also fall into this category, as currently working taxpayers pay for retirees (an exception is the US Social Security system, which is funded by each employee's contributions).

Under either method, the money saved can either be put into safe investments, which earn low returns, or in risky investments, with higher average returns. In the case of risky investments, some thought has to be given to the backup plan, in case the money is lost. This is true both in the individual case and at a government level, as a stock market crash could cause millions of homeless elderly pensioners. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference between the two schemes isn't actually so big on the level of society. At the first glance, saving for your own retirement seems to be "safer" - actually, its your own money. But money has no intrinsic value nowadays. It's only worth what it can buy. If large generation X saves huge amounts for their own retirement, they want to spend it when small generation X+1 provides the goods and services. Since these are limited by the people who provide them, prices will go up, driving inflation. As a result, the huge savings of generation X effectively shrink back down to the level of value that generation X+1 can provide. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that, in a world economy, you can always have your goods made cheaply someplace else, where they do have lots of workers, still. Certain services, though, do require workers to be nearby, but they can always be imported, as part of a "guest worker program". StuRat (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I very much dispute "always". Shifting this from a national to an international level helps to smooth out the effect, but does not change the fundamental analysis. You might want to take a look at Hot, Flat, and Crowded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow. Are you saying that a lack of workers is also likely to be an issue on an international scale ? Lacking a major disaster, like nuclear war or a plague, I don't see that happening (and even then, presumably retirees would die off at least in proportion). Perhaps a recurrence of some disease that older folks have an immunity to, like the 1918 flu pandemic, might kill off many workers and leave retirees unscathed. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, overall, an increased demand will raise prices worldwide. That's the "flat" part. The "crowded" part means that no region on Earth can maintain population growth for a long time. And the "hot" part means that we better start conscious efforts to reign in resource usage before the shit hits the fan. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So you think that the population increase will one day stop ? I'm not sure about that. I expect that, due to technology, we can continue to increase the human population indefinitely (at some point colonizing space). It's possible that the rate of increase may go down, I suppose, but that alone won't cause retirement systems to collapse. StuRat (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It will be a long time before we're colonising space to the extent necessary to make a dent on world population. The solution to the problem of an ageing population is very simple: if people are living longer, they have to work for longer. That is why lots of countries are increasing their state pension ages at the moment. --Tango (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It will also be a long time before the Earth reaches maximum human capacity (although we may already be well past the maximum wise human capacity). I do agree with people working longer, though. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A good survey (perhaps too long for your purpose) of pension systems is given in the article The gains from pension reform by Lindbeck and Persson. The replies above are good, but might not address directly the defined benefit / defined contribution separation - at least the paper I link here define "funded vs. unfunded" (that StuRat discusses) as another dimension of pension systems, separate from "defined benefit"/"defined contribution". Have a look at the paper and see if it teaches you anything. (There is also a version published by the Journal of Economic Literature, but that is behind a paywall.) Jørgen (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much with an ageing population, but with life expectancies increasing faster than expected. When you have a DB scheme, the actuary calculates something call the "future service cost". That is, the amount of money to scheme needs to put aside in order to cover the costs of pensions being accrued in the future. Once you've calculated that, you work out what percentage of salary needs to be contributed in order pay for the pension (the employee may pay a fixed percentage, or nothing at all, the employer then has to make up the difference). If you underestimate longevity when calculating the future service cost, you will underestimate the require contributions. That means the pension scheme won't have enough money to pay the pensions it is required to pay (so the company will be forced to make extra contributions, but it may not be able to afford that, in which case the members may not get everything they were promised).

From the company's point of view, even correctly estimating life expectancies now may not be enough if they are greater than was expected when the scheme was set up. The company will have decided at the start how much it wanted to contribute and would have worked out how generous the benefits could be. If the assumptions were wrong then, the benefits could be unaffordably generous. (I work in the pensions industry and I've seen schemes where the company is paying 30-40% of salary in pension contributions because the benefits have turned out to be far more generous than there were first thought to be.)

--Tango (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

FAMOUS LAST WORDS

What biographical work lists the last words of famous personalities? I have not been able to find oneWinston Williams (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Googleing 'Famous Last Words' lists a number of books, including this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.162.13 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) If memory serves, there are brief sections on last words in the The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations and the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations, certainly in recent editions. However, these tend to focus on quotations, misquotations and alleged quotations which became famous ("Kiss me, Hardy") and are not exhaustive. Our article, Last words, has some external links and links to Wikiquotes which may be useful. --Kateshortforbob _talk 15:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OR here, but I think last words compilations are probably the most unreliable form of quotation, probably, comparable to Einsteins's quotations. 212.169.191.238 (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Another source (just as unreliable) is wikiquote.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that most of the quotes in these compilations were made up long after the fact, usually by someone hoping to get their invention into a "Famous Last Words" compilation. The notable example of Lou Costello is only one. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Really astonishing is how cool and appropriate for being memorable word all these "last" words are. It seems that people knew they'd die after saying the words. 212.169.188.172 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For those that were said just before execution, like "Such is life" from Australian bushranger Ned Kelly, that would be the case. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all last words were so edifying, for example those attributed to Stonewall Jackson, which went something like, "Don't be absurd! They couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at this unhhh." But from my understanding, the most common last words are "Oh shit.". Looie496 (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That quote (with "elephant" substituted to "broad side of a barn") is usually attributed to general John Sedgwick. Stonewall Jackson was shot by friendly fire; his last words (a few days later - he did not die immediately) were supposedly "Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of those trees". --Xuxl (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Many "last words" are some profound philosophical statement that the family and friends remember and report, while the forget or ignore the later "Bring me the bedpan!" Edison (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

From The Parliament of Dreams:

Londo (talking about an massacred race from Centauri Prime): Do you know what the last Xon said just before he died?

Vir: No, what?

Londo (clutching chest): "Aaaarrrrggghh..."

71.141.88.54 (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And your source for that claim is?--TammyMoet (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

According to NASA's transcript, the last thing recorded on the black-box was the pilot saying, "Uh-oh." The IP is either misinformed or misinforming. WikiDao ☯ 17:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My favourite alternative endings are William Pitt the Younger who was supposed to have said "Oh, my country! How I love my country." but more likely it was "I think I could manage one of Bellamy's veal pies". King George V was reported to have said "How goes the Empire?" but has been quoted as saying (when told he would have to recuperate by the sea) "Bugger Bognor!" or he might have "God damn you!" when being given an injection. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable has a list, but a lot of it seems apocryphal. Here's a very old edition: [12]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Typesetting

approx how many characters is used per page in a pocket-sized book? --Soman (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You'd need to know the dimensions of the pages, margins used, and type size to determine that. Or, if you have the book handy, you could just count the number of lines and characters in one line (are you including spaces ?) and then multiply. For comparison, a normal sized page with a typical type size has up to about 60 lines of text at 80 characters per line, so 4800 characters, max, including spaces. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Stu, could you better define what you mean by "normal sized page"? Dismas|^(talk) 01:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

8.5 inch by 11 inch. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The OP specifically asked about pocket books, by which he probably means Format A paperback books, which are roughly 4 1/3 x 7 inches. The number of characters on an average page of this size varies wildly depending upon typeface, character size, margin width and depth, line spacing, and kerning. One book could have twice as many characters per page as another. There is no standard. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems a little big to fit in a pocket. StuRat (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, many typesetters/editors prefer 80 characters per line (or less), regardless of font size, paper size, etc. for reason of providing greater readability. See e.g. [13]. Each publisher will have their own specification, but many pocketbooks will be in this range. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Books generally have about 425 words per page, give or take, and the average number of characters (including punctuation and spaces) per word is about 4.75 -- so 2000 characters per page is a good approximation. (If you don't believe me, do some counting of words on book pages; and make a word doc out of a thousand words from some source and get the word program to report how many characters are used.)63.17.88.47 (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You must have really big books in your country, the average in my experience is around 320 words per page. These are indeed usually slightly over 4"x7", and do fit in the pocket of my wedding trousers, though they are rather large pockets. For a normal sized pocket, though, A6 seems to fit perfectly, 4"x6". However, tehn you need to ask, how large is the text? Also, some letters and symbols are larger than others, compare a page of Is and a page of Ws. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits against WK

List of lawsuits against Wikipedia does not exist. Is there an organized list of lawsuits against WK somewhere? (I know there are some lawsuits). 212.169.188.172 (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" is not a legal entity, so cannot be sued. There have been lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation, some local Wikimedia chapters and some individual Wikipedians (or, at least, some have been threatened against individual Wikimedians, I'm not sure if any have actually be filed). I'm not aware of a list anywhere, though. --Tango (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with the assertion that Wikipedia is not a legal entity. It could be legally classified as an association of anonymous editors. A court is not bound by what an organization or foundation says it is. This could be important if the US Attorney's office were to file RICO charges (organized crime) for dissemination of child pornography. Naming Wikipedia as an association (rather than just the foundation or the individual editors) and charging Wikipedia with the crime could give a court the power to shut down the site. It could also be important for jurisdictional purposes. The Foundation is centered in Florida, but an association is a citizen of each state in which its members reside. In this way, Wikipedia as an association could be made to answer in a greater number of jurisdictions other than Florida, perhaps every jurisdiction. 68.198.183.69 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Foundation is in California now (wmf:FAQ/en). 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's still registered in Florida. --Tango (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a reference that the idea that a court can rule a group of people to be a legal entity and make them liable as such without that group actually registering as such? I know that isn't the case in the UK and I would be very surprised if it were the case in the US. I can't see how such a law would work. If the authorities want to shut down Wikipedia, they need to get a court to issue an order to the WMF, who run the servers. --Tango (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Defection in WW2

This section of an article Night_fighter#World_War_II mentions two defections by German pilots landing their planes in Britain. How common was this, on both sides? Were they really defections or did the pilots just run out of fuel or get lost and think they were on the other side of the channel? 92.24.182.238 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting thread on the subject including Martin James Monti. Seems only small numbers and difficult to know the true motivation, i'm sure a few of them were making the best out of bad mistakes. You may be interested in British Free Corps and other Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts meltBanana 01:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

More than one hundred Allied aircraft and their crews landed in Switzerland during the war, and their crews were interned. I'm sure most of them were damaged and unable to make it home, but it would have been a good option if you just wanted to opt out. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Bomber streams and firestorms

Why didnt the Nazis imitate the successful Allied tactic of 1000 bomber raids and firestorms in WW2, as described in Bombing of Cologne in World War II? Why didnt they deploy the same methods against Britain? Thanks 92.24.182.238 (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

To do so you need total control of the skies. Otherwise, enemy fighters keep shooting down your bombers. The Nazis tried, but failed, to get total control of the skies over England, due largely to the development of RADAR by the English (with US help), which allowed them to deploy a small number of fighters effectively against the larger German force. The short ranges of aircraft of the time was also an issue, as German planes had a rather limited time over England, due to the need to return to base to refuel, while British planes could stay aloft longer. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually its more true to say that the British helped the US develop their radar, as the Cavity magnetron was a top-secret British development taken over to the US during the war. Reading the History of radar suggests that Britain was the first country to have radar installed as working military equipment, even before WW2 had started. From what I read, the US didnt have working military radar until years later. StuRat seems to have a (false) image of inadequate ineffectual and unprepared Britain needing to be led by the hand by Uncle Sam. 92.15.18.16 (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Complete nonsense! If that were true then it would apply even more to Allied bombers who had to penetrate deep into hostile enemy territory. The Nazis just had to fly over the Channel. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Early on, Allied raids against Germany were minimal. Dramatic increases in airplane range were made during the course of the war, though, such that the situation had largely changed from 1939 to 1945. Also, Allied forces had airfields inside continental Europe, from which to attack, by the time of the final push. StuRat (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The first 1000 bomber raids took place in 1942, and that was years before D-day, so there were no Allied airfields in Continental Europe. I'm doubtful that British bombers did not have enough fuel to reach Germany in the early part of the war, as they could simply strap on an extra auxillary fuel-tank if it was needed. I think you're guessing. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

1942 was still 3 years into the war, and considerable progress had been made in aircraft design even by then. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So? 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Meaning greater range, obviously. You also can't just strap on an unlimited number of external fuel tanks to increase range indefinitely. To get off the ground, you then need to reduce payload (bombs), or reduce armor, leading to more losses, either of which similarly decreases the ability to create a firestorm.StuRat (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if that might be true, then it would not affect the Germans would it? They just had 30 miles of Channel to cross. They even used to bomb Britain during WW1, so they obviously had the range to do it. The Atlantic was flown non-stop back in 1919 in a primitive aircraft, so I do not think the range was an issue. During WW2 it was quite common for bombers to fly from Britain to Italy and back. Have you never seen a map of europe? 92.24.182.238 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But, of course, London isn't right on the English channel, and all of the German airfields weren't right on the other side, either, as that would make them bombing targets for the RAF, and wouldn't allow them to get up to proper altitude to avoid ground flak by the time they cleared the Channel. The Germans could obviously reach London, but did have less time in the air, once there, than the British did, having come a shorter distance and having a shorter return distance back to base. Those planes making trans-Atlantic flights were very much stripped down and overloaded with fuel, which isn't very useful in a bomber. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That dosnt make any sense at all, and sorry, but its complete nonsense. The Allies had to fly deep into Europe. The distance from enemy airfields to London was a fraction of that distance. You are obviously basing your opinions on fantasy. I suggest you read a few non-fiction accounts of what actually happened before opninionating further. Life's too short, and I'm too bored, to go over everything point by point. Edit: but see this map showing the positions of Nazi airfields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Britain_map.svg - they were just over the other side of the Channel. 92.15.24.116 (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't lack of air-control imply that you would like to put lots of bombers together - instead of going in small groups? 212.169.188.172 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That's one strategy, but then you can expect a massive response from the defenders all attacking that formation. A decoy is another strategy, where you send a few planes to attack the expected target, hopefully luring the defenders there, while you then send the bulk of your planes at a secondary target. This might provide them with a few minutes unchallenged over the target, until the defenders can redeploy. StuRat (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, but I don't think you know what you are talking about. The 1000 bomber raids were all about putting 1000 bombers all together in one place on one route. There was a "massive responce" from the Germans, but even when throwing everything they had available into defense, it was still not enough to have much impact on 1000 boombers. Whereas the previous tactic of sending bombers over in dribs and drabs meant that the Germans has enough resiources to deal with them and were not overwhelmed by the shear numbers of them. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're getting rather rude here, are you here just to try to start an argument ? The decoy strategy only works a few times, then the enemy catches on. Thus they may be left with the "overwhelming with numbers" strategy, which may work, but does guarantee that large numbers of planes will be shot down. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to explain more than once the rationale for the 1000 bomber raids, but you will not or can not get it. Sorry but you are just speculating and guessing. Edkit: see Bomber stream 92.24.182.238 (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand the rationale, but you seem to think that it's the only possible strategy, while there are many strategies, each with advantages and disadvantages, depending on the current situation. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the US had any significant hand in Chain Home. And while Germany had a somewhat higher number of aircraft, the difference was fairly small. Radar and advantage of fighting over friendly territory certainly helped win the Battle of Britain, though. But on the other hand, the Allied started bombing Germany long before they had "total" or even "near-total" control of the skies. They did this, at acceptable loss rates, by night bombing. Germany didn't retaliate (or pretaliate) in kind mostly for logistic reasons. They did not have the resources to build and deploy large numbers of heavy bombers while also fighting on the ground on several fronts. Britain, on the other hand, had no other way of effectively attacking Germany. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain a bit more, as far as I understand it. The point of the 1000 bomber raids was that by having so many bombers following the same route, they would overwhelm the German anti-aircraft systems and German fighters. There were just not enough German fighters or flack guns in that area to have much impact on the stream of 1000 or so bombers crossing overhead. The prior Allied tactic of sending boombers over indiviually on different routes mean that the Germans were not overwhelmed and resulted in higher Allied losses.

Another point is that Allied bombers had to fly a long way through hostile enemy territory before they got to their target, but the Germans just had to quickly nip over the Channel and back, so the advantage was with the Germans. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Towards the beginning of the war, yes, but by the final years, the situation had reversed. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So why didnt the Nazis do it prior to D-day? I'm not sure how many Nazi planes were involved in the London Blitz and the many bombing raids on other cities. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition to not being able to gain total air superiority over Britain, there was another factor. Some in Germany considered the Brits to be "Aryans". As such, they wanted to incorporate them into Germany, like Austria, rather than just wipe them all out. Thus, they thought they could convince England to surrender, without destroying it. This might account for the failure of the Germans to totally annihilate the evacuees who escaped from Dunkirk, for example. They were hoping that England would surrender, intact, and that Germany would also gain it's colonies, such as India, at that time (this somewhat worked to acquire French colonies, when France surrendered). Later on, they gave up this hope and went for all-out war, but, by then, it was too late. StuRat (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Allies did not have air superiority over continental Europe when the Allied bombing raids started. The Nazis were still bombing Britain and fighting hard, so I'm doubtful they held back because they thought we were "Aryans". I'm sure thay would have foreseen that holding back as you suggest would have resulted in them losing the war. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

While many of Hitler's generals were brilliant, he was a poor military leader, often making decisions that made professional soldiers cringe. Some of the internal opposition to Hitler (people plotting to kill him) was due more to his incompetence than based on moral objections. StuRat (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Sturat is right. The non-destruction of the BEF was down to cold feet from the German high command[14] and Goering's boastfulness. In a speech of 04/09/1940, Hitler promised to "raze their cities to the ground" to much applause following a tit-for-tat RAF raid on Berlin[15]. His most notable success was the almost complete destruction of the centre of Coventry by 449 bombers (nearly half way to a thousand) on 14-15/11/40. The main "Blitz" ended in May 1941 when Hitler needed his bombers for a trip to Russia. The centres of London, Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Exeter, Bristol, Bath, Cardiff, Birmingham, Coventry, Nottingham, Norwich, Ipswich, Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool, Hull, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Newcastle, Glasgow and Belfast had been devastated. I think the main reason that Hitler didn't mount a thousand bomber raid was that he didn't actually have a thousand bombers. Also, the Luftwaffe never had a practical heavy bomber (the woeful He 177 was a failure on all counts). It had been built-up in a hurry with medium bombers to serve as a sort of heavy artillery for the army. The He 111 could carry 4,400 lbs of bombs as compared to 14,000 lbs of the Short Stirling or the Avro Lancaster. Actually the RAF struggled to find 1,000 bombers in 1942 - it had to borrow from training schools and from Coastal Command. The final consideration is that - with the exception of Japan in 1945 - bombing your enemy's cities does not win you the war, whether you have 500 bombers or a thousand. There's evidence to suggest that it didn't even affect industrial output much in either country.Alansplodge (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

One point nobody but Alansplodge has raised yet: the Germans didn't give much thought to heavy bombers until it was much too late. See History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)#A change of direction, 1936 - 1937 for a discussion. Lots of prototypes and plans, but nothing in Category:German World War II heavy bombers.

I think I mentioned it just now didn't I? Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

German bombers were required to be structurally reinforced enough for dive bombing, unlike Allied bombers, due to a dubious reliance on the early success of divebombing. A divebomber is relatively easy to shoot down so the tactic was less popular later in the war. This extra weight decreased the bomb payload they could carry for high altitude "normal " bombing. Perhaps for that reason, Germany did not have the 4 engine heavy bombers that the Allies had. Night time terrorist bombing of German cities did not really do that much to win the war. Edison (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "terrorist bombing". Even if destroying the morale of the Germans was certainly an aim, it has also other advantages, which had nothing to do with terror. 212.169.187.224 (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bombing of Mannheim on 16 Dec 1940 is described (by the Germans) as the "first deliberate terror raid" on Germany. Alansplodge (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Germans did a lot of "terror bombing" as well - The Blitz for example. 92.15.18.16 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There's not really much of a what-if where firestorms are concerned. The Germans dropped large quantities of incendiaries on London and elsewhere during the Blitz and later. They may not have produced a firestorm - the height of the Blitz was largely in winter when weather conditions in the UK are not likely to help in the creation of a firestorm - but they certainly started lots of fires. See Second Great Fire of London for example.

The RAF's thousand bomber raids, starting with Operation Millennium, were largely propaganda stunts to boost home morale. As the article explains, the magic number was only reached by borrowing hundreds of aircraft from Coastal Command and training units. The German Air Force, as Luftwaffe serviceable aircraft strengths (1940–1945) shows, could, just, have managed a thousand bomber raid in 1940, but this would have required an even more extreme mobilisation than the RAF's efforts did. But what would the advantage be? German civilian morale wasn't in any need of a boost. And unlike the efficient Kammhuber Line of 1942, the British night air defence system was so rudimentary in 1940-1941 that the reduced losses to British forces might well be outweighed by more losses from collisions and the like. What would be the point? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the weather would make any difference regarding a firestorm. The incendaries were designed to punch through rooves to the dry roof- and floor-timbers below. In inner-city urban areas, most of the surface would be rooves. If it was raining so heavily as to have effect, then no aircraft would be flying anyway. And unlike the USA, there isnt much snow in England during the winter. 92.15.18.16 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to dispute that the British air defense system was rudimentary, night or daylight. It is described even in Wikipedia as being "the most sophisticated air defense system in the world" and was up and running even before the start of WW2. See Dowding_system#The_Dowding_System - scroll down for a detailed description - and Chain Home. It mean that fighters could be "vectored" onto the targets by radio instructions. Fighters were trained and experienced in flying at night, and there were a lot of Ack-ack guns too. The kill-rate of ack-ack guns was very low at first, but I've never read anything suggesting that the German guns were any better. 92.15.18.16 (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Disappointment over Libya news coverage

I expect to see daily maps of the moving front between rebel-held territories and Gaddafi-held territories, similar to WW2 battle maps, but I don't see any maps, or just ones with a gradual blend from the East (rebel) to the West (Gaddafi). Are the news orgs of the world incapable of determining the location of the front, or have I just been looking in the wrong places ? StuRat (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I got the impression that there is no clear front, not even for Libyans is it clear who is the enemy, but only groups which fight each other and change sides. Quest09 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Libya is a huge empty country with towns or cities at great distances from each other. There is no moving front because there is nothing and nobody in the big empty spaces between the widely seperated cities. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a map showing which cities are rebel held and which are not. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Try here. --Tango (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice that every city is on the coast (they don't even bother showing the southern part of Libya). Are there no cities in the interior ? StuRat (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sabha is in the interior, but other than that most of the interior is unpopulated desert. --Daniel 23:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hence the problem of trying to extract ex-pat oil workers from isolated camps in the middle of nowhere. Alansplodge (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The situation is not entirely dissimilar if you look at illustrations of battles (not campaigns or starting positions) in the Western Desert Campaign of 1940-1942. Most of the fighting in the desert, especially once Rommel got involved, can best be described with vague illustrations that show that the 15th Panzer Division seems to have driven very roughly 100 miles in a very roughly north-westerly direction starting from very roughly some point in the desert south of some unremarkable point on the map, and then later drove back again, driving through the headquarters of some British Corps or other on the way; and not actually capturing any settlement on the way. Settlements that were significant in the fighting (Tobruk, Bardia) were all on the coast. In a popular revolution that doesn't (as far as I know) involve armoured divisions, the fighting tends to be confined to population centres, as others have said. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A large chunk of Libya (7,000 square miles) is occupied by the Qattara Depression, a huge salt marsh that is uninhabitable and almost uncrossable - if you've seen Ice-Cold in Alex you'll get the idea. Even Rommel had to go round it. Alansplodge (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Qattara Depression is mostly if not entirely in Egypt. It's in the Libyan Desert, but that desert isn't restricted to Libya. —Angr (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right - I'll go and stand in the corner ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You are unhappy with the map being updated at 2011 Libyan uprising? WikiDao ☯ 19:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's good, in that it shows the interior, as well. However, there are a couple shortcomings:

1) Does it list the date at which the map was last updated ? (I can find the date at which it was physically changed by looking into the history on the pic, but I'm more interested on the age of the data on which it is based.)

2) I'd also like to get a sense of the momentum of the revolution, by seeing how the map has changed over time. Are the rebels pushing ever further, or is the front stalled ? StuRat (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

StuRat, my own understanding of the situation, reinforced by the answers of several respondents above, is that there is no front, and the conflict mostly does not involve bodies of fighters moving long distances to gain control of areas of territory, in which context the concept of a 'front' would make sense.

Instead, Libya mostly consists of population centres ranging from cities through towns that are relatively distant and isolated from one another. All of these centres contain people who, where they are, are actively declaring or agitating or fighting for the Gaddafi regime, people who are actively declaring or agitating or fighting against it, and people who are 'neutral' in the sense that they are either trying to discourage any fighting or are just keeping their heads down. The relative numbers of these several elements is in flux, and any 'front' is present only in the collect[ive]ed minds [no gestalt entities implied!] of all these people as they start or stop fighting, and/or change sides.

Compare it to, say, a US election: as preponderances of votes go to the Republican or Democrat candidate(s) in each State, those states may stay Red or Blue as they were previously, or may change, and larger swathes of the country may do the same, but voters are not physically moving around, and there are no meaningful geographical fronts involved. What is happening in Libya is (a bit) like such an election, but without rules being observed to restrain violence up to and including lethal force from being used to support opposing viewpoints, and with recognition of preponderances of opinion (as in a parliamentary "Those in favour?" "Aye!" "Those against?" "NO!!" "I think the Noes have it.") replacing formally enumerated votes. Or am I totally off-beam? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But, unlike an election, a town can possibly be taken over by forces from the opposing side. I would suspect that small enclaves would eventually be captured, due to the occupants fleeing, being killed, or surrendering. In this manner, as enclaves are captured, shouldn't we eventually expect two distinct areas, with no enclaves remaining ? StuRat (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/middle_east/ is a good place for the latest news, or this http://www.bbc.co.uk/arabic/ 92.15.18.16 (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is no formal front, then perhaps the percentage of the population in rebel held areas versus government held areas is a better gauge. Do we have any info on how this has changed, over time ? StuRat (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Stu, you're not understanding the issue. This is not (yet) a war like WWII, where where major powers with defined territories and strong logistical, tactical, and strategic considerations. this is a conflict between (on one side) a rag-tag group of defecting soldiers and citizen insurgents with very little organization, (on the other side) a well-organized, well-equipped, but relatively under-manned body of pro-government troops, and (in the middle) a whole bunch of citizens, most of whom are anti-gaddafi but most of whom are too scared to jump either way. The only issue of 'control' here is whether the government has enough troops in a given city to intimidate and repress the population, and because the government has to be moving troops around to combat insurgents, that's an entirely fluid dynamic. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see flip flops - the government takes one city, but when it sends its troops to take another it loses the first. this will only be resolved when (a) the government pistol-whips the population into quiescence or (b) when gaddafi's head is on a stick; it is not a matter of military strategy, but rather of governmental oppression. --Ludwigs2 22:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how anything you just said invalidates the question I just asked. "Rebel-held areas" and "government-held areas" may very well be individual cities, or even portions of them. It certainly should be possible to give the percentage of people in each area. That info may not currently be available, but that doesn't make the question invalid. Note that the question of who controls the vast, empty portions of Libya is bypassed by the way I revised the Q, since it doesn't concern unpopulated areas. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Libya article says the country is 90% desert, but there is no map showing population density graphically. If the Libyan population distributed to a large extent across the rural areas,with a rural farming or stable herding workforce, or is it mostly unpopulated desert with a few nomads, and a few population centers? Those two scenarios make a difference in how areas of control might be delineated. A desert country with troops driving trucks or tanks from place to place to engage in raids and skirmishes is more like a sea war, where territory is not held so much as enemy forces and equipment are destroyed until they are no longer able to offer opposition against the other side, who can go where they wish and the seize and hold ports and population centers. Speaking of sea battles, what has the Libyan navy been doing? Along the seacost, they should be able to shell rebel held cities and land soldiers behing enemy lines at will, as well as the aforesaid capturing of ports. If the navy is sitting this conflict out, then the rebels should be able to purchase shiploads of old T72 tanks, trucks, machine guns, RPGs, food, medical supplies, and ammunition, all of which are difficult to supply by air for a major military campaign. Are the rebel ports open for business or blockaded, either by the government forces or international forces? Are ethe neighboring governments of Tunisia and Egypt, which overthrew their own dictators, staying neutral with respect to the dictatorship next door, or are they allowing military and humanitarian supplies to pass into rebel held areas? The rebels seem to be exproting some oil, which should let them purchase war materiel unless some international body prohibits it. Edison (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "exproting" a new word, meaning "expropriating, then exporting" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If the information is unavailable, the question is unanswerable. That's your answer: we don't know. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, "nobody has that info" is a valid answer. Perhaps I should explain why I wanted it. I don't trust the media to make judgments for me, like that "Gaddafi is on his last legs" or "Libya appears to be headed into a protracted civil war" or "it looks like we will have two nations, eventually". I would rather judge that for myself, based on data like this. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the media is going to be the most reliable source of information in this sort of situation. The rebels aren't exactly going to advertise where their strong/weak points are, and Ghadaffi's forces are just going to give the usual PR spin. Independent reporters on the ground are the only ones who can give you an idea of what it's like, but even then things are too chaotic to give specific numbers. Battle maps like the ones from WWII were put together after the war, when military reports were combined with eye witness accounts to estimate the size and location of forces at specific points in time. Even today, you're not going to get that kind of data on-the-fly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

March 5

noam chomsky

I wanted to make a request: please tell me where I can find the complete text of the talk titled "education and democracy" given by professor Chomsky at michigan state university,march 28,1995.Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.246.50 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the text of that specific talk is available (although it might be), but it is probably very similar to the text of this talk given a few months earlier. Looie496 (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Googling finds some discussion of that speech in this book. I don't know about transcripts but there are probably audio recordings of that speech floating around. Chomsky's fan base are like Deadheads in following him around with taping gear everywhere he gives a speech. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Guns in Libya

This article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12654670) includes a picture (towards the end) of what looks like (to my very untrained eye) an M-16. Is there some way that fighters in Libya could have US arms (I would have assumed more or less everyone was using AK-47's) or, more likely, have I misidentified the gun? 24.215.229.69 (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not an expert, but I imagine that they're available on the international arms market to anyone with enough dollars and there's no shortage of those in Libya. Note that the M-16 is also made under licence in Singapore. See AR-15 variants. Alansplodge (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the image with two men holding guns towards the bottom of the article. The man in the tan jacket on the right is holding some kind of AK variant with a folding stock. I don't think there is enough resolution to identify the weapon on the left. The way it is being held in front of the tree and the building in the background really obscure its shape. It looks black and appears to be some kind of rifle or shotgun, but beyond that I couldn't say. As for the possible presence of M16s in Libya, I guess it is possible, but there are so many more AKs on the international arms market and their price is so much lower, I would be surprised. If the US was secretly providing arms to the opposition, you can be certain they wouldn't be out of US Army weapons lockers. --Daniel 22:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

lesson plan

the meaning of the acronym SMART in lesson planning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.61.83 (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

... is as set out here. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Valletta

Why Valletta is mentioned as de-facto capital of Malta, not just capital? Is there de-jure capital? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.224.253 (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know either, but you're not the first person to wonder about these here: see Talk:Valletta#De facto?, where there is also no answer given. Maybe it just means there is no law explicitly specifying Valletta as the capital city. —Angr (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The impression I got was that Valletta is just the old administrative region in the centre of a large urban sprawl made up of all the surrounding towns and cities, similar to the Cities of London or Westminster. Though, I could be completely wrong. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The city's own website lists is purely as the capital city, which it took over from Mdina in the 1570s. Nanonic (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Counties and Episcopal dioceses

Dioceses of the Episcopal church in the USA

I am trying to create an SVG version of the image to the right. This should be a fairly simple matter, since (with the sole exception of the Navajoland Area Mission) all the dioceses comprise integral civil counties. So I should be able to make a list of which counties go into which dioceses, run a script over File:USA_Counties.svg, and there we go. I've done this for a couple of provinces already and it's looking good. However, I am having quite a lot of difficulty finding a list of which counties go into the dioceses for some states, particularly New York and Pennsylvania. For example, Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania (i.e. Philadelphia) tells you which counties it covers; Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh says "several counties", unhelpfully. I can work it out by comparing the shape of the PNG with county maps, but I'd rather base this on something more reliable. So, does anyone know of a master list of counties per diocese? Marnanel (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's the Episcopal Church's list of dioceses. From there you can click on the link for each diocese, which gives you a list of all parishes and what city/town they're in. Then, you just have to find out what counties all those cities/towns are in, and you're in business. Of course, there may be some counties in some states that don't have any Episcopal parishes in them, and if they happen to be near the border between two dioceses, you're stuck with visually comparing the diocese map (also at the link given) to the map of counties. But I'm glad you're doing this; I'm the one who made the series of maps like File:ECUSA Pittsburgh.png, based on the map you linked above, and I know my maps are suboptimal. —Angr (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I've found it's not impossibly difficult to overlay county and diocese maps (examples), it's not as though the diocese maps come with WP:RS citations. I suppose a list of parishes would actually be really rather useful; I could add them in as dots, or something. Thanks. (I may be back on your talk page at some point to ask you about the sub-maps, if I have questions.) Marnanel (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm an Episcopal New Yorker who worsipped at the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine. The Diocese of New York, for historical reasons, covers Manhattan (NY county) and Westchester (a northern county adjoining Manhattan). Indeed, Westchester is primarily suburban and tends to be ignored by the bishop. I believe Brooklyn, may include Brooklyn, Queens and maybe LI but I'm not certain. The info should be available at their web sites. The church clings to historical tradition.75Janice (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)75Janice.

Per http://www.episcopalchurch.org/directory_11224_ENG_HTM.htm, "The Episcopal Diocese of New York is a community of over 200 congregations encompassing Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island in New York City, and the counties of Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster and Westchester." Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island are in the Diocese of Long Island. —Angr (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Marnanel, I'm sure you know this, but just to make sure it's said: the websites of the individual dioceses may also help. And when you do find out exactly which counties belong to which diocese, in addition to making the maps, you can also add the info to the territory= parameter of {{Infobox diocese}} in the article. —Angr (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Capital punishment in practice

How many countries abolished capital punishment, but in fact have very loose regulations on the use of police weapons? I mean the cops may generally shoot the criminal on the spot if he/she does something stupid? -- Toytoy (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It could be said that the UK fits this definition (seeJean-Charles de Menezes). --TammyMoet (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

de Menezes didn't do anything stupid and, generally, the police must not shoot a criminal in the UK. 212.169.187.224 (talk)

It's questionable if he was criminal too (there's a slight chance he was an overstayer at one stage which would potentially make him a 'criminal') and in any case it wasn't in any way related to the shooting. Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Being an illegal alien (it's possible that he was one) is not a criminal offense. Quest09 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a RD so please? The UK government doesn't seem to agree with you. See appendix 4 [16] which includes a whole lot of possible criminal offenses arising from immigration law including knowingly overstaying. [17] talks about similar things. Note that I didn't say anything to the contrary of whether the possible immigration violation was done knowingly (since it's largely irrelevant, I'd planned to say he wasn't a criminal but had pause for thought that this may not be an accurate summation since there is a slight chance he technically was). BTW just to emphasise another point I hinted at earlier, there doesn't seem to be any doubt he was in the UK legally at the time (which confuses me, if he overstayed and hid this when applying to enter then he likely wouldn't have been legal and if he didn't hide it then I'm surprised he was allowed to enter unless he genuinely didn't know he overstayed which would seem even more likely, but EU immigration law can be fairly complex and as I said it's largely a moot point, I was simply covering all bases by not excluding the possibility he technically was a criminal). P.S. In many perhaps even most countries including I'm prettys rue the UK those solely guilty of immigration violations even ones that are criminal offences or otherwise carry penalties that may include prison or fine who don't have any right to stay in said country legally are simply deported without criminal proceedings or ther other penalties being pursued because it's considered pointless to pay money to carry out said proceedings particularly if prison times is going to be involved when the country just wants them gone and probably never to come back. This doesn't mean there aren't criminal offences that may have been committed but are rarely prosecuted. There are of course many other cases when something that is technically a criminal offence is allowed to slide. P.P.S. Are you perhaps confused by summary offences? While many immigration law violations particularly those of interest here may be summary offences in the UK, these are still criminal offences AFAIK supported by our article and the earlier refs. Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"P.S. In many perhaps even most countries including I'm prettys rue the UK those solely guilty of immigration violations even ones that are criminal offences or otherwise carry penalties that may include prison or fine who don't have any right to stay in said country legally are simply deported without criminal proceedings or ther other penalties being pursued because it's considered pointless to pay money to carry out said proceedings particularly if prison times is going to be involved when the country just wants them gone and probably never to come back." - that's one hell of a sentence, Nil Einne (90 words). Any chance of translating it into English?  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen and read, many (particularly developed) countries choose not to pursue immigrations violations as criminal offences or otherwise seek any form of justice even when it may be possible under existing law. If they can be deported, they simply deport the people involved and try to recover costs involved in deportation. There must be a variety of reasons for this but one of the key reasons from what I've read (and simple common sense) is that the governments involved don't feel it's worthwhile to spend more money on the person when they just want them gone. This may not apply when the people have committed other more serious offences (or perhaps are suspected of it) or perhaps if the person keeps coming back. Prosecuting someone particularly when you need to prove they did something knowingly and may need to provide for their defence too doesn't tend to come cheap. And then if you succeed keeping them in prison just adds more cost. Particularly acute in countries where human rights are considered important i.e. most developed countries. Of course some suggest they should be more vigorously prosecuted to discourage future overstayers and this will reduce the cost in the long run but we're getting rather OT here. I included the P.S. because I wondered if Quest09 thought the lack of many prosecutions meant there were no criminal offences so wanted to explain there are other reasons for that. Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any country which would simply expel criminal illegal immigrants. They do get prison time and get deported afterwards, normally that's even a part of the sentence. Equally, I don't know any country which considers illegal immigration a crime (although they do punish related crimes, like document forgery). Do you have any source for the claim that illegal immigrants get deported, but could be prosecuted? Foreigners in US and European prisons are certainly a proof that they do no simply get deported without a prison stay.Quest09 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I'd say that anywhere that police are allowed to carry deadly weapons, they will kill people. Even without them, they could still occasionally kill people with their bare hands, I suppose. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they will kill, but the question is whether they will kill for any frivolous reason and get away with it. 212.169.187.224 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I still remember the man who stole a tank in the US, and it got stuck on what I think you call the "median". Rather than stop the traffic, which happens in the UK from time to time even on motorways when people try to commit suicide for example, a policeman coldly shot him dead without being in any danger himself. 92.29.117.180 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You are thinking of Shawn Nelson, and I don't think you can say the cops "coldly shot him dead." Look up the videos on Youtube. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing he had done warrented a death-sentance. 92.15.18.16 (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but the cops had reason to be concerned he would kill someone if he wasn't stopped somehow. It's had to fault the cops for shooting the suspect under those circumstances. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

They could have just stopped the traffic and done a variety of other things to incapacitate him. 92.15.5.255 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you watch the video? This wasn't a matter of stopping traffic. The guy was in an M60 tank. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have watched the video thanks. Life is cheap in the US. 92.29.124.221 (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And that doesn't necessarily depend on the laws. The typical problem is that it's left up to the police department to "police themselves", and they would rather cover up an illegal shooting than investigate it. Here's an example of what appears to be a current police cover-up: [18]. StuRat (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But sometimes, like in the UK, they have a separate police to investigate police officers. 212.169.187.224 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Are they really fully independent of the police, or do they ultimately report to the same person (who would want any info about police misconduct to be suppressed) ? In the US, this is the problem with Internal Affairs divisions. StuRat (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In England and Wales, investigations are managed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission[19]. If a police investigation is needed, the IPCC appoints a team from another force (not usually a neighbouring one) have their own team of investigators. The IPCC reports directly to the Home Office which is the government department that regulates police forces. I believe that there is ALWAYS an IPCC investigation if the police shoot somebody[20]. Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

[Well, 30 people have been killed in 12 years in the UK, a country whose police do not regularly carry firearms. According to one article, the US rate is about 100 a year (the article's a little out of date, and somewhat unclear), with a population five times bigger (approximately). Of course, this may be irrelevant, depending on the nuance of the question. And indeed the US haven't banned capital punishment, so it is only tangential.] Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The way you start your question suggests that you search for statistically accurate data, but when introducing terms like "loose regulations", "may generally shoot" and "something stupid" I doubt that it is even possible to provide an answer. The debate could be interesting (not to mention endless), but the question does not lend itself to be resolved statistically.--DI (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

2010 US Census

Are Census images is the Public Domain (in specific [21])? Albacore (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Census images, made during the course of official duty by a Census employee, are works of the federal government, and can generally be considered in the public domain. If the work in question was created by a contractor, though, it can have an independent copyright status. The particular image you've linked looks like it is purely by the Census Bureau and thus in the public domain. (Here is the Bureau's own page on the matter, which says more or less what I said.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to upload the image to Commons, the license template to use is commons:Template:PD-USGov-DOC-Census. —Angr (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

March 6

Graduation --- commencement or closing exercises?

I am just confused which between the two terms is right. Some schools use "commencement exercises"; some "closing exercises." Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.243.128 (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that your question would be clearer if it perhaps mentioned WHERE you were talking about. Is it the USA? To me as a non-American it all sounds rather odd. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it is here in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.243.128 (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about Education in the Philippines. But if it is true that "some schools use" one, and some the other, I don't see how either can be wrong. Either they are interchangeable, or you need to use the one appropriate to the school you are discussing. --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• They may be different perspectives of the same event or different features of the same event. "Commencement", of course, refers to beginning something and has been used in English to refer to conferring degrees since the Late Middle Ages (according to my OED). "Commencement exercises" look forward, to the future of the graduating close. In terms of graduation ceremonies, "closing" refers to the ending of a term or semester. In some cases, "commencement exercises" are one part of a larger "closing" event, but often they are, as ColinFine says, interchangeable. For instance, in Booker T. Washington's essay "The World's Work" (Page, Walter Hines; Arthur W. Page (1911). The World's Work. Doubleday, Page & Co. p. 13788-13789. Retrieved 6 March 2011.), he uses the terms that way: "Several years ago, in an effort to bring our rhetorical and commencement exercises into a little closer touch with real things, we tried the experiment at Tuskegee of having students write papers.... I believe that Tuskegee was the first institution that attempted to reform its commencement exercises in this particular direction. Ordinarily, at the closing exercises of a high school, graduates are expected to stand up on the platform and, out of all their inexperience, instruct their elders how to succeed in life. We were fortunate at Tuskegee...." I agree that it's best to follow local convention. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• I suspect that the Philippines follow US usage of these terms (a hold over from colonial days)... and in the US the two terms are interchangeable. Which is used all depends on perspective... is the ceremony focused on the the fact that the graduates are ending (closing) their time at the school, or is it focused on them beginning (commencing) their time elsewhere (whether at another school, or in life)? The reality is that the ceremony usually contains a little of both. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they're equivalent in the States. Mainly I would be surprised to hear the term closing exercises at all. Generally it's called either commencement or graduation (the exercises part is usually omitted, though you might see it on a formal invitation or something). --Trovatore (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Kim & Lucknow

In Kim, Lucknow is sometimes call Nucklao, especially by Kim and by Indian characters. Why is this? DuncanHill (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidently this transposition by locals in the area is not uncommon; per this 1906 source, not only was Lucknow called Nucklao, but "Tulla Gaon" was called "Gaon Tulla" and "Ouchtalony" was called "Lonyochta".Ruggles, John (1906). Recollections of a Lucknow veteran, 1845-1876. Longmans, Green, and co. p. 161. Retrieved 6 March 2011. The author didn't know why; I'll dig for a minute and see if I can find out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found any explanation for the custom, but I have found more confirmation of the custom; evidently Kipling was reflecting local practice, whatever the reason for it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd always thought that Kipling must have had a reason for this, and showing off his local knowledge was right up his street. DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have asked on the Language desk to see if anyone knows any more about this phenomenon. DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No closer to identifying the source, but a couple of variants - poking JSTOR tickles up this interesting review of Engaging scoundrels: true tales of Old Lucknow which notes that:

..the various spellings of Indian words and titles, not all of which are updated from nineteenth-century sources, eg Ajeb-ul-Nucklau (p. 106, ie Aja'ib al-nuquala)...

and the same title appears in this from 1834, which notes a book as 1 Vol. Ajaeb ool Nuckhloo Kant. This seems to be something along the lines of "The wonders of Nucklau" (cf/ ʿAjā'ib al-makhlūqāt wa gharā'ib al-mawjūdāt); I can't put a date on the book, unfortunately, as it doesn't seem to have ever made it to one of the major libraries. Shimgray | talk | 22:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Miscegenation Laws in Canada

Did Canada had anti-miscegenation laws in the past? If Canada had such anti-miscegenation laws, when did the laws repeal? Sonic99 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Canada has never had anti-miscegenation laws: Thompson, Debra (2008) "Nation and Miscegenation: Comparing Anti-Miscegenation Regulations in North America". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing preventing Habs worshippers from marrying Leafs stalwarts?!! The horror, the horror! Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Harmonise the what now?

"The European Commission is working on a plan to harmonise the corporate-tax base, rather than the tax rate." Source

What is the distinction? What does this mean in practical terms? Thank you. 83.70.254.18 (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

One is what or who is taxed (the base) and the other is the rate of tax. Country A might tax dividends but not interest income, and country B might tax activities at home but not abroad. Setting a standard definition of what is taxable, and what isn't, would allow for easier cross-jurisdiction comparisons. It is a significant step toward a common fiscal policy (albeit, only for corporations, not individuals). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks, that's really helpful. Do you know what Ireland taxes, what the norm is in the big EU countries, or what sort of tax base is likely to be introduced if there is harmonisation? 83.70.254.18 (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't quote me, but AFAIK the corporate-tax rates of Ireland are substantially lower than France, Germany and perhaps most of the EU (read it). It's simple competition: if a country has lower corporate taxes several corporations will establish themselves, avoiding another country where the taxes are higher. One might say that the first country is simply being clever but there is a real danger that if more countries follow this trend the corporations will get the last laugh. They go to the cheapest country to pay as little as possible while the common taxpayer bears an ever-increasing burden. Flamarande (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there is appears to be a race to the bottom leading to headlines like these or this. Tax rates of Europe show some of the different corporation tax rates in each European country, but as Flamarande (and Monbiot, in the seocnd external link) points out, there's also a battle to be fought over what does & does not get taxed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

March 7

god

if theres a god who says earth is 6000 years old, then why are dinosaurs 100+ millions old? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.130.217 (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe God is a dinosaur. My son asked me that question when he was young based on the premise that we are created in God's image, and seeing as dinosaurs pre-dated man..... It's possible if one thinks about it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether a god exists and has said so, and whether dinosaurs are 100+ million years old, is disputed. People who believe in religious claims usually dismiss scientific evidence going against their religious beliefs. See Young Earth creationism#Paleontology and dinosaurs. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

God doesn't say the Earth is 6,000 years old. Some people interpret the Bible (which was not written by God himself and includes no such chronology) that way. Those people generally believe dinosaurs are no older than people. But that surely isn't the only interpretation of the Bible. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Those who accept the scientific evidence that dinosaurs existed 100 million years don't accept that any god would be silly enough to declare that earth is only 6,000 years old. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Man has been recording his death for about 6,000 years. Schyler! (one language) 02:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a god that says the Earth is 6,000 years old.AerobicFox (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

People always talk about Dinosaurs, but what about light from distant stars? But there is room for a theory that allows both a 6,000 year old earth, and 100 million year old animals or starlight. Just like God created Adam fully grown, God created the universe and Earth, fully grown 6000 years ago, but with a back-story. I read an article on wikipedia that discusses this, but I can't find it now. Ariel. (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Omphalos hypothesis? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the one - needs a better name though, because that is not easy to remember. Ariel. (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The redirects [22] include Last Thursday. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

More like a god who likes to play dirty tricks. DuncanHill (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the universe would look identical if it actually existed for a few billion years, or if God directly calculated the end result 6000 years ago. Ariel. (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, a dirty trick - create a rational animal, and put it in a universe designed to fool it. Not the behaviour of a loving (or indeed sane) god. DuncanHill (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying but I don't understand how you feel that way. I don't see any trick, the same way that an author having a backstory for a character is not a trick. To me it's the only course of action that makes sense. (Unless you want to compel your creations to believe in you.) Ariel. (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

By definition, humans lack the capacity to create universes. Try as they may, they do not and never will comprehend what forces are required to achieve this, or how to harness them. Just as supposing a human being could ever achieve divine thought is crazy, so is ascribing to the creator of the universe the sort of imperfect thinking that humans indulge in. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to believe that humans couldn't, at some point, comprehend, harness and indeed use the forces necessary to create universes. And I don't see the need for a divinity to be incomprehensible. Most of my favourite gods have very easily understandable motivations. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

God does not exist outside the imagination of some people, see The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, God Is Not Great, Atheism: The Case Against God, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, The God Virus. YEC is a pseudoscience because it does not follow scientific method. See [23], [24] --Reference Desker (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is not a discussion on the existence of God. Desist or this will be closed.AerobicFox (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the entire question rests on whether or not God exists. Don't be so quick to slam the door. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The question explicitly assumes that God exists. Staecker (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

God made the World, I believe. How He did it: I'm not going to tell Him! St. Thomas Aquinas, as a philosopher/Scientist can prove the existence of God, he said. But, he said, that is not the God I believe in! MacOfJesus (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for Aquinas as a philosopher, but I don't believe you can call him a scientist in any recognisable sense. Marnanel (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there are term on how listening to something affects your productivity?

Is there are term on being more or less productive at work when listening to something? For example, while listening to John Maxwell messages I'm more productive than say, when listening to classical music. Of course Eye of the Tiger also works in a pinch :) --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There are always the good old standbys, "focused" and "distracted," although I would venture my results might be the opposite of yours, then again, who knows. Sometimes, also, we only think we're more productive. I knew a programmer who thought he did his best work after sniffing cocaine--trust me, his code wasn't actually any better when he was high. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

haha good point. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean "Is there any term"? "Busy music" perhaps. Music While You Work was said to play music at a fast tempo to make the workers work faster. Searching for Music While You Work on Google Scholar produces a lot of relevant results. 92.29.124.221 (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Egalitarianism - who invented the idea?

I need to shortly describe history of the idea for school paper. I`m hitting dead end - I have a feeling it is relatively new (I`m thinking French enlightenment), my best find for know is blaming Greeks ~~Xil (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

there are good grounds (from the anthropology of hunter-gatherer societies) to suggest that 'egalitarianism' has been the norm for most of humanity's existence, which might in turn suggest that nobody 'invented' the idea, though people may well have discovered the need to have such term relatively recently. Certainly 'egalitarianism' as a modern philosophical concept has links with the enlightenment - the ancient Greek concept of 'democracy' is perhaps egalitarian in a sense, but this is in a slave-owning society. I don't think you'll get far looking for an 'inventor', so perhaps you should describe how the concept has evolved over time, and what it is that it is countering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not my point. In need to know who observed and described it first, not who started practising it. There is a big diffrence between seeing a distinct idea in some process and just doing something ~~Xil (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, for theory rather than practice. Robert H. Horwitz, The Moral Foundations of the American Republic, might give you some context. L. Pojman, R. Westmoreland, eds. Equality: Selected Readings might interest you.--Wetman (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the time, ancient Greeks who believed in egalitarianism only did so for adult male fellow-citizens of one's own polis... AnonMoos (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to go for the Athenians; they've inspired those interested in true equal rights for humanity as well as those advocating for equality of rights amongst the privileged (I'd say governing) class. Potential source here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Athenians used French, which didn't exist at the time, so they couldn't have come up with the term and described it. So all we can say is that they practised something similar, not that they had a theory on it ~~Xil (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Athenians were so liberal that they weren't allowed to hit other people's slaves. At least the Revolutionary French emancipated their colonial slaves, but did have the unfortunate habit of removing the head of anyone who they suspected was a threat to the state. Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it's all very fun to bash the Greeks and their slave-owning elite, but they did in fact have a concept of egalitarianism, and a name for it, isonomia. That article gives some other names they used as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes - quite right. You'd struggle to find a truly egalitarian society even today. You might also want to look at medieval Iceland which had no government at all, but had an annual gathering called the Althing which every free man could attend - it acted as a parliament and supreme court. BUT you couldn't go if you were a woman or a slave and a lot of cases were settled out of court with the aid of a battleaxe or two. Alansplodge (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

French Wikitionary claims that the closely related French term "égalitaire" was coined in 1836, although there's no reference or explanation. Unsurprisingly, the term appears to have originated as an ideal, rather than as an observation on actual practice. The Société des Travailleurs égalitaires, described as a Babeufian organisation, was founded in January 1840 - an early usage of the term. Warofdreams talk 14:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to mention the Levellers. Historians have recently paid more attention to the crossflow of ideas between Britain and France in the Enlightenment, so you just might find a discussion of whether the Levellers had an influence on French political debate. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty." John Ball, 1381. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking for a while that Wikipedia should have a separate article on the "When Adam delved and Eve span / Who was then the gentleman?" couplet (see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_January_23#Is_.27A_man.27s_a_man_for_all_that.27_mostly_liberal_or_socialist.3F), especially since it seems to have attained currency in several medieval Germanic languages, but I'm not sure how to start... AnonMoos (talk)

Of course! Preceded by the Revolt of the Ciompi. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Between 1381 and 1640s was the Reformation. There was an egalitarian dimension to Protestantism with its emphasis on direct communication with God rather than going through priests. Later Protestantism was favourable to the development of liberalism, which broadly speaking, proposes political equality through citizenship and rights, together with economic inequality through individual striving and accumulation. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the idea of egalitarianism has been around since before written history - you can see it play out in ancient texts: for instance, the baghavad gita has some broadly egalitarian philosophy, the greek city states practices it within the polis, and the first incarnation of the nation of israel after the exodus was supposed to be entirely egalitarian (judges and kings came later). The modern concept started sometime just before or during the enlightenment, partly as a function of protestantism, as Judith notes, and partly as a function of the struggle by the wealthy middle-class property owners to get on some equal footing with the aristocracies of the time. The concept has been gradually expanding: it got a huge boost from Marxism at the beginning of the 20th century, but didn't really reach it's full philosophical/universal form (outside of some religious ideology) until the mid 20th century, with the entry of women into the workforce, the civil rights movements, and the sexual revolution. It's still an ongoing project - most people now recognize egalitarianism as an ideal - you see it pop up in political speeches everywhere - but there are still very few arenas of life where it gets more than lip service. --Ludwigs2 18:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Online UK petitions offline until?

The Downing Street online petitions website says that the petitions have been transferred to the DirectGov website. The DirectGov website says that petitions will be resumed "later in 2011".

Does anyone know when it will be possible to start an online petition again?

The cynic in me wonders if it is an attempt to gag criticism of cutbacks on the one hand and on the other the wodge of (tens of, hundreds of?) millions that the Government is giving Liz to pay for her grandson's wedding. 92.29.124.221 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The ever reliable Daily Mail[25] says that the Prince of Wales is paying for William and Kate's wedding but the taxpayer is paying £20m for security. Considering the general boost to the economy that the wedding will bring, it's probably not too bad a deal. The VAT receipts from the foreign media alone will be quite substantial. Anyhow, on the Petition the Prime Minister page there's a message box, so you could try asking them to be more specific. It does say "This is for comments only and you will not receive a response." Otherwise, you could email your MP and ask him or her to find out for you. It's what they're paid for. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted to bet on a price jump of oil...

...for example, from $150 to $100/ barrel, or from $100 to $150. How much would you earn if it really happened? Do you always have to set a time frame for speculating?

Derivatives are a complex field. Our articles suggest that you must always set a time frame. Clearly, how much you would earn would depend on how much you invested, and what margins were offered. Alternatively, depending on where you live, it may be legal to simply place a bet on changes in the price of oil, and you could take whatever terms you could negotiate with the bookmaker. Finally, if you have sufficient funds and expect the price of oil to rise, you could buy oil and then sell it at any time you like, taking the profit without having to set a time frame. Warofdreams talk 17:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See our futures contract article, and google oil futures if you want to read a bunch of articles out there about oil futures. A weird thing about them is that they are contracts to deliver a certain amount of oil to a certain place on a certain date. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

How to be the master of political science?

How to be the master of political science?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Missionias (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Masters' degrees in political science are widely available. You will generally need a relevant bachelor's degree, or any bachelor's degree and relevant experience, in order to gain admittance. Warofdreams talk 16:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Rogue traders in the UK - who deals with them now?

Now that Trading Standards has been closed down, how will rogue traders who habitually rip people off etc, such as cowboy builders, get dealt with and stopped? Thanks 92.29.124.221 (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What gives you the idea that it has been closed down? Their website [26] is very much live. --Viennese Waltz 15:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Consumer Direct and Consumer Focus are being closed, but the Trading Standards Institute will take on parts of their role, with other parts supposedly being covered by local councils or Citizens Advice Bureaux. Warofdreams talk 16:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing References Tag

Dear Wikipedia-Admins,

the article about Torsten Oltmanns is still having the tags "Missing references" and that the article "may not meet the general notibility guidelines". I've tried to optimize the article after the wikipedia-guidelines. I've added some sources many weeks ago but the article has still the missing references tag. I wanted to ask if you can tell me what is missing in the article for removing this tag. The german article about Torsten Oltmanns http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsten_Oltmanns has similar references as the english version but doesn't have this tag.

I hope you can tell me, what I can do that the article doesn't have this tags anymore.

Thank you!

Regards,

Klaus Bells — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaus Bells (talk • contribs) 15:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Like the people who came back from Provence (when it was Provence)

This is a line from Failing and Flying[27] by Jack Gilbert. Why is Provence no longer Provence? Marnanel (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a line from me, wondering if there's a question I'm not seeing. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The poem has the words "Provence (when it was Provence). Presumably it means that Provence isn't what it was, with all the tourist development. I don't think it means that Provence is no longer the Roman Provincia, or even that Provence is now part of the region Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

OtherDave: The title is a line from that poem. My question was the last sentence of my original comment. Marnanel (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

coma queen paliament

so what happens if the queen of england (god forbid) got knocked on the head and went into a coma but she was still alive, whould she still be the head of state and would parliament still be able to do things without her? like for example if she got comaed just during a general election would she be able to open parliament or appoint a prime minister and could anyone be appointed ?

and also if she went mental and over-ruled parliament and there was a civil war, as she is also the head of the army, would the army fight on her side? so if she told general of the army to go shoot david cameron in the face would they? and if the people revolted after she dissolve parliament and or shot cameron would the soldiers fight on her side and kill the people??

I know it is unrealistic that some of this might happen but you have to agree It is Possible! Sally james langley (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)