Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 20

How much capabilites does Israel need to attack Iran?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sturat:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) Yes, they have refueling capability, but it's rather limited, and may not be sufficient for this task, as the articles linked to previously explain. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Question 3 is impossible to answer because Israel will never publicly disclose facts about its nuclear arsenal, if it has any. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not impossible to make reasonable speculations based on what is known about the Israeli program (which includes, you might remember, rather specific photographs of Israel nuclear cores that Mordechai Vanunu leaked out). Anyway, "tactical" describes less the technical aspects than it does the usage of them. Both this bomb and this bomb are about the same explosive yield; the first is "strategic" because it couldn't be aimed well and was dropped in the middle of a city, the second is "tactical" because you can aim it a little better and ideally you'd just be shooting it at soldiers. If the question is, "does Israel have the ability to manufacture nukes that can penetrate deeply into the ground before detonation?," the answer is probably "no" — given that they had to buy conventional bunker-busters from the United States, they probably can't natively manufacture that technology on their own. Applying bunker-busting technology to nukes is probably not that easy without doing more nuclear testing than Israel has likely done. Anyway, I think they'd be pretty dumb to use nuclear weapons of any sort. Israel may be many things, but stupid is not one of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that the less collateral damage you cause, and the less civilians you kill, the less political backlash you're likely to suffer on the international scene? Tactical nukes, even if Israel has them, would be a last resort - but so would an attack on Iran in the first place. If you can avoid razing cities and killing thousands, you can reduce the shock and outcry somewhat, I'd assume. 58.111.178.170 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not just about collateral damage. If Israel used any nuclear weapon in Iran, no matter how small, there would be a huge backlash, even if it didn't hit anything. StuRat (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It would highly alienate the relationship between Israel and the US, Asia, and Europe. It's not the best relationship as it is. Forget about peace in the Middle East, ever. I don't see them doing it. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why Israel?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary:

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

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

Suppose that the Bretons — some of whose ancestors were displaced from Somerset, others of whose ancestors merged with Anglo-Saxon invaders to form the present population of Somerset — faced persecution in France. Suppose further that, according to Breton sacred texts, their god granted them the land of Somerset. Now, the English-speaking people of Somerset do not have an identity distinct from that of other English people. Would that justify forcing the people of Somerset off their land to make way for the Bretons? I don't deny that the Bretons would deserve justice or that they would deserve a place where they could practice their culture without facing persecution. Still, why should the people of Somerset have to suffer to end the suffering of the Bretons, particularly when the people of Somerset were themselves not at fault for the suffering that prompted the migration of the Bretons? Marco polo (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, can we please stop the arguing? If someone has something else to help answer the question, please add it, but if people are just going to argue about this, I think we should mark this question closed. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How did Rastafaris come to believe in Haile Selassie I?

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Though I understand his power was waning in favor of Marxist elements in the government" is not correct. There were not Marxists within his gov't, but in the opposition. Haile Selassie was deposed in 1974 by a group of militaries, that gradually would come to embrace Marxism. --Soman (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The list of massacres article credits the Derg as being in control of the Army - does this mean that the first five massacres were all directed by the Messiah? How do the Rastafarians deal with that? Wnt (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Map confusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The red/blue system is a conventional way of showing attacking/defending or enemy/friendly forces in exercises and so on. The Military Dictionary says: "Blue forces - Those forces used in a friendly role in NATO exercises" although I'm certain that the convention predates NATO by many decades. Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

US Restraurant Reviews

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

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

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

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

And there's the Michelin Guide, which, despite the sound, doesn't rate food by how much it resembles car tires in flavor and texture. Here's their guide online, for New York City: [1]. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I agree that a general guide is useful, but its selection of restaurants is limited by the amount of space available on the page and the time available to its reviewer to visit restaurants in that city. (Having edited a travel guide, I know that reviewers face a very hectic schedule, sometimes with only a couple of days per city.) Living in the United States, I tend to rely most on Yelp.com and Tripadvisor.com. Zagat's is also very good but requires a subscription. Google Reviews are new and often rather insubstantial, so I wouldn't rely on them too much. Marco polo (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A bit of advice I will give you based on OR. Whenever you go to a town or a city, eat where the local people eat. Avoid chain restaurants or places that cater to tourists. Search for an out-of-the-way place that is packed with local residents and you can't go wrong.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It rather depends on your tastes. If you have kids with you who are picky eaters, you might want to find a place that caters to tourists, rather than risking food that would be at home in an Indiana Jones movie or in the Klingon galley [2]. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

February 21

Specialty hospitals and emergency situations

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

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

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

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

In that hospital, Roy Hobbs conceived an alternate ending to the story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Why "to a lesser extent"? I'm sure civilian hospitals hold lots of training on major incidents - they're the ones most likely to have to deal with them. --Tango (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Civilian hospitals do this for certification, funding, etc. Military hospitals schedule this in conjunction with each civilian hospital in its region, with hospitals outside their own region to avoid complacency, and periodically without notice, i.e. 'emergency conditions'. These exercises can form a large portion of one's enlisted /officer evaluation (which are no less frequent than annual without very specific exception), and 'needs improvement' or 'unable to handle an emergercy' do not further awards or promotions compared to one's peers. Dru of Id (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would a cancer hospital have an emergency room? I've also never heard of a children's hospital with one, and I doubt VA hospitals have them. --Tango (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Some Children's Hospitals certainly do have them - and you forced to watch endless hours of cartoons while you wait in them (true story). Both of Michigan's major children's hospitals have them. Some VA hospitals have them too.[3] Rmhermen (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See Trauma center. Cases are triaged so that the worst cases go to the highest level certified emergency department that still has capacity. Trauma center may be rated at different levels for adults and children. Rmhermen (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad − academic career

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

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

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

So, wait, because Iran has a bizarre take on the Holocaust and its university student's interests reflect that, even civil engineering must be somehow tainted by that? Come on, get off it. I've no idea whether his work in civil engineering or traffic engineering is any good, but unless it actually has something to do with denying the Holocaust, dragging that into it is just ad hominem. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that Iran may grant PhDs to people not strictly for competence, but because they support the position of the ruling elite. So, it's possible Ahmadinejad may not be worthy of a PhD, but just might have known the right people and told them what they wanted to hear. But, of course, even the Nazis were capable of doing good science, as long as it wasn't in the fields where the party line had to be followed. It would be interesting to have somebody outside Iran review his work and determine if it's really PhD-worthy. StuRat (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

" just might have known the right people and told them what they wanted to hear. ": isn't it often like that, everywhere? Anyway, there are enough crackpots getting PhD in the West too: see Gillian_McKeith#Debate_about_qualifications or mediocre guys getting a PhD for a dissertation copied from the Internet (including Wikipedia): Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg. There is no need to discrediting whole countries however.XPPaul (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Gary Null is another crackpot with a questionable degree from the US. However, if a particular university gives out bogus degrees, that would call into question any degree they give, even if the bogus ones are in a different field. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there's there's a significant difference when it comes to questionable universities in developed countries with well respected universities. In those cases, the quality of the lecturers, researchers etc may be questionable because few people competent may want to work for such a university. Similarly few students genuine wanting to learn or to perform quality research are going to want to be students there. In cases of developing countries like Iran, if all the universities have problems, then quality lecturers and reseachers have limited choice. Either they can emigrate, and often many do or they do something else or they learn to live in the university system. Similar students can try to study in foreign universities but scholarships to do so, particularly at the bachelor level is usually fairly limited and only available to the ultra top students. And self or parent funding tends to be difficult. (There are greater options for postgraduate research particularly PhDs but not all may wish to do so and there may be some factors stopping them doing so.) So while there universities, even the best ones, may often not be as good as respected universities in developed countries and have a variety of problems, it may not mean their degrees are always useless. Nil Einne (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not always, no, but suspect enough to require independent verification of the skills of the graduate. StuRat (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Iran may grant PhDs to people not strictly for competence, but because they support the position of the ruling elite." He's a civil engineer. What's the pro-Khomeni angle on that, I wonder? I think it's just foolish to assume that because he's from a country where they believe different things than this one that somehow he is less of a civil engineer than you'd find around here. There are, of course, differences in the quality of technical training on a country by country basis, but to assume just based on the fact that Holocaust denial is common in Iran, that suddenly all education is meaningless, is foolish. They have real scientists and engineers over there. They wouldn't be able to support a nuclear program if they didn't (even with help from outsiders). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

They might have more lax requirements for those in the ruling party, similar to how some athletes are given a pass on their grades in the US. A prof might not find it good for his health to flunk too many of the ruling elite. (I have no idea if the crazy dwarf in question was part of the "ruling elite" at the time, however. Indeed, his autobiography say he ranked 132 out of 400,000 when he took his college entrance exams in 1976, which was before the revolution. If true, then he apparently is quite bright.) StuRat (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What you have to remember is that Iran is for the most part a rather modern country, which, when it is permitted, exports a large quantity of oil very well. It does not do that by having civil engineering degrees awarded to people who don't know which end of a T-square to grasp. Nil Einne's view is the fairly standard view of learning in countries upon which we look down a little bit, which adequately describes most in Asia.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's probably worth bearing in mind that similar comments were made regarding the technological competence of Japan prior to WWII. Not a particularly helpful assessment.. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying Japan was NOT technologically competent prior to WWII? I think the Chinese, Americans, and Koreans who fought them would beg to differ. --140.180.9.36 (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I understood that Andy was saying the reverse: Japan was underestimated. But it depends who he is respondiong to actually. --Lgriot (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think their aggressiveness was underestimated (that they would attack everyone in sight). But, the assessment that technically they lacked the equipment and resources to win a war with the US was dead on. It's their willingness to start a war they couldn't possibly win that was not understood (I still don't understand it). StuRat (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt's and Mr 98's comments are good ones. I was going to say a similar thing in my comment but decided it was already long enough. Large parts of the developed world, particularly the developed western world are scared of Iranian nuclear ambitions. Some of these people may have gained that knowledge elsewhere. But they can't be solely relying on a few people who studied elsewhere 30 years ago (or whatever). Logically we would expect a significant chunk of the people working on these programmes are 'home-grown' so to speak. There are similar concerns about weapons programmes like their ballistic missiles ones. Again some of this may be relying on cooperation with other countries or on stolen technology and people trained elsewhere but it's likely a significant chunk of the work comes from 'home-grown' engineers, scientists etc. Clearly either the people making the assessements who often claim there are areas of concern are just making stuff up (as some allege although usually not for those reasons) or they don't share the view that Iranian education is useless. Iran also has a somewhat successful space programme. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

American education system vs Indian system

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

I think few 12th graders would be able to pass that in the US.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no simple answer here. First, can you tell us what 12th standard maths test should correspond to in USA? Is it the last test before university (Last year of high school in US)? Otherwise we don't know what to compare it to. You might be interested in the Advanced Placement exams in the USA. In short, many American students could pass the test you post, but by no means all. We don't even generally require calculus in the USA :-/ An anecdote: I used to work in a graduate math admissions office in a large state university. We had many applicants from around the world, and around the USA. It was commonly believed that Asian (including India) applicants tended to have stronger qualifications than Americans on average. We did not compile statistics by nationality. Even if we did, it would be hard to ascribe cause. It may be that the Indian system is generally better at teaching math. It could be that Indians are genetically better at math. It could be that Indian culture puts more value on math. It could be that only the "best of the best" are willing to go to the other side of the world to pursue education, while it's pretty easy to move within one's home country. You can easily find many authors lamenting that USA education standards are too low, but that's more a matter of opinion than reference :)SemanticMantis (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm dreadful at maths and found most of those questions to be an utter nightmare. Then I came to Q.28, which is worth a lot of marks (equal to six early questions, according to the rubric). It seems so childishly simple, it's either very out of place or I have even less idea about maths than I thought. Surely once you've found that the first coin is gold, there's only two types of box it could be (gold/gold or gold/silver) so the answer is 50%? --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I can only give an anecdotal answer, but I live in a largely immigrant community (in Canada, where we aren't as different from the US as we would like to think), populated mostly by Indian and Chinese folks. They all claim that the OP's statement is true based on what they learned compared to what their kids are learning now. So, anecdotally, yes. Mingmingla (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

SemanticMantis is right. Actually Indian culture and tradition put more value on math than on other subjects. The average Indian thinks math is smarter than social sciences. This is why average Indian students have pathetic deficiency of critical thinking. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, the answer to that is clearly 2/3. The question must be meant to catch people in a fallacy. ;) Wnt (to clarify, there are three gold coins you might have pulled, all with equal probability. Two are in a box with a gold coin) (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't get that snub about critical thinking. Mathematics requires people to think things through for themselves. Wnt (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In cases where there is only one right answer, very different skills are needed than in areas where shades of grey must be considered. A master mathematician doesn't always make for a good debater. StuRat (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

@Semantic This is a board Final exam paper which means it is compulsory for students to pass the paper to graduate from school while the percentage students score in the board exam are the basis for entry in BA(bachelor of art) or bsc. but if a student wants to get in a engineering , medical etc college he have to pass a entrance test IIT,AIEE,PMT(which from my personal opinion is way to difficult then board paper) Rahul^{Text me} 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And my ques is not specifically on maths but on whole education system including

• bio
• Chemistry
• Physics Rahul^{Text me} 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In that biology paper, what the heck is Q.10 driving at? Qs 5 and 7 are also very poorly worded. --Dweller (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

How many subjects do they have to pass in India and in America to graduate? The smaller the number, the more in-depth I'd expect the level of knowledge to be. --Dweller (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

hmm i dont know about USA but in india we have to pass in all subject and if someone is failed in any subject then there is a supplementary exam usually after 1-2 months Rahul^{Text me} 17:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

actually till 10th standard students have to learn all subjects but after 10th standard we have to choose subjects for eg if I pick PCM then i have to study only english/Hindi , physics ,Chem,,maths (no social science , commerce,bio) in 11th and 12th standard Rahul^{Text me} 17:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So you have to pass in 4 subjects. --Dweller (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

yepp but some school also have an optional subject like (Computer science ,IP , physical education etc )Rahul^{Text me} 17:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Many of the questions are workable even to my badly rusted memories. Some of the terminology seems altogether unfamiliar - the gof and fog thing, for example. I should say, I can't answer this question without knowing what marks the students need to make, what fraction of students actually take this test, and how much cheating is going on. (Alas, at least in the U.S., when you see a teacher giving an unusually difficult test it very likely means that the answers are being distributed to the students ahead of time) Also, modern education - even in the U.S. - has been teaching more and more to the test. Those integrals are either nightmares from hell, or child's play, depending entirely on whether you've seen that particular formula before. The working of the differential equations might be the same way. Still, not to make any mistake about it, I think that twelfth grade students working any differential equation is pretty impressive compared to the U.S. norm! At least in the past, even calculus was pretty uncommon for them. Wnt (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The gof and fog thing is just badly typeset - it should say $g\circ f$ and $f\circ g$ (it's composition of functions). --Tango (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, on the biology test, it asks for "the two species of filiarial worms causing filariasis". But our article Filariasis names six. :) Wnt (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The maths paper is roughly A Level standard in the UK. Most 18 year olds choose not to take maths at A Level. They would have only the GCSE they took at 16, and the grade C that is regarded as the standard pass at GCSE is a lot easier than that paper. In France, on the other hand, all young people continuing their education to 18 (which is the vast majority), take maths, and most of them have to do at least a bit of calculus. Even so, I think many French students wouldn't do well in a maths paper like this one. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's more advanced that A-level Mathematics (the basis calculus stuff is all in A-level Mathematics, and maybe some of the trig, but I don't think matrices are even mentioned). You could answer a reasonable amount of it with A-level Further Mathematics, though (so that's restricting it to just people that have chosen to really concentrate on maths - students studying Further Maths typically do 4 A-levels, so you are choosing to spend half your time from age 16 to 18 on maths). There are some things in there that I didn't really cover until first year at university (although that's more just a matter of choosing what to put on the syllabus rather than difficulty). As mentioned above, it's a little difficult to judge the difficulty without knowing what kind of percentage you should be getting and without knowing what else was on the syllabus that happened not to come up in that exam. If the exam pretty much covered everything, so you could prepare on those topics and practice those types of questions, I would expect an A-grade A-level Further Maths student to be able to get 70-80% on that paper. If it was a much broader syllabus, then that could significantly lower the mark. The vast majority of UK students wouldn't even think about taking Further Maths, though. --Tango (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but on the other hand this paper has no mechanics, and only one very basic question about statistics, which made up a large part of my maths classes from 16-18. So although a British student wouldn't be able to answer the matrix questions on the Indian exam, an Indian student would be similarly stumped by questions about, say, normal distributions on the A-level paper. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a high school senior in America, and most of those problems look doable. --108.227.29.65 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Are these same high standards held to for students in the poorest parts of India ? If so, I'd say the expectations for math and science are higher in India, whereas a "well-rounded student" is the goal in the US. (And with childhood obesity, our students are getting more well-rounded every day. :-) ). StuRat (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

These things are extremely difficult to compare given that different education systems focus on different areas of maths. I have heard anecdotally that British maths/science/engineering departments have a little difficulty with some students educated in China, who arrive with very high-level knowledge of classical geometry (though why their schools would consider that a good area to concentrate on, I'm not sure) but only a very shaky understanding of basic calculus. There have been some attempts to objectively compare educational attainment in different countries, like PISA, which doesn't cover India but ranked the US as about average for maths attainment of 15-year-olds in 2009. Of course, in many countries it is fashionable to believe that educational standards have been slipping behind those in other countries, and this is helped along by silly cherry-picked comparisons in the media like this one. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

@stu hmm yeah its a standard paper for the whole country as the paper is supplied by CBSE one day before the exam to schools so every school which is affiliated to CBSE(60-70%) have the same paper.117.224.183.128 (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And what about the other 30-40% ? And do all kids in poor areas attend school right until they graduate ? StuRat (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Most students among the other 30-40% attend schools affiliated to local state education boards like Tamil Nadu Board of Secondary Education. As regarding the poor areas, as far as I've seen, many kids start learning local trades from their relatives instead of schooling. But then again it may depend on what you mean by saying poor areas. Suraj T 10:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes a difference, because, in the US, the expectation is that everyone will attend high school (it's not the reality, though, as many drop out), so schools accommodate those with less ability, while in your system, such students leave to learn trades earlier on. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Australian poet John Millet

My article should've been title simply "John Millett" instead of the "Australian poet John Millett". I've been having a difficult time making this simple change. I tried a redirect but the article went to John D Millett. I need to make this simple change because wiki searchers would be able to find the poet "John Millett" I'm sorry for being a klutz for not being able to do this simple task. Pjt48 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe if a wikipedia article name were ever changed, it would break the whole Internet, or at least the part served by Google and Bing. This is like changing the TCP/IP protocol - you just can't do it. I propose that you explain the situation to John Millet, and kindly ask that he start calling himself "Australian poet John Millett". just kidding: bing wouldnt find the article either way. but for google, all the above applies, for sure. --188.6.76.0 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Now for a helpful answer: To change the title of an article, just use the "Move page" button under the Page tab. I've moved it to John Millett (poet) for you. I've also made some changes to the text to make it more encyclopedic, add some categories, remove some unnecessary words etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've also added a hatnote to John D. Millett, the redirect target of John Millet. The other alternatives are to move the above article to John Millet and put a hatnote for the D guy or turn John Millet into a disambig (discouraged for 2 pages but sometimes used when we can't decide which one should be the primary topic, e.g. Bill O'Reilly). BTW it's better to ask for help using wikipedia at WP:Help desk Nil Einne (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It helps - a lot - in these sorts of issues to be clear on exactly how the subject's surname is spelt: in this case, whether it's Millet (one t) or Millett (two t's). This person seems to have 2 t's. The OP gave him only one t in the header, but the full compliment of t's in the question itself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it's such a big deal whether I copied and pasted the wrong variant from someone else's question (which was in the wrong place), concerning some Australian poet I've never heard of and don't particularly care about (poetry is not my thing). Particularly when the important action, adding the hatnote to the redirect target (of the correctly spelled name) so people looking for the poet have a fair chance of finding him if they aren't using an external search engine, was copied and pasted with the correct spelling and therefore had the desired effect. Would it be better in future, if I do not add such hatnotes, so people are unable to find an article they may be interested in, on someone I personally don't care about and am unlikely to ever care about? In case when noting I have done so, I happen to copy and paste the wrong variant used in the original question (or perhaps miss one character at the end) and therefore cause some alleged confusion over a redlinked non redirect (at the time), even if simple logic would have suggested that I actually meant the correctly spelled name which is and was a redirect to the other person with the same (including spelling) first and last name but who apparently normally includes a middle initial, rather then the redlinked non redirect. In any event, John Millet is now also a redirect to John D. Millett, as of writing this reply (i.e. it was still a redlink until a few minutes ago). I suggest John Millet follows whatever happens to John Millett unless and until we get an article on someone actually called John Millet. Incidentally, after fixing some archiving issues at Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator), I came back here and happened to noticed the red link and had planned to correct it (but obviously did not do so after finding the reply). But even so, I guess the 1-2 hours of possible confusion over this redlinked non redirect when noting what I had, wasn't worth people actually being able to find what they're looking for. P.S. Of course if it did happen the poet was John Millet and the university guy John (D.) Millett, then the correct cause of action would almost definitely have been to move John Millett (Australian poet) to John Millet. Then perhaps add a hat note with some variant of Template:Distinguish to each article. Nil Einne (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that seems somewhat of an over-reaction. My comment was aimed mainly at the OP, if anyone. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rule of the shorter term

• Does the rule of the shorter term recognize copyrights falling out of protection if it was only for failure to perform copyright formalities in the host country?
• Does the rule of the shorter term recognize copyrights falling out of protection due to other non-duration factors like works created by the US government?
• What is the minimum protection usually afforded under rule of the shorter term in most countries?

Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask in an area specifically devoted to copyright discussions, such as commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright... AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Calories and kcal

People talk about "250 calories" and whatnot, but when I look at food products, they tend to say "kcal". Does this mean "kilo calories"? If so, they really mean "250,000 calories" when they say "250 calories", no? Or am I confused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly a humanities question, but the explanation is found in the calorie article. Favonian (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

the short of it is almost anytime anyone talks about calories, they should say Calories instead (capital c). kcal avoids this confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.6.76.0 (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get an answer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

THe answer is simple. When people talking about calories, they don't - you either mishear "This burger is 300 calories" when they really said "This burger is 300 Calories" (note capiltalizaiton) or they make the mistake of saying the former when they mean the latter. when people say calories, they MEAN TO SAY Calories. and a Calorie is a kcalorie. Nobody ever MEANS to say calories. THey always MEAN to say Calories. --188.6.76.0 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The real solution is to use the metric units of joules and kilojoules, where nobody would dream of leaving off the "kilo-" prefix. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Do dieters in fully-metric countries actually talk about joules instead of calories? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC

Never heard any dieter anywhere speaking in terms of joules. Just google joules diet and see that scientists speak in terms of joules. XPPaul (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Australians generally talk about kilojoules rather than calories these days. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to add another data point, I have in front of me here a pack of Chinese (a metric country) instant noodles and the unit is kilojoules. Everything else here in Canada (another metric country) seems to be in Calories. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How many Kilojoules in a Calorie, or vice versa? And not to be ironically confused with Jewel (supermarket). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

According to our food energy article it's "One food calorie is equal to 4.184 kilojoules." I'm actually thankful it's just 3 units for measuring food energy; it could've been much worst[4].99.245.35.136 (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean that one Calorie is equivalent to 4.184 megajoules?. I see that it doesn't, I have just read the a "food calorie" is a "Calorie". -- Q Chris (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two units of energy with the same name, the "calorie" (lowercase c, used in science, although not used very often any more since everything is metric now) and the "Calorie" (uppercase c, used in food, sometimes called a "food Calorie"). There are 1,000 calories in a Calorie, so a Calorie is the same as a kilocalorie, which is abbreviated kcal. It is ridiculously confusing! --Tango (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What is "calorie"? and what is "Calorie"? answered before i posted. 203.112.82.2 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's very very simple really. There are two types of "calories".

• Big calorie which is known as Calorie
• Small calorie which is known as calorie

To avoid confusion always use kilocalorie which is known as kcal. 1 kcal is 1000 calories is 1 Calorie. Simple!!! 202.177.218.59 (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

February 22

How good are we to spot intentions of others?

Is there any reasonable study about that? Across evolution it was certainly a huge advantage to be more precise, so you wouldn't end up killing friends or letting enemies come to close to you. XPPaul (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a very vague question. How would you measure it? Really, you need to compare against someone else, but you seem to be asking about the human race as a whole. There have been all sorts of studies into how well people can spot a lie (usually comparing different groups of people, eg. law enforcement versus the general public). I expect you could find them with a quick Google search. --Tango (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I was exactly thinking in a similar study to your suggestion, but comparing honest smiles to fake smiles. Apparently people in the autism spectrum disorder are not able to discern very well between the two types. Anyway, I don't know exactly how would I measure it, but some sort of multimedia followed by questions could be an option. Stranger studies have been performed in the field of psychology. XPPaul (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please define spot. Refer to Epistemology for more details. 202.177.218.59 (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a study which showed teens were particularly bad at reading emotions of others. They would be showed various faces, and would tend to see "scared" as "angry", etc., basically misinterpreting emotions as being more negative and more directed at them than they really are. Teens came across as paranoid. StuRat (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Best Native American Tribe to Live in

I am no expert on Native Americans (in North America) but if you were to pick one Native American tribe to live in before the European colonization (1500s-1600s) of North America which tribe would you want to have lived in and why? i.e. which tribe had the highest quality of life for all members, was the most peaceful etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foljiny (talk • contribs) 05:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd want all the neighboring tribes to be peaceful, too, or perhaps the tribe could just be isolated by geography, such as on an island. Yes, invasions are still possible by sea, but "good fences make good neighbors" and islands have well-established borders, eliminating many border disputes. A technologically advanced tribe that could presumably repel any attacks would also not be targeted.StuRat (talk)

Being isolated on an island basically means that your technological level is fixed and can lead to resource issues. Personally I don't think isolation is really the way towards happy living. I'd be more worried about famine and malnutrition than violence from neighbors. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about total isolation, they could still trade with neighbors. Something like a Caribbean island. StuRat (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the Carib people who gave their name to both the words "Caribbean" and "Cannibal". Friendly neighbors. ;) There's question as to they were really cannibals, but like their closest neighbors, the Mesoamerican civilizations, warfare was a neverending way of life - for religion, acquiring resources, and acquiring slaves and wives.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How about those living in The Bahamas ? That looked to be a good life, at least until the Spanish showed up. StuRat (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah. The Taíno people are part of what early European colonists have collectively called the Arawak peoples, an invented appellation (later coopted for ethnolinguistics) which they did not really use for themselves, at least not until the Spanish taught them to refer to themselves as such. Same as "Carib" (which ironically is possibly derived from a word in Arawakan), and their application depended mostly on whether they were friendly or hostile to Europeans. They raided each other regularly nonetheless. A Taíno could be a "Carib" or an "Arawak" depending on how they behaved and regardless of which language family they speak. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I read in our article, History of the Bahamas, The Bahamas (especially in the north) hadn't yet reached full population, as human habitation was only a few hundred years old, when the Spanish arrived. Thus, they would have had less of a reason to fight over resources than those in an area with major population pressures. StuRat (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In South America, the Inca Empire was a pretty nice place to be by some metrics: lots of food (the potato meant that your average Inca was much better fed than your average European or Asian at the time), lots of security (once you were a member), nothing to onerous from a religious point of view (compared to Aztec). In North America, we don't know quite enough about the Mound builders, but the fact that they had resources and security means they must have figured out something right (see also Mississippian culture; intensive maize is not as good as the potato, but I'll take it). This reflects my own biases, but I'm a fan of civilization and safety in numbers more than I am tiny groups wondering how many kids will starve in the next bad winter. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Inca Empire was based off of domination of other tribes. It was a pretty sweet deal if you happened to be an Inca (a small minority), but if you were an average resident of the empire, your entire existence was to serve the Inca (who had somewhat of a God status). Don't like that? Fine, they'll take your entire local community, split them up, and send them to other parts of the Empire to integrate with those who are more loyal. That's one of the more pleasant things that I remember from my studies. I would certainly not want to have lived in the Inca Empire. Falconus^{p t c} 15:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, if you've got the option to choose, choose the guys who are in charge. Again, they ate better and had better security than probably anybody else around there. I know we're always supposed to pick the societies that correspond with some kind of peaceful, individual existence, but I'll take civilization over the state of nature any day. Anyway I've spent a long time living off the benefits of being in a conquering empire so I can hardly start throwing stones there. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's really difficult to answer this question because we lack much conclusive evidence for most of these societies before contact with Europeans. At the time of contact, I would think that the highest median standard of living may have existed in the most egalitarian societies, which often were not agricultural, such as the Inuit or some of the indigenous peoples of California. The state societies for which we have much evidence, in the Andean region and in Mesoamerica, were rather violent and hierarchical. Marco polo (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Inuit life seems pretty hard to me. A bit cold up there. Hanging out in California isn't so bad, though. Hierarchy doesn't bug me so much. The question about violence is who suffers from it. Again, I'm not trying to hold too different a standard than the one most of us on this here website currently work by and profit under. I'm not much of a hunter-gatherer, personally. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Being Haida seems ok...except for the people who always got attacked by them. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps best to be part of a comparatively later people. According to one author (whose book I have at my house), archaeological excavations of burial sites of the Glacial Kame Culture reveal that almost everyone died in their 30s or 40s, and I dimly remember reading that the lives of many other Archaic peoples (and probably the same is true of the yet earlier Paleo-Indian period) were similarly poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Nyttend (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Haida? Historically, no thanks: "The Haida were known for their seamanship, their martial inclination and their practice of slavery. Canadian Museum of Civilization anthropologist Diamond Jenness has compared the tribe to Vikings. " Perhaps the Iroquois? They too were warlike, an held slaves, but had a good position for women. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

official language(s) BiH

I'll ask this here rather than at the language desk because it's a matter of law rather than linguistics.

What is/are the official language(s) of Bosnia and Herzegovina? (At the federal level, not for the FBiH or RS.) The BiH constitution does not specify an official language. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistcs (2006) cites a language law of 1993 which says there is one, which goes by three names; the CIA factbook says there are two, Croatian and Bosnian, which can't possibly be correct; a couple sources say three (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian), but go into so little detail that they could simply be parroting someone else or repeating the three names in the language law without determining whether they are official as separate languages or as the same language.

This is a matter of what we enter in the 'official language' cell of the country info box. We've been having an argument on the talk page, but no-one has really compelling evidence. — kwami (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of looking at the website for their embassy to the US, as these websites generally have information like that, and it does not list 'official' languages, as such, just 'languages', which are Bosnian, Croation, and Serbian, possibly because the constitution does not specify an official language, as you say. Remember, Serbo-Croatian was originally considered one language, until the wars in the former Yugoslavia. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The right thing to do is to make sure that the info box shows "Languages" and not "Official languages", then list Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian in alphabetical order. (Even though the differences among these three "languages" as spoken by natives of any given place in that country are smaller than the differences among the versions of English spoken by natives of any big city in the United States or UK.) Marco polo (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The country info box is specifically set up for official languages; in cases where there is not (at at USA) we say 'none'. Problem is, I don't know if that's the case for BiH either. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You want to be looking post-Dayton. I wouldn't think pre-Dayton laws passed in Sarajevo would have standing for the whole state unless confirmed after Dayton.--Cam (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

How does the Hong Kong government deal with asylum seekers such like Falun Gong practitioners and and others?

--Inspector (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC) !

Check Falun Gong in Hong Kong, (it rhymes!)and there are further links in the article. XPPaul (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Employer sponsored health care and age

If an employer in the US pays for the health care of all of his employees, and intends to do so for all new employees, does he has to pay more for older employees? Or is there any sort of deal for companies, where they get all covered for a fixed amount? The first case could lead to discrimination against older employees, the second could be a disadvantage for insurance companies when a company has many old employees. XPPaul (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

US employers that offer insurance have group insurance plans, so premiums do not vary based on an employee's age or other characteristics. Insurers have structured these plans to more or less guarantee them a profit. What I don't know is whether insurers require companies to submit demographic information about their employees that would be a basis for charging different premiums to companies based on their demographic profiles. Marco polo (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How would the company get these demographic profiles?99.245.35.136 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't know whether this is done, but considering the scale of bureaucracy involved in US healthcare, I wouldn't be surprised if it were. The insurer could conceivably require a company applying for a group insurance policy to provide information on the ages, genders, rates of absenteeism, and perhaps other variables of its staff. The insurer might also offer different base premiums for companies in different sectors, based on occupational safety by sector or actuarial calculations about correlations between things like median level of education in a given sector and rates of cardiovascular disease, and so on. Marco polo (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw a video once about the history of Atari in which one of the head guys said they got ridiculously low health insurance rates because their staff was so young. The insurer paid for its judgement when many of the employees got braces! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I never knew how to end an e-mail conversation.

If I don't send a final "thanks" or something, I feel rude. But if I do, I feel annoying. I never know if people expect a final letter to me, and if they get hurt/sad if I don't respond to their last message. But if it goes on forever, it never stops... obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If they ask for information, you should answer something, if they offered you something, a short thank you should be enough. XPPaul (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'thanks' isn't so much of a sign of appreciation than it is just an indication of the end of the message. It's meaningless. I use 'thanks' as a closer, and I'm pretty sure all my correspondents recognize it as such. Mingmingla (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I almost always send a quiet thanks as a closer if it's a formal thing, and I'm pretty sure they note it and delete quickly. On rare occasions you get a "good luck with your etc." as a closer, but if they feel compelled to do that, it's definitely not asking for "thanks for your good luck wishes," it's a real closer. Between friends, you figure it out, but conversational exchanges, rather than requests, end in the middle of nowhere when someone gets bored. There's no rudeness there, just like it can't really be rude not to rsvp to an invitation you didn't want that is just cc'd to a million people. I still usually rsvp, but I don't expect others to. IBE (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I close my emails with "Thanks," followed by my name, only if there is something (however trivial) about which I can express thanks. If someone sends an email asking "Have you completed Task A?", I respond to the question but don't feel compelled to end my response with "Thanks" since the other person has not done anything requiring thanks. In those cases, I just close the email by typing my name. Marco polo (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can always think of it as thanking them for taking the time to read your email, if nothing else. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Date of this 17th century map of Siam?

Shortcuts created in the Chao Phraya

Background: Ko Kret is an island on the Chao Phraya River in Thailand. According to most sources, it was created when a shortcut canal was dug to bypass a meander in the river in 1721–1722 (the topmost loop in the image to the right). A quick search for English-language sources reveals this page at ayutthaya-history.com which gives the year as 1722 and cites Van Beeck, Steve (1995). The Chao Phya, River in Transition. Oxford University Press. pp. 40–41. I don't have access to the book, but most online mentions in Thai give 2264 in the Buddhist Era which is 1721 CE; close enough for me.

The problem: This map from the English edition of Simon de la Loubère's Du Royaume de Siam, published as A new historical relation of the kingdom of Siam, shows Ko Kret with its bypass canal. It is the loop by the settlements labelled Ban tret noi and Ban pac tret noi. (Tret is an older term for kret, which means bypass canal.) The English edition of the book was published in London in 1693, which predates the aforementioned date of the canal's excavation. I couldn't find the map from the original French edition (which was published in 1691); none of the versions I found in Google Books had the page scanned properly.

Question: This means that either the widely-circulated historical fact regarding the date of the canal's construction is incorrect, or that the map in question is actually from a later date than the book. Would anyone like to investigate, or suggest how to approach this? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The older map is clearly not very accurately drawn, and I don't think that you can be sure that the artificial island you see on the map is in fact Ko Kret. There appear to be many canals and distributaries of the Chao Phraya in this region, and I think that the waterways around the island on the old map could be any of several of those. Incidentally, I don't find "Ban tret noi" or "Ban pac tret noi" on modern maps of the area, so it isn't clear where those locations really stood. I don't think that this map counts as conclusive evidence contrary to the other documentary evidence. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Screen 18/615 is the original map in "Du royaume de Siam", Tom. 1, 1691, before page 4. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Er, what's the other river on the map? It quite clearly shows two rivers (or at least that's what it looks like it shows), but there's only one on the SVG. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pp.paul.4. So it appears the English reproduction was accurate. As for Marco polo's concerns, I think Ban pac tret noi is very likely what is now Pak Kret, which is right next to Ko Kret. The Royal Institute Dictionary gives tret (เตร็ด) as an alternative of kret (เกร็ด), which means river bypass. The location on the map doesn't perfectly correspond to the current city, but is close. Actually, I was able to trace all the bends in the river to that in Google Maps. I made this map to mark some of the locations in the old map on Google—some names are recognisable.

As for the other river, that is the Tha Chin River, which is off the map's edge. Speaking of which, the canal that links the two was also supposed to be built in 1705, according to the above-linked page. Googled mentions of the canal say that a natural canal existed prior to the 1705 project though, so this is somewhat explainable. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me cite here a couple of lines from the above mentioned book (Steve Van Beek: The Chao Phya, River in Transition. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur 1995, ISBN 967-65-3069-7, page 39):

"As international trade increased, Ayutthayan monarchs recognized the need to shorten transport distances between the capital and the sea. Although they were unable to dredge the bar to admit deeper draught ships, they realized they could speed the journey north by digging khlong lat in the winding portions of the lower river. Between 1538 and 1722, they dug six short khlong lat that lopped 62.3 kilometres from the length of the Chao Phya between Ayutthaya and the Gulf of Thailand (Map 7). The first khlong lat, dug in 1538, was a 3-kilometre shunt called Khlong Lat Bang Khrua that connected Wat Chalom (on what would henceforth be called Maenam Om) with Wat Khee Lek (on what would become Khlong Bangkok Yai) on the northern edge of present-day Bangkok. It shortened the journey from 9 to 6 kilometres but straightened the channel for easier passage. After 1636, it would be superseded by Khlong Lat Muang Nonthaburi.

"The second canal would have a profound effect on the course of Thai history. There is disagreement about the exact date of its construction, with Gerini stating it was dug in 1538 and Nid Hinshiranan, a modern city planner, contending that it was dug in 1542. Its importance, however, is undisputed because it was responsible for the creation of Bangkok and Thonburi. The 2-kilometre-long Khlong Lat Bangkok was dug from the site of the present-day Bangkok Noi Railway Station to a point just south of Wat Arun. River action widened it to become the main channel of the river, transforming the former loop into four canals—Bangkok Noi, Bang Ramat, Taling Chan, and Bangkok Yai—and reducing a journey of 14 kilometres to 2.

"The third, Khlong Lat Kret Yai, was dug above Pathumthani in 1608 to shrink 18 kilometres to 7. In 1636, a dozen kilometres downriver, Khlong Lat Muang Nonthaburi was cut across the neck of Maenam Om by King Prasat Thong. It pared 17 kilometres from the 22-kilometre journey. Khlong Lat Kret Noi at the town of Pak Kret was dug in 1722, reducing the journey from 6 kilometres to 2.

"The sixth khlong lat was below Bangkok at Ratburana, just south of Khlong Toey. A 600-metre-long canal called Khlong Pak Lat was cut across a narrow neck, effectively cutting 19 kilometres from the journey. Unfortunately, because the Chao Phya is tide-affected, the canal introduced saline water into the upper river, damaging marine and river-bank life. A dam would be built across its mouth in 1784 to halt salt water intrusion. Today, of the six khlong lat, only this one has failed to become the main channel of the river."

Another one of my books (Derick Garnier: Ayutthaya – Venice of the East. River Books, Bangkok 2004, ISBN 974-8225-60-7) also gives 1721 as date for the Ko Kret canal (page 34). --hdamm (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

what's up with the highs in 'queen of the night' aria?

they're way outside the range being sung, no? Is it like falsetto, or what? Do any male roles (baritone, tenor, bass, whatever) have a similar aria sung way outside of the actual range of the part? What is this strange thing. 188.6.76.0 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The aria in question is Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen. Some sopranos have a very high range! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is amazing to me when a really good soprano just seems to casually toss it off. By the way, that link redirects to This One.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed Tammy's link.

It's high, but not so high that it's impossible. It goes up to top F, but only momentarily. Most sopranos see it as a challenge to be overcome, although relatively few can do it superbly well. Massenet's Esclarmonde has the highest note in standard opera - top G, and sticks around those stratospheric heights for long, taxing stretches, which really is beyond most sopranos, except for the likes of Joan Sutherland and a few others, which goes a long way to explaining why it's rarely performed.

Now, if you want to hear really high notes done jaw-droppingly brilliantly, listen to Mado Robin or Yma Sumac. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link. I had problems with it after the cat decided he liked the aria... --TammyMoet (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

February 23

Meaning of word or name

Searching the word Arwyn on wikipedia redirects to a disambiguation page for Sojourn with no mention of Arwyn anywhere. Likewise there's no explanation of "Sojourn". Ghits show it's Welsh, a rare personal or family name sometimes spelled Arwen for girls and is Welsh for "muse". Am I missing something here? or is there a case for making a separate listing for Arwyn? Thanks in advance, Manytexts (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There's enough Arwyns, so I'll make up a dab page I've made a given name page. (Near as I can figure, the editor responsible actually intended to redirect to Sojourn (comic book series).) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah thanks Clarityfiend. Thought I slipped a cog. Manytexts (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Humanities Freemasonry

It is important to be accurate and precisely clearly separate Regular Mainstream Freemasonry from Illuminati Freemasonry . Satanic. Occult. If it was not for Democracy quality a lot of Muslims would not be in Canada, we highly question the abuses deaths incarcerations imposed upon Lord Lovat Scouts Canadians 1st family and Canadian Moroccans. Investigations are occurring across Canada.

Please include thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.227.128 (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. Please ask a question if you want us to answer you. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. – b_jonas 09:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Low vehicles per capita for Colorado and Nevada?

I was just glancing through our List of U.S. states by vehicles per capita and as expected, the more "rural" states have a higher count of vehicles per capita. I expected New York to be that the bottom of the list but surprisingly Colorado and Nevada were the lowest two. These two states gave me the impression that they were quite sparsely populated. So what gives? 99.245.35.136 (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but a vehicle per capita measurement would be independent of population density (all else being equal). If there's one person in a state, and she has a car, that's a 100% vehicle per capita rate. . . DOR (HK) (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they're independent when all else being equal, but "all else" are not equal in this case. A more rural state will have lower population density but also less urbanization, thus the average citizen will need to travel longer to reach where they need to be, hence a greater need for cars. There's a clear correlation from that list, with the exception of Colorado and Nevada.99.245.35.136 (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Colorado and Nevada are both examples of states centred on a massive city, surrounded by huge areas of almost empty land (61% of Coloradans live in the Denver–Aurora–Boulder Combined Statistical Area and about 71% of Nevadans live in the Las Vegas – Paradise – Pahrump combined statistical area, both of which have decent public transport systems.) Wyoming on the other hand, at the very top of the list, has no major urban areas at all. There will probably be other factors - wealth probably plays a part (especially in cases of multiple car ownership), as will the types of jobs predominant in each state, and our article on Colorado mentions the state being "healthier" than most too - but that, I think, is the most significant factor. Smurrayinchester 09:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains it. 99.245.35.136 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

Actually, there is something else going on here. Most of Colorado's population may live near Denver, but it is somewhat hard to get around the Denver area without a car. Check out this discussion. Apparently, many Colorado residents drive cars registered elsewhere because of the state's high car registration fees. It is probably no coincidence that neighboring (and much less populous) Wyoming has the highest rate of car registration per capita. No I know why I saw so many cars with out-of-state plates last time I was in Denver! Perhaps something similar is going on in Nevada, because I can't think of a more car-dependent city than Las Vegas. Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Pete Hoesktra's attack ad

I don't understand this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrbdXUWryXk

If you wanted to make someone the target of your hatred, why would you choose a young, attractive woman who was a contestant for Miss California? She even has a soothing voice and is obviously fluent at English, despite her artificial attempts to seem otherwise. --140.180.9.36 (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignorance, racism and bigotry come immediately to mind, followed by isolationism, protectionism and other closely related failings of the far, far right. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The creator of that ad (and the politician that paid for it) apparently thinks racist tendencies overpowers any sexual tendencies. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Barring an honest explaination from the creators, which seems unlikely, who knows what they're thinking? May be you're supposed to get more angry that it's not some ugly fat Chinese guy who is stealing your jobs etc but a young attractive woman (and perhaps it also sends a message that the target of the attack ad is going to make it more difficult for you to find mail order bride). Remember despite the valid concerns of people criticisng this ad, one would presume the primary purpose of the creators would be to get the audience to dislike or hate the target of the ad, rather then the person in it. It may be they were hoping if the person in it would also be hated, but I don't know if this has to be the case. Targeting the general concept may be a better bet, what's the use of getting your audience to focus your hate on some random actress, when when what you want them to hate or dislike is the general concept and therefore the person who is allegedly causing it? (I'm not saying they succeeded or made a smart decision.) Or may be the creators just weren't thinking and saw this hot girl auditioning so chose her. May be they wanted to use sex appeal to try to better sell their message (as many advertisers do) and didn't consider how well it would fit with their message. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that the ad is racist. In fact, although I don't agree with its message, I don't think the ad was intended to be racist. From a practical point of view, however, wouldn't you want viewers to think "what a despicable woman" upon seeing the actress, rather than "wow, I would totally do her"? --140.180.9.36 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I don't see any reason to think that. It's easy to think that it may defeat the purpose of the ad. Rather then people coming away with and remembering the message that the opponent of the ad is the person they should concentrate their anger/hate/dislike upon (and therefore not vote for her), they may instead come away with the messsage the woman in the ad is the person they should direct their anger/hate/dislike. There's no guarantee that's going to result in that much ill feeling towards the target of the ad, in fact it's easy to imagine they may mostly forget about her if they have another target (the woman in the ad) for whatever ill-feelings the ad generates. That's clearly of little benefit to person who authorised the ad. (I.E. When they are thinking wow, what a despicable woman, the primary thing they should be thinking of is the senator not the random actress appearing in ad.) I'm not of course saying that having the woman in the ad becoming a focus is definitely a bad thing, perhaps it will be better that way. I'm simply saying that it's far from guaranteed and it's a clear risk given the purpose of the ad. Nil Einne (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Police badge, shields, and nomenclature

I was surprised to find we don't have much in terms of an article on police badges, instead there's a short badge article that covers everything. My question is, the term "shield" is used to refer to badges or more broadly the concept of being a police officer, but I wonder how specific the term is. For example, the New York Times will regularly use the term "shield" to refer to a detective's badge, or a "detective's shield", which led me to wonder if that's a term reserved for detectives. Or does the term "shield" refer to any officer's badge.

And does the meaning change based on the geography? Any sourced answers would be especially welcome. Shadowjams (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We do have an article, Police memorabilia collecting and this looks to be a good website.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately none of that has anything to do with the "shield" terminology. Shadowjams (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Random googling led to Air Force Security Police Badge, in which the term "shield" is used liberally. I think they're synonymous, the term "shield" possibly being more specific as its shape suggests a tiny shield like a warrior would use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, "Warrant Card" would be the equivelent term. It does include a small police badge [5] but it isn't generally shield-shaped in Britain (usually a Garter star). It seems to be a universal concept, because I found this image for a police I/D badge in China. Alansplodge (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Star-shaped badges are not uncommon in the U.S. For example, [6]. Perhpas stars are more associated with county sheriff department and shields with city departments? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

a tomour

hi mr ramni this fred, i think , you are an availity man, and i love power men.i thinkyou can help us, and i can help you in election too. mr president i have many informs from republic islamic of iran, that its very important for you and its very good point for ur election. if uy help me that i save here, and care me, i promise i can help you, you should know i love american people and most of people too. pls think about my offer, im in turkey in UN, thank you next president of usa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.30.138.2 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia Reference Desk. We answer questions from people seeking information. It appears that you are trying to contact Mitt Romney, but he is unlikely to find your message here. You may want to contact his campaign directly. Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have information about the payroll tax cut extension?

I need something to link to.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bush_tax_cuts#Extension_of_Bush_tax_cuts? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, a bill was passed by Congress last week and that article has nothing after 2010.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Our article is titled Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Marco polo (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That was a holy mess. I've made it look a little more like what Wikipedia expects, but I'm still unsure about what to include. And the one reference expired.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the correct formatting is for articles like that, but someone keeps making it look worse and worse.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

February 24

Shafia murder trial other two kids

What happened to the other two kids? Where were they when the honour killing happened? Afghanistan? Did they testify during the trials? What happened to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.42.110 (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Shafia family left Afghanistan long ago and did not return at any time. I think the boy did testify. As far as what happened to them, the Shafias live in Canada and the children are under the age of majority, so the answer will be pretty much "none of your damn business". :) Franamax (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Shafia family murders article says the other kids are in the care of "social services," presumably the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services. What would happen to children in such a unique case, I have no idea. I don't know if they have other relatives in the country who can take care of them or if they'll wind up in foster care. I'm guessing that because of the media attention the case received, they've probably gotten several offers from would-be adoptive parents already. Incidentally, the article claims there were three other kids. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt they'd be put up for adoption. They do have parents, although wretched ones. They are likely in foster care, but the decisions of Quebec family services are not public. --Xuxl (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Grand Duke/Duchess of Luxembourg at Nobel Prize ceremony

Does anyone know why the Grand Duke and Duchess of Luxembourg attended the Nobel Prize ceremony in Sweden last December? I heard that one of the laureates is from Luxembourg, so does that mean that the Nobel Foundation invites the heads of state of all of the laureates' home nations to attend the ceremony? Ragettho (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that any of the three recipients of the Peace Prize last year had any connection to Luxembourg. I should note that the current Grand Duke of Luxembourg and the current King of Norway are second cousins, their grandmothers (Astrid of Sweden and Princess Märtha of Sweden) were sisters. Perhaps it was merely a social invitation from a family member more than any official connection. Just a guess. --Jayron32 04:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Scratch that. You asked about all of the prizes. I'll do a bit more searching; though the familial relations also apply to the monarchy of Sweden also; the current monarchy of Norway is related to Sweden via Märtha as well. --Jayron32 04:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Found it. Jules A. Hoffmann, laureate in Physiology or Medicine, was Luxembourgish by birth, though it appears he's now a French national. Still, with a country as small as Luxembourg, it isn't likely there are a lot of Nobel Laureates from there, so it seems likely that the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess would attend the ceremony. --Jayron32 04:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It still seems odd though... how would the event organizers decide which heads of state to invite to the ceremony? How "small" does the country have to be? Or perhaps the Grand Duke and Duchess asked if they could come? Ragettho (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

5 of the prizes are awarded in Stockholm each year, this past year, there were 7 countries represented among those 5 prizes: Isreal, the U.S., Sweden, Australia, Luxembourg, France, and Canada. Since the Head of State of Sweden actually hands out the diplomas, we can take him out of the equation. That leaves 6 heads of states, and their spouses, to invite. Doesn't seem like all that many people. It's not that small of a function room. Indeed, the Nobel Prize article notes that the banquet has 1300 guests. I'm not sure that it was hard to find a place for the Grand Duke and Duchess. I suspect that all of the heads of state of the above countries got invited, several likely declined the invite. --Jayron32 05:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I just found two links that might interest you. This one says that the Grand Duke and Duchess were invited by the King of Sweden. This one lists the guests who were seated at the table of honor during the banquet. They include the Ambassadors of Israel, United States, Australia, and France. The Israeli Minister of Science and Technology and the Canadian Chargé d'affaires also attended. So it seems likely that Luxembourg wanted to go a step further than the rest and send their head of state.

Looks like I just answered my own question... but I do appreciate your help! :) Ragettho (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Muslims of Thailand

So far I know that Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat are Muslim majority provinces. which province is the fourth one? I read it in Yala article that it is one of the four provinces that is a Muslim majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.108 (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Satun Rojomoke (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Muslim majority of Russia

So far I know that Chechnya and Dagestan are Muslim majority regions of Russia. which other places are also Muslim majority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.108 (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

See Islam in Russia --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it easier for the Labour Party to win the elections in the UK?

Hello, please excuse my uneasy English, I'm a froggy. We frequently hear in the news that's is easier for the Labour Party to win the elections for the MPs in the United Kingdom. I asked to several people in the UK the reasons that could explain this unfairness but, honestly, I didn't understand.

Please, consider how this fact surprises me because in France that's the other way round.

Thank you for you explainations. Joel DESHAIES-Rheims-France---92.147.236.254 (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

UK parliamentary election results, 1950–2010

Not sure where you heard that from but it's not true at all. At the moment Britain is governed by a coalition of the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties. Before that the Labour party were in power. The political landscape of the country changes over time. Bear in mind that the ruling party is determined by whoever can form a majority of seats in the House of Commmons. In theory voters are not voting for the party they want to rule the country, they are voting for their own local MP. Different parts of the country have different political affiliations. This is a sweeping generalization but in general the Labour party are more popular in the north and the Conservative party in the south. --Viennese Waltz 10:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In the record of UK general elections over the last 60 years (right), the split of Labour (red) to Conservative (blue) wins is about 50:50. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If by "easier" you mean that the Labour Party can win elections with a lower proportion of the overall national vote than the Conservative Party can, that is (or, generally, has been) true. The reason is that Labour Party voters are more heavily concentrated in particular constituencies than the Conservative Party (or the Lib Dems) - particularly in the old industrial areas of Scotland, northern England, the Midlands and south Wales. So, if the Labour Party is doing poorly nationally, it is still likely to win a substantial number of seats in those areas. More Conservative seats, in contrast, tend overall to be less "safe" and more vulnerable to national swings of mood. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this here (though they base a lot of their analysis on the output of a uniform-swing based model rather than real elections). They conclude that the main two causes are tactical voting (for the last few decades at least, many Lib Dem supporters have been happy to vote Labour, and Labour supporters happy to vote Lib Dem, if they think that will help to prevent the Tories winning their seat) and differential turnout (for whatever reason, safe Labour seats tend to have a lower turnout than safe Tory seats). However, under the first past the post system, the main electoral bias has been towards the dominant parties - the Conservative and Labour parties, and the most popular parties in Northern Ireland (currently the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin) tend to win a far larger share of the seats than their share of the vote. In contrast, parties like UKIP and the Green Party of England and Wales have found it very difficult to win any seats at all, despite a significant share of the vote nationally, and even the Lib Dems are severely under-represented. Conservatives often complain about this bias towards Labour - but they remain the strongest supporters of the status quo, as it is difficult to imagine an electoral system that would be more favourable to them. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Effectively the conservative voters are more evenly spread across the country, and so less likely to form the needed majority in any particular constituency than labour voters, a large fraction of which live in the major cities, where they make up a clear majority in many districts. Much the same as the reason labour always seems to be winning at first, with the rural conservative votes taking longer to be gathered in and counted. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Some say that the peculiar British First past the post system favours the Labour Party at present, as there is a continuing trend for people to move away from the inner cities, which are often safe Labour seats, into suburbs and dormitory towns, which are often marginal seats. See Voting system is biased towards Labour because of uneven size of constituencies, warns report] (but this item is in from a strongly Conservative newspaper). The Coalition has initiated constituency boundary changes by an independant body called the Boundary Commission to address this.[7] Not surprisingly, Labour didn't address the issue when they were in power, as they stand to lose a quite number of seats in Parliament. Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is true that a first-past-the-post system strongly favours the two largest parties, so that's one reason why Labour (and the Conservatives) find it easier to win elections. But, as Alansplodge says, the unequal electorates of constituencies is the key to why Labour have an even greater advantage than the Tories. Labour tend to do well in areas where constituencies have smaller electorates: Wales, where legislation determines this, Scotland where the same was true until recently, and inner cities, which have tended to lose population over time, so their electorates are roughly average immediately after each boundary revision, but they fall thereafter. There's lots of research on this, and other possible causes of bias - [8] is a good example. The Conservatives are trying to change this by introducing more frequent boundary revisions, and removing Wales' entitlement to more seats by population.

Having voters concentrated in a few seats is good for a small party, as it gives them more chance of winning one or more of those seats, but bad for a major party, which would prefer to be competitive in a large number of seats. An example: party A's vote is widely distributed; they win 20,000 votes in each of three seats. Party B's vote more concentrated; they win 10,000 votes in two of those seats, and 40,000 in the third. Both parties have taken 60,000 votes, but party A wins two of the three seats. I believe that Labour's vote is now slightly more concentrated than the Conservatives', but this in itself is not advantageous. Warofdreams talk 17:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You might also be interested in Gerrymandering, the process of redistricting so as to influence the results of elections in the favor of the party who does the redistricting. That is, they move voters between districts to try to make it so they will win the next election. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Though it's worth pointing out that this is largely an American practice - in the UK constituency boundaries are determined by independent boundary commissions, which are mandated to produce boundaries that take note of community cohesion, average constituency sizes, and not breaching local authority boundaries. However the current cycle of boundary drawing has been mandated to considerably reduce the overall number of constituencies, and has resulted in some stranger than usual proposals, such as a constituency on both sides of the Mersey estuary with no means of communicating between them without a very substantial detour. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd think as long as human are involved, bias is inevitable. Perhaps a computer program, which doesn't even allow party affiliations as an input, might do better. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Arwel - gerrymandering hasn't been an issue in the UK for a VERY long time, and the original question is specific to the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to Dame Shirley Porter when she was involved in Westminster Council: she was indeed accused of gerrymandering, in the Homes for Votes scandal. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right. IIRC the alleged offence was to move tennants in social housing around the borough for electoral gain in local elections. However, the original question is specific to Parliamentary elections. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

future India vs china war

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
who will win the war and what will be its consequences 117.224.158.146 (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC) To quote the instructions at the top of the page, "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead."--Jac16888 Talk 15:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC) A later response purporting to give "the answer" has been removed. Just to reiterate, "The reference desk DOES NOT ANSWER requests for opinions or predictions about future events". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Assuming you mean a "hot war", the question contains a flawed assumption, that they will fight such a war, as nuclear powers have too much to lose. The US and Soviet Union didn't, but instead fought a cold war, including many proxy wars, and wars with only one side actively participating, with the other acting covertly, such as in Vietnam and Afghanistan. StuRat (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Really, you're going to remove references? Isn't that the point of a reference desk, to provide references? Why don't you go take your clippers to the section up a few days, where the only legitimate reference has been to our article directly about the subject. For the record, here is the removed response, and here are the references that Jack of Oz decided don't belong on the reference desk. The last one is especially relavent to the question, as is the Youtube video, where India's Navy chief actually comments on this exact matter. Buddy431 (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Billionaire CEOs who take $1/yr salaries and minimum wage issues

It seems pretty safe to say those cases where the rich guy "officially" only makes $1 per year are just for show (I've not yet seen an example where the $1 per year taker isn't massively compensated by other means, including the owning of millions of shares of valuable stocks). But if one actually were not compensated in any other way except for the $1 for the year on their Form W-2, which employers give each employee to whom they pay a salary, wage, or other compensation as part of the employment relationship, and if it were a verifiable fact that they worked more hours in the year than minimum wage would yield $1 for because the company required them to put in more than a fraction of an hour in the year or else they'd be fired, wouldn't that be a violation of minimum wage laws? If it's really just a loophole to call someone "salaried" instead of "hourly" to escape minimum wage laws, I wonder what keeps miserly employers from doing this with their maids, dishwashers, car washers, etc. who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and not in a position to find something better with the conditions of their continued employment not that they work a specified number of hours per week, but only that they get the job done, which itself obviously takes time to do, with a salary that, when you factor in the time the job takes to do, ends up being an amount per hour that would easily condemn the employer in the law's eyes. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Some employees are exempt from minimum wage and overtime laws in the U.S. Exempt Employee (see "practical application" near the bottom). I'm guessing other countries have similar laws and exceptions. RudolfRed (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt his W-2 will actually say 1.00 as there is almost certainly stock or other compensation effects, even if only from prior years.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course you're right in the real world, since that form has in Box 1 "Wages, tips, other compensation." But if one actually were not compensated in any other way except for the $1 for the year, and didn't have any stock or options (this would never really happen), then it could have 1.00. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, if you are only paid $1 then you only earn $1... what is the question? --Tango (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Other than the questions mentioned of "if one actually were not compensated in any other way except for the $1 for the year on their Form W-2, which employers give each employee to whom they pay a salary, wage, or other compensation as part of the employment relationship, and if it were a verifiable fact that they worked more hours in the year than minimum wage would yield $1 for because the company required them to put in more than a fraction of an hour in the year or else they'd be fired, wouldn't that be a violation of minimum wage laws?" and "I wonder what keeps miserly employers from [calling their maids, dishwashers, carwashers etc. salaried instead of hourly to escape minimum wage laws]"? I saw those questions in the OP's post. But RudolphRed's links seem to have answered them. 69.243.220.115 (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think all CEOs should be paid $1 in salary, with all their compensation coming in company stock they must hold until well after they leave. (If they plead poverty and say they need money to live on until then, perhaps they could be paid as much as a line worker makes.) That way, if they leave the company in good shape, they do well, but if they drive it down to junk stock, they don't. That would solve the problem of incompetent CEOs collecting millions from the companies they bankrupted. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That is the typical rationale for a large percentage of compensation for executives being stock options, but I've also heard it argue that the value of the options is much more dependent on the market in general, rather than how good the CEO actually is. They can also encourage unwise risk taking - option holders can benefit greatly if the company does well but, unlike shareholders, do not lose money if they screw up. [9]Buddy431 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving, voting in a state's primaries

So I live in Pennsylvania, but there is a ~75% chance I am moving to Virginia as of March 4th. Virginia holds its primary on March 6th, and Pennsylvania on April 24th. I always vote in primary and regular elections, and I don't want to be disenfranchised. What can I do to be a voter in either primary? Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in Virginia; under law there is no voter registration in the 21 days preceding a primary or general election. Note that the reason it refers to county, city, or town, is that elections are handled at that level. This is confirmed with a quick look at the election web site for Fairfax County, the largest in Virginia. here says the same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Request an absentee ballot from PA and vote in the PA primary before changing your registration. Marco polo (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that PA's absentee ballot requirements are quite strict; there is a list of reasons you can request a ballot, and if you do not fall onto the list, then you cannot absentee vote. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on what you described, you will not be able to vote in either primary legally. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If PA won't allow you an absentee ballot because you will be out of state at the time, return to PA to vote in the primary, then register in VA for the next election. In general, 30 days residency is required before you can be legally considered a resident. StuRat (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Most states allow "away on business" as a reason for an absentee ballot. Assuming that you are in Virginia to work, that should meet that qualification. However, if you don't think that works, then you would have to return physically to Pennsylvania for the vote. Marco polo (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@IP: if I were trying to find a reason not to vote, then I would agree with you. But I'm looking for a reason to vote, and the chances of me being prosecuted for doing something which is maybe legal maybe not legal but unquestionably ethical is astronomically low; probably 98% of judges would throw out the case. @Marco polo: actually, that is a good idea. I will be living in one location for ~2 months, and afterwards my situation is unclear. I wonder if I could rightly change my mailing address to a "temporary" location in Virginia, but keep my official residence as Pennsylvania in the meantime. Would that be legitimate? Or do the DMVs and the like frown upon the idea of having a temporary residence for more than 30 days? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your best bet is to ask your county elections office, not a bunch of random people on the Internet. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

how high is a trillion

A while ago I heard a statement that was difficult to believe. So in an effort to find some kind of confirmation or otherwise, could somebody please answer this question. If one trillion dollars in $100 dollar bills were stacked flat in a single pile, how high would the pile be ?190.148.133.230 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This site says you can stack 233 bills per inch, if not compressed: [10]. So, since you would have 10 billion bills, that would mean 10 billion/233 = 43 million inches = 3.6 million feet = 677 miles. Now we have to think about the compression factor. That all depends on how they were stacked. If we envision a system of shelves every 1000 bills or so, then they might not be compressed much at all. I don't know what the max compression might be. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That was great StuRat. Thank you. best laugh I've had all day and it got me thinking that befor doing that I'll also have to consider humidity. It might have a significant effect.190.148.133.230 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to put numbers into some sort of perspective, consider that we're still only about 73% of the way to the first million days of the Christian Era. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. How dirty the bills are would also matter (the 233 is for new, clean bills). I'll mark this resolved. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved it may be, but here is another (I know it's not a single stack) visualization: http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html Mingmingla (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, this is another attempt to visualize large amounts of money... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hooters Airline

I am curious to know from an economics point of view why Hooters as a Restraurant concept seems to be economically viable but I have not seen any Hooters as an Airline concept. Would it be viable to form and run a Hooters Airline? Or is the experience of flying different from the experience of eating in a restraurant. 220.239.37.244 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been special flights, such as one for nudists and one for smokers, but I don't think such niche markets can really support an entire airline, as they need volume to make it economically viable. Even supersonic passenger flight wasn't economically viable in the end. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people travel in airline with spouses/partners and families. A Hooters restaurant is generally frequented by single/unaccompanied men. But an airline business, targeting only single men, is not economically feasible. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The Southwest Airlines of the '70s was kind of like that. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Those hostesses with their keen-high sock-clad feet are nowhere near the Hooters girls. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

See Hooters Air. --Tango (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Holey moley. I was about to point out that one of the reasons airline stewards/stewardesses don't look like they used to is because there were a metric ton of sexual discrimination lawsuits in the 1960s over outfits, hiring practices, age discrimination, and so on. I wonder how "Hooters Air" got around those. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you get a job at a place like Hooters, it's obvious that your job is to titillate men. It's not like a regular job, where that shouldn't enter into it. StuRat (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As that article says, most of the cabin staff wore normal uniforms. There were just a couple of "Hooters Girls" on board. It was very clear what their job was, but I don't see any real discrimination there - they were fulling informed when they took the job and there is a legitimate business reason for requiring them to dress the way they do. If they had required all the cabin crew to wear Hooters uniforms, they might have had a problem because a lot of their job wouldn't require such a uniform (the most important part of the cabin crew's job is related to safety, not hospitality). They may also have struggled to find women both qualified for the job and willing to dress like that. --Tango (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Fulling informed"? XPPaul (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Stewardesses look hot enough the way they look. XPPaul (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

February 25

Why is the Dominican Republic much better off than Haiti if they are on the same island?

Well as everyone knows, Haiti is so poor that it might as well be in Africa (no offense to Haitians or Africans) but it is on the same island (and thus more or less has the same geography and climate) as the Dominican Republic, which has one of the best economies in Latin America. What caused this sharp contrast? Was it corruption or dictatorship? The Dominican Republic had its own share of eccentric and strange dictators, but look at them now. What did the DR do that Haiti didn't? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason behind Haiti's poverty are:

• Poor governance and trade policies, lack of infrastructure
• Lack of education resulting in lack of skilled workers
• Low level of literacy results widespread superstition, and backward culture (voodoo)

On the other hand DR has

• Better governance and better infrastructure attracting businesses
• Better educational system produces skilled workers

If you want a scholarly look into this topic, I'll suggest reading Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond. The book has an entire chapter dedicated to this issue. The way the book analyses this topic is not possible for the ref desk volunteers.

Here are some online references that will give you a good insight:

• WHY IS HAITI SO POOR?
• The Unluckiest Country Foreign Policy
• The Underlying Tragedy The New York Times
• Reason behind Haiti's poverty, The Daily Beast
• Haiti and the Dominican Republic: A Tale of Two Countries TIME magazine --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The TIME article clearly illustrates the points you want to know. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

These reasons are far too simplistic and could have o\curred anywhere.

After the first successful slave uprising in the world Haiti was marginalised and had to pay france reperations to be accepted in the global order, ie- reognition, it has also had foreign meddling for at least the last 95 years, poor leadership and dictatorship along with nepotism and embezzlement. and of course just plain bad luck (per the earthquake and geography, UN cholera spreads, etc)Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

One interesting point that is mentioned both in the TIME article and Jared Diamond's book is that Haiti receives less rain compared to DR. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. I'd recommend a read of Haiti's history in our article Haiti, and links therein. If you can make it through without your blood angrying up, you're a harder heart than me. Not to say that there aren't also internal problems, but they are in the context of everything else that has been done to Haiti. 86.161.214.73 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Being on the same island doesn't mean much: look at Guantanamo and Cuba. XPPaul (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Rurikid

How many lines of the Rurikid dynasty are left in Russia today? Another question: There were numerous boyars and nobles that were in the same dynasty as Ivan IV of Russia when the main Muscovite line died out in 1598, why weren't any Rurikid descendants chosen to succeed as tsar after the Time of Troubles?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

French to English

Can someone help me translate either "Tahapopè II, Reine de Houaheine.–Les autoritès après le festin. D'après une photographie de M. Agostini" or "Tahapopé II, Reine de Houaheine.–Les autorités aprés le festin. D'aprés une photographie de M. Agostini"? I am not sure which e is correct, could someone tell me that too.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It says "Tahapope II, Queen of Huahine. The authorities after the feast. From a photograph by M. Agostini." For the French you need both accented Es - "Tahapopé II, Reine de Houaheine.–Les autorités après le festin. D'après une photographie de M. Agostini." Adam Bishop (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but "The authorities after the feast" makes no sense. Is there another meaning? And does anyone know who was M. Agostini?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Jules Agostini seems to be an author and photographer who worked in Polynesia. I don't know about the authorities and the feast, maybe it means "chiefs"? Tribal leaders of some sort? The queen and her retinue? Could be a festival in general. Can we see the photo? That would certainly help. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

South Sudanese currency exchange rate

Does anyone know where I can find exchange rates for South Sudan's currency? I've looked at xe.com, Oanda, Yahoo!, and the CIA World Factbook and none of them have it listed. Thanks. 24.74.220.198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC).

Why is the debt crisis the euro's fault?

Question to fellow economists: Why is the current debt crisis blamed on the euro, so that e.g. Swedes and Brits congratulate themselves on not having joined? Why does Finland (with the euro) have a greater interest in Greece not defaulting than Sweden (without the euro)? Why does a monetary union necessitate a fiscal union?

Here are some proposed reasons:

• Fiscally irresponsible countries might put pressure on the ECB to inflate. But no one seems to think that is any real danger.
• If Greece defaults the euro will depreciate. But it is not clear that depreciation is a bad thing per se.
• If Greece defaults this will threaten French and other banks and a new financial crisis will follow. But this has nothing to do with the euro. French banks could have held Greek debt even if they had had different currencies.
• If Greece defaults the ECB's balance sheet will be eroded.

Jacob Lundberg (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to know the 100% truth, it's that this whole thing is a bank set-up. Italy runs a nice surplus except for having to finance its debt, and is a top ten economy. Greece would not be in too bad shape if not for servicing its debt. The United States or China with a tiny portion of its reserves could take on the debts of Italy and Greece without the tiniest overcommitment. It could service them or pay them off, and some time later Italy or Greece could simply give the money back to China interest-free: after all, China just has those huge foreign currency reserves sitting there, and does not actively use them. This whole thing is an artificial creation, depending on countries to use a debt market (selling debt on the public market) instead of just teaming up with one another. Guess who the big winners are? --80.99.254.208 (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've indented your comment to make things clearer. Why would countries want to lend to other countries interest-free? When you lend someone money you a) can't do anything else with that money until you get it back and b) are at risk of the borrower not paying it back. That is why lenders expect to be compensated, through interest, for lending money. The same is true of countries with large reserves as it is for banks. --Tango (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

German and French banks have a huge exposure to the Greek debt, which has arisen because the interest rate became quite affordable and because Germany pushed Greece to join the Euro. After all, that became a billion market for German products - from BMWs to modern weapons. Although I don't share quite the Greek view that Germany is at fault for all their problems (they are a pretty corrupt society, BTW, and no one forced them to play along), the Germans certainly have a partial fault for that. XPPaul (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the simplest reasons is that if Greece, say, had its own currency it could allow significant inflation, which would really help. It would reduce the value of the debt it has to pay back. It would also allow a real reduction in wages without needing people to take an actual pay cut, which tends to be much easier to achieve (if you reduce someone's pay from €1,000 a month to €990 a month, they'll get from angry, but if you pay then 1,000 Drachma and keep paying them 1,000 Drachma but allow prices to go up by 10%, they will not to get as angry). A large part of Greece's problems is, apparently, that its wages are far too high so its businesses cannot compete with the rest of the Eurozone (I don't fully understand that, though - I don't think Greek wages are higher than German wages, so I don't see why that impacts on competitiveness...). --Tango (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Greek wages are probably too high to still sell their services and products, not in comparison to German salaries. Lower wages imply lower costs, which could curb sales. But yes, if they had drachmas, they could devalue it to reduce their debt, but their actual currency is just too strong to the services (sun and booze tourism, I'd dare to say) and products they are trying to sell. XPPaul (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Effective tax rate on paintings (UK)

In an article today: "The family have agreed a sale [of a Manet painting] with an unnamed foreign buyer for £28.35m. But the UK government has imposed an export bar and will let the museum buy it for £7.8m if the funds can be found. The Ashmolean would be able to purchase it for the lower amount because the government would waive the £20.5m tax that would be required with a private sale." Does the British government really effectively tax paintings so highly? If so, by what mechanism (CGT?)? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The HMRC say CGT would be payable (there is only a £6,000 allowance for paintings, so it's well over that), although it's only 28% so I don't see how that can account for the entire tax bill. Even if they got it for free and sold is for £28.35m, that's only £7.94m in CGT. It's possible there's some kind of export duty, but a little research suggests there wouldn't be... --Tango (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Further research: This is the article the OP is quoting. The article about it in the Guardian links (rather remarkably) to the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (since when have online newspapers linked directly to acts of parliament?) and talks about a "private treaty sale". It looks like the owner has died and his heirs are selling the painting in order to pay the Inheritance Tax. They can avoid paying Inheritance Tax if they sell the painting to a museum (because of a special exemption, 26A, in the linked Act). Inheritance Tax is 40%. If you combine CGT and Inheritance Tax, you get (28%+40%)*£28.35m=£19.28m. That's very close to the amount they apparently have a pay, so I expect it is a combination of GGT and IT, and I've just done the calculation slightly wrong. --Tango (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Who was the emperor married to?

Can any one tell me the (English spelling) names of the empress consort of Külüg Khan, Emperor Wuzong of Yuan and Rinchinbal Khan, Emperor Ningzong of Yuan? I would be grateful. Thank you! --Aciram (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)