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

September 14

Finance fraud- - bank account fraud not located

Hello.

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

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

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

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

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

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

More likely the initial stages of a money transfer fraud, where fake cheques will be deposited and the funds withdrawn before the fraud is discovered, leaving the account owner responsible for the resulting overdraft.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

Has al Qaeda ever threatened Canada or not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tax laws and system in Canada

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

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

Remarriage to the same person

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is largely a matter of opinion. Just looking over the ledes of Israel–United States relations and Saudi Arabia–United States relations, I'd have to say Israel. As you can see in the former, Israel was one of the first nations designated a major non-NATO ally by the United States. Also, I'd say anecdotally that many Americans perceive Israel to be a stronger ally. Critics of the US's relationship with Israel generally find it to be too strong. By contrast, there have often been whispers of Saudi support for the September 11 attacks, especially since most of the hijackers were Saudi.[1] As you can imagine, this is a rather contentious claim. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coptic/Ethiopian Church

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

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

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

Innocence of Muslims

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody in the press has seen it. They've been reduced to reporting an eyewitness account from one of "less than 10" people who saw it at its one and only screening, who didn't watch it long enough to know it was about Muhammad. The best guesses of many is that there was never anything but the trailer. For those (there are two versions almost exactly the same) see [2] Wnt (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ghost stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Going back further, Shakespeare had some ghosts rattling around the old castle: [3]. I think he was more appreciated by the public than the critics in his own day, whereas now it may be more of the reverse (although the difficulty in following the language is part of the problem now). StuRat (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 15

Refs for Citizens United backfire?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slave trade of women in Mexico

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as I understood it, this was truly a question of "being actually bought and sold"- type of slavery. Were there perhaps a market of selling women to brothels? In the middle east, as far as I understand, women from Europe were actually abducted, sold and bought on the slave market to harems? The Ottoman slave trade? Perhaps they were taken there? --Aciram (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Historical evidence for religious founders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't another big problem that a lot of these figures are kind of semi-legendary? Modern accounts of them might be partly historical and partly fictional, or might be conflating several different historical people into one. For example, if we define "Jesus" as the person who founded Christianity, then he presumably existed, but if we define "Jesus" as a person who was actually called "Jesus", was born in 5BCE, turned water into wine, and lived in India for a while, then it is more doubtful. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Searching Historical USSR Censuses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why hasn't the euro's value plunged?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The last time Germany tried this sort of prudent finance was under Heinrich Bruning. I think it safe to say that the end results were not necessarily to Germany's or Europe's or the world's advantage. On the other hand, (West) Germany has more recently entered into a monetary union - with (East) Germany - using an entirely opposite, non-insane, approach. Normal countries have automatic stabilizers, see the answers to OsmanRF34's question above. The Euro, as designed, is an automatic destabilizer, that will make any problem, like a crash after stupid overspending, much, much worse. Some quotes from Alain Parguez's 1999 The Expected Failure of the European Economic and Monetary Union: A False Money against the Real Economy addressing exactly the OP's questions: "The ultimate result of this race to deflation will be a fall in the real value of the Euro... Contrary to the hopes of its architects, the Euro will increase financial instability in the world economy. By exporting its self-imposed deflation, Europe will, like in the early 1930s, accelerate the pace of the world crisis. The alternatives are either the collapse of the EMU, or a considerable rethinking of its underlying economic ideology." John Z (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And as the same article or AWOL attests, when you leave the military is often not completely up to you (for enlisted personnel). If you do try to leave and they don't let you, you could easily be jailed. For most civilians jobs outside the military, you retain the option to leave your job at any time. Okay you may be required to give notice, but even if you don't as I understand it, in most countries they still can't force you to work if you don't. They can just sue you and attempt to recover some of the costs (depends on your contract) [4]. Very occasionally you may be bonded usually after training, but again the enforceability of requiring you to work appears to be quite questionable [5] [6] [7], most likely they can simply make you pay them back. Whatever happens you normally won't be going to jail for it. Obviously this will look rather bad on your CV probably screwing up chances of a future job but that's a somewhat seperate issue.

While technically when it comes to the government, there's fair chance they can change the law but it's not clear how likely this would be in the absence of other factors likely making it a moot point. There is a history of civilian service, e.g. Civilian Public Service but these are of course only in play when Conscription in the United States is enforce. So the key question is whether right now, civilians working for the US military can basically be forced to work somewhere if they had a written contract saying they can't (if you can actually get such a contract). It seems that the [Civilian Expeditionary Workforce]] does have a provision for involuntary service [8] so you probably do need to be careful with that. But I couldn't find (not helped by the number of nutcase websites picking up on the involuntary service provision) if this means you can't quit or whether you still have this option which you don't generally have if you're enlisted. (If you can still quit, ultimately it's not that different from a civilian job outside the military where if you contract allows it, your employer may ask you to go somewhere you don't go and your options are either to go there or quit.)

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

It always seemed fundamentally unfair that enlisted troops are jailed if they try to leave, while officers are free to quit whenever they please. StuRat (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

NASA has archaeologists on the payroll?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not if NASA decides it's not worth releasing. StuRat (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube question

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

 – Wrong forum. We're done here.

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

majority seats Knesset

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 16

PDFA and tobacco and alcohol money

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

The Village Voice is not limited to entertainment, they also report news: [9]. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Here's a slightly more recent story from them: [10]. StuRat (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the PDFA's annual report for 2010, with a list of donors on page 23: [11]. I see lots of big pharma on the list, but no explicit listing of alcohol and tobacco companies. However, since many on the list are other charitable organizations, like state versions of the PDFA, you'd need to research each of those to be sure. They also have an anonymous donor and donors which can't easily be identified, like "Grey" (as in a grey area ?). StuRat (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the 2011 donor list: [12], which looks about the same. StuRat (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Resolved

US Marine guards at embassies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, the consulate in Benghazi had no Marines, no bulletproof glass, no reinforced doors. [13] Wnt (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Romney missed a golden opportunity. He should have said "In a Romney Presidency, all of our embassies will be fully protected", rather than criticizing Obama for trying to take a balanced approach in condemning both the attacks and the movie. Unfortunately, he chose to go negative, rather than look like a visionary. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Queen Emma and King Kamehameha IV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luck also plays a part. If your home is repossessed and your crawl space is full of decomposing bodies, that can be downright inconvenient (for both the old owner and the new one). StuRat (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Repossessions don't happen without warning. It's never in a bank's interests to repossess; they'd much rather you worked things out and resumed paying your mortgage to the very last red cent (now with extra interest included, to make up for the hiatus). I'm almost sure most formal repossession warnings come with a clause saying: "We want to give you time to clear out any decomposing bodies in your basement, because if push comes to shove and we have to repossess, we don't want to have to clear up the mess. Please use this time wisely to also sort out your finances". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

September 11 attacks, did the hijackers carry firearms?

Retractable blade knife with replaceable utility blade.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. Anybody who's been cognizant for the last dozen years probably knows the answer to this. Shadowjams (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

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

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

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

Resolved

Foreign interventions

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

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

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

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

• Timeline of United States military operations
• List of wars involving the United States
• Covert United States foreign regime change actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To endorse what Fifelfoo said about the coding difficulties and because the OP mentioned Britain in the 1880s, I'll just point out that the standard response of the British to the first hint of trouble was "to send a gunboat". How do you classify interventions pre-empted by threat? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Prince Alemayehu

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

The royal household were "considering the request" in 2007 [14], since when there seems to have been silence. I'd also be interested to know about the prince's religious upbringing (but the Church of England is not a Protestant faith). Marnanel (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That last clause (the part in brackets) is highly contentious. I don't want to derail this discussion though: our article on Anglicanism is a good place to see the different POVs. Matt's talk 10:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archive of historical North-South conflicts?

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

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

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

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

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

Though Morocco controls the Western parts of Western Sahara, and the Polisario Front controls the Eastern parts. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

And the north-south divide in England was entrenched through till the Tudors, with a separate Privy Council. And Scottish nationalism is gaining in strength (Welsh too, so it's an east west thing too). Medieval France also had separate governmental structures in North and South (langue d'oc and langue d'oil). North and south of Italy don't always get on well, and there is a party called League of the North. In Belgium the division between Wallonia and Flanders is sort of north-east south-west, I think. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Also see Québec nationalism (although geographically that's kind of "in-the-middle-but-somewhat-to-the-east" vs. "most-of-the-middle-and-west-plus-a-small-bit-east").

Or the Partition of India; being the "middle vs. the outside". --Jayron32 18:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

September 17

Norwegian and Danish crime writers' works in English

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The formula is in the 1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer: "if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace." [15]. It certainly hasn't disappeared, since it survives into the modern Anglican prayerbook, Common Worship: "I am required to ask anyone present who knows a reason why these persons may not lawfully marry, to declare it now." [16]. In addition, the same request is asked three times of the congregation on Sundays before the wedding as part of the banns of marriage. I am interested to know more about where you attended this wedding, though: I don't know of any major denomination in the UK calling itself Lutheran, and I don't know of any Lutherans who claim to have temples. Marnanel (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

FIRST, the banes [banns] must be asked thre severall Sondaies or holy daies, in the tyme of service, the people beyng present, after the accustomed maner.
   And yf the persons that would be maryed dwell in diverse Paryshes, the banes must be asked in both Parishes and the Curate of the one Paryshe shall not solempnize matrimonye betwyxt them, wythout a certifycate of the banes beyng thryse asked, from the Curate of the other Parysh. At the date appoincted for solempnizacyon of Matrimonye, the persones to be maryed shal come into the body of the Churche, wyth theyr frendes and neighbours. And there the Pryest shall thus saye.

DEARELY beloved frendes, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of his congregacion, to joyne together this man and this woman in holy matrimony,...
...Therefore if any man can shewe any just cause, why thei may not lawfully be joyned together let hym now speake, or els hereafter for ever holde his peace.

And also speakynge to the persons that shalbe maryed, he shall saie.

I REQUIRE and charge you (as you wil aunswere at the dreadful day of judgement, when the secretes of all hartes shalbe disclosed) that if either of you doe knowe any impedyment, why ye may not be lawfully joyned together in Matrimony, that ye confesse it. For be ye well assured, that so many as be coupled together, otherwyse than Goddes worde doeth allowe, are not joyned together by God, neither is their Matrimonye lawfull.

At whyche day of Maryage, if any man do allege and declare any impediment, why they may not be coupled together in matrymony by Gods law, or the lawes of thys realme, and wyll be bound, and sufficient sureties with him to the parties, or els put in a cautyon to the ful value of suche charges, as the persons to be maryed do susteine to prove hys allegation: then the solempnization must be deferred unto suche tyme as the truthe be tried. If no impedyment be alledged, then shall the curate saye...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, a similar formulation is in the civil wedding ceremony. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only is the formula still there, it is a legal requirement in both BCP (older English) and Common Worship (current English) services in England and Wales. If some muppet speaks up, the minister must stop and investigate the alleged impediment, to everyone's great annoyance. Of course, there are very few legal impediments (close relatives, or already married) so it shouldn't take more than a few minutes. The purpose of the Banns of marriage is to stop such a problem happening. I once was at a Chinese wedding where the question was asked, and many people shouted out in response. I was shocked, because I was expecting silence. Then I realized that the Mandarin wording had the form 'Is there or is there not any lawful impediment....?", to which the congregation politely roared, "There is not!" Matt's talk 10:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin Luther and good husbandry

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

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

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

Apparently "Learned Humanitarians" - see the previous question about wedding services. Alansplodge (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

There is a quote floating around on the internet, and is found even in some books attributed to Luther: "In der Woche Zwier, (macht im Jahre 104), schadet weder ihm noch ihr". Translation: Twice a week (makes 104 times a year) hurts neither him nor her. Some variations of this rhyme have 'two or three times' or 'two till four times'. According to this book, this is 'loosely after Martin Luther', so not a literal quote, but supposedly based on something he said or wrote. As with many Luther quotes, it seems impossible to track down a source unfortunately. Maybe someone with access to Luther's complete works could find it, but it is equally possible that it is not from Luther at all. - Lindert (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The word you want is husbanding. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks awfully to all ! @ Lindert, the caricature in your book made me ROL & learn that our good neighbours also have what we think is a french prerogative : "l'esprit gaulois". They even have the equivalent of our "Mieux vaut une petite paille qui chatouille qu'un gros gourdin qui blesse" ("Better a small tickling straw than an offensive bludgeon") ! T.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

bin Laden was already retired, with no connection to the daily activities when he was killed. I suppose kiling node members could disrupt the activities of al Qaeda. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've heard Bin Laden was planning to do some large terrorist attack(s) on the U.S. on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, so I'm not sure if your statement is accurate.

There would have to be a bunch of them killed, and that's hard to accomplish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to this question, No, since al-Qaeda would simply get a new leader and since, as some other people here have already mentioned, al-Qaeda is now fairly decentralized. It isn't like Nazis and the Holocaust where killing Hitler early enough on might have stopped the whole thing or at least made it much less gruesome. Futurist110 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Shadowjams (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

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

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE OF THIS

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

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

No. All you seem to be proposing is switching around math terms you don't like for philosophical terms that you do, but if the intent is for those terms to do the same thing, they're mathematical no matter what you call them. If, alternately, you just want to ask if you can start talking about philosophy in some new abstract paradigm, then sure -- but no one is obliged to listen to you or care (as we've pointed out repeatedly before). — Lomn 17:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I only read the first half but i'm pretty sure our article on philosophy answers this. Shadowjams (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

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

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

(Is this really just a complaint masquerading as a question?) No idea of the answer, but I have a question of my own. Is it possible for American graduates to do residencies outside the USA? (Many other countries have doctor shortages.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge the (arguable?) value judgment that it is not good to let people get hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt with a degree they cannot legally use, but I did ask for a specific thing: a source to people presenting the case for widening the discrepancy. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

...within the USA. (Medicine is a global industry.) (And Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested in a source stating why it is good to increase the number of medical school graduates in the USA while not increasing the number of residency positions in the USA. I apologize for not specifically qualifying my request. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, the question makes some suppostions which are not necessarily true. There are professions within the medicine that aren't doctors, but which such a degree could qualify someone for, such as a physician's assistant. The question supposes a conclusion (that medical schools are deliberately and intentionally screwing their students, or perhaps that they don't care how much they screw their students) that isn't necessarily so. In general, there is no direct attempt to provide exactly the same number of graduates each year as there are openings for them each year. The medical profession is not unique in this regard: many people don't get the exact job their degree seems to prepare them for. The question is asking for sources to a conclusion that isn't necessarily relevent or germaine to how medical schools operate. --Jayron32 17:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Increasing the number of graduates by 5,000 and opening another 18 medical schools, it seems like a legitimate thing to wonder (how is this feasible, given this is a system intended to put out doctors, and the number of openings for the next necessary step of becoming a doctor is not keeping in step with this decision). Of course they can not get a perfect match, but just because the balance can never be perfect is not a good justification for making the system more unbalanced. And while telling unmatched graduates to be physician's assistants when they went to medical school to become doctors is a good thing to do for someone that already found themself in the position of having paid all that time and money and finding themselves in need of doing something to cut their losses, it is not a good justification for increasing the number of medical school graduates by 5,000. Getting the number of graduates closer instead of further away from the number of residency positions seems like a more prudent approach. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I see some reasonable causes for this situation: some physicist want to become researchers, which is also a fine occupation, but might not require a hand-on training with real patients. 2. They want to keep the process competitive, excluding the bottom x% from residency. 3. Residency is a limited resource, it's not viable to offer more places, matching the output of other institutions. 4. There is always a bottleneck somewhere, there is not way of match everything: qualified high-school graduates, medical school graduates, residency places, job market openings. Each of these fields will have different sizes each year. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Are any of those the sourced, cited, and documented reasons the AAMC itself states as justification/motivation for pursuing an expansion in the size of the medical school graduate pool? Also, I wonder if there's data on the number of new entrants to medical school who have no plans whatsoever on becoming practicing clinicians for whom residency is essential. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As other's have said, I think you're approaching this the wrong way. Hinted at in that source and confirmed by other sources like [18], the AAMC don't just think there is a need for more medical graduates. They think there is a need for more doctors. In fact it sounds like they specifically asked for an increase in the number of graduate medical education positions as well. [19] mentions the need for growth needs to consider, amongst other things, the availability of such positions and both the first source I linked and [20] confirms the AAMC's view is it will be somewhat futile increasing the number of graduates without an increase in the number of GME positions. In other words, the AAMC doesn't seem to be calling for an increase in the number of graduates without increasing the number of GME positions, the questions premise seems to be false. (Note that none of the sources seem to comment on whether the current level is right or wrong, as others have mentioned your assumption that the current level of matching is a bad thing based in some random person's opinion may not be shared by the AAMC, there are plenty of reasons why some level of graduates without positions may be desirable. That being the case, an increase in the number of medical school places will need to predate an increase in the number of GME positions). Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reconsider the assumption that each and every person entering medical school intends to pursue a career as a medical doctor. Are there fields (law, politics, education, research) where a medical degree might be very useful, even without having completed a residency? Next, reconsider the assumption that educational institutions should prohibit one student from learning simply because the next step beyond the purpose of that institution may involve another level of competition. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

How does a person preach the gospel to someone else?

How does a person preach the gospel/evangelize/proselytize/tell people about Christianity with the intent of proselytism to someone else? Is there a specific method, or is the method largely variable and opinionated? How do you tell the difference between describing the beliefs of a Christian and sharing the beliefs of a Christian with the intent of proselytism? Is proselytism solely done by active missionaries, evangelists, and apologists? 17:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.226.226 (talk)

It varies tremendously from one denomination to another and from one Christian to another. If there are "n" Christians in the world, you'll probably get a minimum of "n+1" possible answers to your question. If you want a Wikipedia article that covers this, Evangelism is a good place to start your research. --Jayron32 17:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't a person invite another person to a lake and ask that person to walk into the lake and immerse that person into the water and come out again as a Christian and invite that person to church? Wouldn't that be the simplest method? OK, I'm sure not many people would want to get their clothes wet, so the Christian evangelist can trick the non-Christian into jumping into the lake. :) Or maybe there is a more formal process of conversion. 17:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.226.226 (talk)

Most Christians do not think baptism is what makes someone a Christian (or at least, it is not sufficient). Few would sympathize with 'tricking' people into a religion, and it doesn't work either (except of course, when apostasy means death, as in some Islamic countries). Anyway, a baptism should be accompanied by the correct formula and the baptized person must be sincere for the baptism to be valid. A formal process for 'becoming a Christian' exists in some denominations and varies in nature, in others it is simply the personal faith that counts. Regarding the original question, proselytism is certainly not confined to professional missionaries/evangelists, some even agree with Charles Spurgeon that "every Christian is either an evangelist or an imposter"; in other words, everyone Christian has a duty to share his/her faith. - Lindert (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Two biblical passages relevent to this discussion are Matthew 28:18-20 (the Great Commission): "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'" (bold mine) and Acts 1:8, "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (bold mine). How Christians share their faith will vary greatly from denomination to denomination, and from individual Christian to individual Christian. Some believe earnestly that it is OK to fund missionaries who proselytize, and that is acceptable to meet the teachings of Jesus, others believe that every Christian is individualy responsible for teaching the Gospel to unbelievers. Even among those who see it as a personal responsibility, there is a wide variance in methods and beliefs on how one is to share one's faith or proselytize. Also relevent is the Parable of the Sower, which comes with a direct explanation by Jesus of what it means: followers of Christ are responsible to spread his word, but are not responsible for forcing others to accept it. The word is given freely, and must be accepted freely. Not everyone will accept it. --Jayron32 18:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, let's say a Methodist looks for a potential convert and tries to convert his non-Methodist friend to his specific denomination. Meanwhile, his non-Methodist Lutheran friend tries to convert the Methodist to his faith? So, the conversion process is not one-way but two-way. They are trying to convert each other, until the Methodist becomes a Lutheran and Lutheran becomes a Methodist, or one becomes the other by successful persuasion. 18:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.226.226 (talk)

Actually, that isn't seen as productive by most Christian faiths. Every major Christian churches accept people who join from other Christian faiths, but the efforts are generally focused on converting the unsaved. Now, some Christian faiths may try to re-convert those who have become apostate, but there isn't a need for a Methodist to "convert" a Lutheran, as they both would agree that the other is already a "true Christian". Certainly Methodist churches would welcome someone who used to attend a Lutheran church, and visa versa. Some denominations may require some additional steps to become full church members (many denominations require the Believer's baptism for example, or Catholic churches requiring Adult catechism for adult converts), but such acts are merely formal steps to become full members of a particular congregation, not a belief that the person's prior church is "invalid". --Jayron32 18:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Proselytizing between denominations is different. Christians tend to distinguish between denominations that have some different views but are basically Christian and those that are outright heretical. So for example, a Calvinist will often consider Methodists and Lutherans to be his/her brothers and sisters in Christ, but considers Catholicism to be wholesale heresy. Therefore he may debate Lutherans to convince them, but does not consider this essential, but he will proselytize to Catholics, because they are not true Christians from his viewpoint. - Lindert (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that's quite correct. Most of the denominations you cite focus on individual salvation, either in the form of Synergism (salvation of choice) or Monergism (predestination) which is based on the personal relationship with God, and not with the particular congregation one worships in. Calvinist and Lutherans alike don't claim that no member of a Catholic church is to be saved; I've never heard such a claim before from either denomination. Instead, there is nothing in being a member of a Catholic church that gives Catholics automatic salvation in the absense of the personal salvation. The Catholic position is a but more complex on the matter, but from the point of view of most of the mainline and evangelical protestant denominations, there isn't any recognition that any one particular Christian faith is a barrier to salvation. Many protestants may feel that the specific teachings and doctrine of the Catholic church are not effective in producing the sort of personal salvation that the recognize as valid, but that doesn't mean that that personal salvation cannot occur in the context of Catholicism. The Protestant beef is not with the Catholic church members, per se, it is with the Catholic heirarchy and doctrine, an important distinction to make. --Jayron32 18:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that in the Catholic example, the perceived invalidity of other churches is a significant part of it. While most Catholics wouldn't attempt to evangelize Protestants or other Christians, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is still seen as holding true, even if the interpretation of that phrase isn't always as strict as outside observers might think. The claim of the Catholic Church to authority is inherently apostolic, so the validity or not of a given group of clergy (and thus the sacraments they dispense) isn't dependent on actual orthodoxy or -praxy, or lack thereof, as much as it is by whether or not the chain of ordination has been broken by formal excommunication or something as simple as primitivist rebels who were never interested in such ordination. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You are right, my answer was too simplistic. They would recognize that some Catholics may be saved, but not if they believe all that Rome teaches. Only if they are very ignorant of what their church teaches. The Heidelberg Catechism calls the mass, which is the central aspect of Catholic soteriology, an 'accursed idolatry', and Luther calls it 'the true and chief abomination and the basis of all blasphemy in the papacy.'. - Lindert (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Paradoxically, those protestants also profess in Sola fide and Sola gratia, which holds that justification is gained through faith alone, and salvation comes through God's grace alone, which would mean that salvation is fully availible to Catholics worshiping in a Catholic church and following Catholic teachings, but the converse is not true. Also, the Catholic position is not as strict as Evanh2008 makes it out to be. See Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which while it doesn't represent a full acceptance of the Five solae by Catholicism, is an important ecumenical agreement by the Catholic church in recognizing that protestantism is not equivalent to apostasy. However, from the protestant point of view, you cannot downplay that the difference is still a key one: the Protestants may profess that the Catholic doctrine and practices are really bad at producing what they see as true Christians, but that doesn't mean that salvation is unavailible to full Catholics. --Jayron32 19:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, can a non-Christian study a denominational theology and history and the Bible and explain these concepts to another non-Christian without intent of proselytism? How would that be different from a Christian of a specific denomination proselytizing non-Christians? How do non-denominational Christians proselytize when they are not affiliated with a specific denomination and therefore hold no ties from all the others? What kind of Bible would a non-denominational Christian read? What would be a non-denominational Christian Bible? 140.254.226.226 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the focus is on proseyltizing, as though the heart of the person contaminates the information they provide. Are Christians who share their faith proselytizing? Yes, but many, if not most, Christians would view their entire lives (speech and actions) as being a form of proselytizing; they are supposed to live a life which in every aspect of their being points others to the Christian faith. So, it isn't that a Christian who discusses their faith with you is somehow trying to convert you. A Christian in the same room as you merely sitting next to you is trying to convert you. To deny that is to deny several key teachings of Christ. It doesn't mean that said Christian is trying to force anything on you, or to coerce you, or whatever. But there is no magic involved. You can't "catch" Christianity like its a disease merely because a Christian discussed their faith with you. And many people can and do study Christian theology without being Christians themselves. I had a Comparative religion teacher in college who was himself Jewish. One can intellectually understand any aspect of any theology of any Christian denomination without believing in it. You can be taught about Christian theology without being converted to Christianity upon hearing it. Again, theology is not a magic spell that will be cast upon you if a Christian teaches you about their faith. It doesn't work like that. To answer your second batch of question, if you are interested in non-denominational Christianity, see Nondenominational Christianity for some examples. There also aren't denomination specific Bibles, at least among non-Catholic Churches. Catholics use a different version of the bible than Protestants do, but only slightly so, and both Catholics and Protestants use multiple different translations. Modern English Bible translations will give you a wealth of different translations. I think that most Catholic translations decend from the Douay–Rheims Bible, which is itself a secondary translation from the Latin Vulgate Bible, while most protestant translations in English decend from the King James Bible, which was translated directly from the source languages (Greek and Hebrew). But there are several English translations endorsed by the Catholic Church and by various Protestant denominations which are not necessarily direct decendants of either the DR or KJ versions. --Jayron32 19:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A non-Christian can study denominational theology and history and the Bible, but proselytizing is different from simply explaining theology in that proselytism calls someone to repentance and faith. It exhorts someone to do/believe something, in contrast to mere explanation. Most Bible translations are not strictly denominational, but many are done by a certain stream of Christian scholars. Many Christians, both denominational and non-denominational, choose a translation based on accuracy and readability, and may make use of multiple translations as well. Some denominations use only one translations, most notably the King James Only movement. - Lindert (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, just to make a little quibble: there are different forms and approaches to proselytizing. Many Christians would view mere testimony as a form of proselytizing: the goal of explaining to others your own faith is that they will come to accept that faith. It is an overt act of proselytism, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it exhorts or coerces the hearer to any direct action. You can proselytize without being rude or demeaning or disrespectful of the listener. If I, as a Christian, explain my beliefs using the exact same words as a non-believer, though my intent may be different than the non-believer, it doesn't make my explanation an exhortation or a coersion. Certainly, the idea of the mad lunatic standing on the college campus calling everyone sinners and telling them all they are going to go to hell is an image we have of proselytizing, but it also isn't what I would call how the majority of Christians spread their faith. --Jayron32 19:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said anything about coercion. One can simply share his testimony without an exhortation, but that is not how Paul did it. He preached to pagans in Athens saying "[God] now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness". To me that sounds closer to that 'madman' on the college campus. Stephen was not afraid of being rude either and debated the Jews in their own synagogue, until they became angry and stoned him to death. - Lindert (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Jayron32 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

For "what Bible would a non-denominational Christian use?", I think it's worth noting one big point of distinction: "non-denominational" is almost always some flavor of "Protestant" (as contrasted with Catholic, Orthodox), and so it's likely going to be a Bible with the Protestant Biblical canon, i.e. 66 books, no Apocrypha. — Lomn 19:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, how do you make a person repent when he or she may not know what to repent for or what the word "repent" means or live a Christian life of prayer, day in and day out? And how do you *know* that person has *truly* repented? And how do you *know* if a person is genuine about the faith and put a lifetime commitment to it? 140.254.226.226 (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No one makes a person repent. The believer spreads the word, the Holy Spirit convicts, and people of their own volition choose to repent or not. To go to the source text, please read the Parable of the Tares. Christians are specifically and directly forbidden from attempting to sort out the "true believers" from the fakers. Indeed, doing so may actually work to drive people away from the faith. From the point of view of many Christians, the actual salvation of an individual Christian is between that Christian and God. How do I know that I am saved? I have a right relationship with God and know in my heart that I am. How do I know that anyone else is saved? I don't. I can't know the true beliefs of any other person, so there's no point in trying. It isn't our business to make those decisions on Earth: If someone says and acts like they are saved, then we treat them as if they are. If they weren't, God will sort it out in the end (the moral behind the Parable of the Tares). --Jayron32 19:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't. You have to trust that God, who knows his own, will know them at the Day of Judgment. Matthew 7:1-3, and many of the Parables refer to the sorting that will take place then (wheat and tares, for example). --TammyMoet (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You cannot make a person repent, you simply give them the information they need to make the right decision - why, and how. Take it slowly, don't just dump a lot of information onto them. Do a Bible study with them, study key points together, and let them come to the right conclusions on their own. You can see whether a person has repented or not, by how they live, are they willing to put God's will first in their lives, or do they still do as they please. To repent is to be obedient, among other things. So, by their repentance do you know that they are genuine. Once they have repented, they can be baptised as an outward sign of their commitment to God. Once they have been baptised, they can receive the Holy Spirit. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Book on feminism/gender equality?

I've always had the opinion that in modern times and in Western nations, there isn't a great deal of difference in the freedoms and privileges granted to men and women. I would like to read something that argues in favor of the opposite conclusion: that while big strides have been made in advancing gender equality, there still remains a substantial gulf to close in cultural/political/social inequity. I'm hoping to excise prejudices and biases that I've built up. Any recommendations? 65.92.7.148 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Many people consider the cause for gender equality is still very much a work in progress, even in modern times and in Western nations. You could start with the article, Feminism. Move on to the articles linked to that, then pick texts from Feminism#Further reading that suit your specific interests. Astronaut (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell for some perhaps surprising discussion of the ways men are not well-served by traditional gender roles. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

About a 2 hour read considering every potential: but pretty much everything one needs to know including:

• This presumption that somehow the woman is to be indulged for entering marriage is a complete reversal of centuries-old traditions grounded in biological realities (and evidence of how American men have become weak pushovers).

And, Settling for a man in a feminist world? Happy Valentine's Day!,[21],[22],[23],[24],[25], Schlafly see also Marc Rudov (or summary) and clips of the original Tom Leykis show, and remember what women will pay for and wait in line for has more to do with Fifty Shades of Grey and Twlight (see Frank Langella comments on how timeless women's lust/need is for men to control than anything you may have been brainwashed into believing. Most experiences agree with the WSJ piece:

• "she found that most wanted a mate they could "look up to" or "admire"--and didn't think they could admire a man who was less educated than they were. During a talk I recently gave to a women's group in San Francisco, an audience member said, "I want him to respect what I know, but I also want him to know just a little more than me." One of my students once told me, "it's exciting to be a bit in awe of a guy." For a century, women have binged on romance novels that encouraged them to associate intimidation with infatuation; it's no wonder that this emotional hangover still lingers."

To loosely quote Mr. Taranto . . . if you really insist on it . . . Happy excising.Marketdiamond (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bechdel test is interesting, as it is a more-or-less objective way of comparing how men and women are depicted in fiction. Basically, a work of fiction passes the Bechdel test if, at some point, two female characters talk to each other about something other than men. It passes the reverse Bechdel test if, at some point, two male characters talk to each other about something other than women. When people apply these tests to - say - recent Oscar nominees, they tend to find that almost all films pass the reverse Bechdel test, but only a relatively small number (maybe a third or a half) pass the Bechdel test - a surprising number don't even have two significant female characters. Trying to find objective ways of looking at gender bias is important as it helps to avoid confirmation bias, which is the tendency to be more likely to notice evidence that confirms your existing beliefs. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Alien nationals in a warfaring country in the early modern era?

In the 20th century, I know that when a country declares war, foreigners of the nation that country has declared war on, and who are residents in the enemy country, are often interned: such as for example when the Japanese residents in the USA were interned during the WWII. My question is: how was the custom regarding residents from enemy countries during the 1600-1800 era? What happened with, say, people from France who were living in Brussels in the Austrian Netherlands during the War of the Austrian succession? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you go back that far, then the concept of a nation state (and therefore nationality) didn't really exist in Europe. Allegiances were based more along ethnic and linguistic lines, rather than national lines. --Tango (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think interning foreigners in wartime is a modern concept. In WWI there was still a distinct German community in London - none were interned as far as I know, but German shopkeepers suffered at the hands of angry mobs after the first Zeppelin raids. Of course, our own dear King was a bit on the Germanic side, but a quick name-change kept everybody happy. During the Napoleonic Wars, there were large French Huguenot communities in London and other cities, who, as far as I can tell, went unmolested. Of course, the Huguenots were no friends of the French establishment, be it royal, revolutionary or imperial. British Admiral James Gambier was a Huguenot or at least of descended from one. More in Huguenot Heritage: The History and Contribution of the Huguenots in Britain. Alansplodge (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It was a different story here in Australia, Alan: [26] -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a surprise - I'll dig a bit more into the UK story. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that German and Austro-Hungarian males of military age were interned in the UK in WWI.[27] One of the main camps was at Alexandra Palace. Alansplodge (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In the centuries prior to the period you are asking about, foreigners could be rounded up for questioning, and possibly imprisoned or expelled; but if they weren't doing anything shady, they might be left alone. For example, chapter 41 of the Magna Carta says "All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too." So, merchants were detained during times of war, but ideally they were treated well. I can recall several other medieval examples; the Muslim governor of Jerusalem expelled all the Christians when the First Crusade arrived there, just in case they collaborated with the crusaders, for one. The English Wool Trade in the Middle Ages by T. H. Lloyd talks about Flemish and English merchants during times of war between England, France, and Flanders in the 13th and 14th centuries. Jews were periodically expelled but usually not because of war (more because the people who owed debts to them no longer felt like paying them). In extreme cases (such as the Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople), merchants were attacked and killed. More towards the era you are asking about, there is, for example, the Aliens Act 1793, which regulated French inhabitants of England during the Revolutionary and later Napoleonic Wars. Similar acts were passed in the US - the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in particular ("whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government...all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies"). But as mentioned above, before the modern concept of the "nation state", the concept of a "foreign national" wasn't very clearly defined either. Probably most often, nothing would happen to foreigners at all, as long as they weren't spying or actively aiding the enemy country. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

unknown ranks

I'm trying to figure out the ranks of these two people who were among the fatalities in the 2012 Aurora shooting. One is Jonathan T. Blunk. The other is Rebecca Wingo. (Blunk was serving in the U.S. Navy. Wingo was serving in the U.S. Air Force.) If more information is available, please let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.103.121 (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My normal resource for this sort of thing is the Department of Veterans Affairs "Grave Locator" database. Blunk is in there, but no rank is given (which strikes me as odd). Wingo is not (I'm not sure if that's odd or not). Anyway, nothing useful there, I suppose, but I thought I'd just report my progress and lack thereof. --22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can call it a reliable source, but this link from a social networking site lists Wingo's rank as E-5. Dalliance (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.gisearch.com/id135265

September 18

Large modern conflict zones

Which areas of the world (as in two countries or more) had a lot of wars between each other (rather than against non-state entities) after World War II? Besides the obvious U.S. and U.S.S.R. Cold War, I'm thinking of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which had wars in 1948-1949, 1967, and 1973, the India-Pakistan conflict (especially in regards to Kashmir), where there were wars in 1948, 1965, 1971, and 1999, and Iraq, which had a war with Iran in the 1980s, a war with the U.S. and other countries in 1990-1991, and another war with the U.S. (before Saddam's govt. got overthrown) in 2003. Are there any conflicts and countries that I'm missing? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The former Yugoslavia had a series of wars after it broke up. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The former Yugoslavia only had large-scale conflicts for about 10 years or so. I'm talking about a timeframe of at least 20 (but hopefully 30 or more) years. Futurist110 (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.) was a mess for quite a while. (Parts of this conflict were related to the Cold War, but not all.) StuRat (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Africa has had (and continues to have) several conflicts involving multiple nations. We have Angola, Rwanda/Burundi, Ethiopia/Eritrea, etc. StuRat (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Koreas have technically only had one war between each other, but officially it is still ongoing, though that may be included in your "Cold War" umbrella. China and Vietnam had a war in 1979 and went on to have some interesting quasi-wars during the 1980s. Chechnya may or may not be a state, depending on your point of view, and Russia has fought two wars over it. Libya has also fought several wars with Egypt and a few other nations of the Maghreb, though I'm afraid I'm much too lazy to look up all those right now. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Koreas are technically still at war with each other, but they only fought one real, actual war with each other in the early 1950s and that was it, in contrast to Israel/the Arab world, India/Pakistan, and Iraq/its neighbors and/or the United States. Futurist110 (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The North-South conflict of Sudan isn't over CubanEkoMember (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

True. Futurist110 (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, the war in Afghanistan started in 1979 and continues until today. However, unlike the other countries (which had either the same leadership throughout all these wars (Saddam) or democratic governments), the Afghan govt. in 1979 and the Afghan govt. in 2011 are not the same by any means. Futurist110 (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The war in Afghanistan that started in 1979 is not the same war that continues to this day, except in the most vague sense (which probably then would say that Afghanistan has been at war for nearly its entire modern history). 1979 was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan after a period of relative stability and peace. When the Soviets withdrew, the country remained in a state of civil war for some years. The Taliban eventually more or less "won" and again was a period of relative stability and peace. Then the US invaded in 2003, producing the current conditions of a US-supported Northern Alliance government posed against a Taliban. I wouldn't say these are all the same wars, even though Afghanistan has been more or less a war zone for quite a lot of this time (and again, technically, it has been a war zone for much longer than that, by that definition). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, not 2003. Also, there was still a war in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001, but it was generally in the northeastern corner of Afghanistan (where the Northern Alliance still controlled some territory). Other than that, I agree with your point and that's pretty much the point that I was trying to make. Futurist110 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Crato descendants

What happen to the senior line of Manuel, Prince Hereditary of Portugal's descendants. I got down to his granddaughter Elisabeth Maria or Isabel Maria who married a Baron Adriaan von Gent or Baron Adrian van Ghent, but the genealogy after that are fragmentary [28] [29]. Did Isabel Maria son's have surviving issues? Did this family continue the claim to the Portuguese throne after de:Manuel António von Portugal?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Countess Emilia of Nassau list many children which lived to the age of maturity. That would give you several names to track down. --Jayron32 05:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The article at portuguese Wikipedia also has a second wife listed, but there are a lot of redlinks there. German Wikipedia has information on his son Manuel Antonio, [30] presumably that's where you got the information on Adriaan Von Gent. German Wikipedia also has info on another decendent [31]. I checked Dutch Wikipedia, but it has pretty much the same articles as German Wikipedia does. --Jayron32 05:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The online genealogy are pretty detailed on those children, but I am actually specifically asking about Manuel's direct heir general which would be his granddaughter Isabel Maria's descendants, the Ghent/Gent family. GeneAll.net list four sons and five daughters but give no detail about the sons and Geneagraphie.com name only two daughters. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting lots of "Hompesches" following the links from Geneall, Wikipedia has only one article on a Hompesche, Ferdinand von Hompesch zu Bolheim. The Hompesche line runs out here, where it seems to pass through a daughter to the Freiherrs (barons) of Riedesel Freiherr zu Eisenbach, Wikipedia has an article on a Volprecht Riedesel Freiherr zu Eisenbach. None of this is firm, but following the links from your website, this is as far as I can get. --Jayron32 06:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also found Friedrich Adolf Riedesel, who was also a Baron of Eisenbach. --Jayron32 06:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Not much help here but I'll mention it anyway: [32] —Tamfang (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This source lists three daughters, two of whom had children (these are the two daughters listed at Geneagraphie). Apparently only Egerie-Adriana-Sibilla had grandchildren. --Cam (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Source for use of "race" in U.S. ouside Census

Hello, I need a good source for the fact that the term "race" (when refering to humans, not dogs) is still widespread in the U.S. outside the U.S. Census. I'm talking of official documents, for example forms used in universities or similar institutions, where options for "race" might include "Caucasian", "African American", "Asian", "Hispanic", etc. (For those of you who speak German, the background of the question is here). --Neitram (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It is. Try the television or newspaper. It seems to be quite relevant. Oh, and if you want "official" documents Congress and the Supreme Court have not exactly been silent about those terms. Shadowjams (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In terms of institutions, one place where I have been asked many times what my "race" is are in hiring documents — it has to do with Equal opportunity employment reporting. (They are not allowed to use the data in making hires, and indeed, in many places that data is acquired by a totally different part of the organization making the hiring and is not shared with those who make hiring decisions.) Another unusual place to look are in adoption procedures — when adopting (and presumably when listing a child for adoption), you get to make race preferences, and indeed different fees are associated with different races (white babies cost more, basically — presumably because they are lower in supply and higher in demand). I thought this was somewhat amazing when I first heard of it, but it came from a reliable source (a very good friend of mine who recently adopted a child). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

When applying for university, they'll typically have you check a box similar to that found of census forms (i.e. both a "are you Hispanic" question, and a "what race do you identify with" question. Buddy431 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Many US states have race on the driver license. Oddly, my North Carolina license application had a place for race, and the word "race" appeared on the license itself at the far right of the license, but my actual race was not given because there was no room at the right edge. Go figure. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The article Ward Connerly says:

In 2003, Connerly helped place Proposition 54 on the California ballot, which would prohibit the government from classifying any person by race, ethnicity, color, or national origin, with some exceptions, such as for medical research. Critics were concerned that such a measure would make it difficult to track housing discrimination and racial profiling activities. Editorials in newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times criticized the measure, saying that the lack of such information would hamper legitimate medical and scientific purposes.[12] The voters did not pass the measure.

This implies that such governmental racial classification is widespread. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, as part of the aforementioned equal opportunity stuff. Most of the above are about tracking trends based on census categories so that you can show whether the fact that your employees diverge from the general population is a matter of who applies or a matter of systematic discrimination. The driver's license though is probably a matter of forensic identification: law enforcement (ideally) only uses "race" as a code for "here's how you can quickly know if this is plausibly the right guy or not." So when the law says that the suspect is an African-American, or a Caucasian, or whatever, he's not saying, we tracked his ancestry and have made a pedigree and a DNA analysis and so on, he's saying, look, you know more or less what I mean, in terms of what such people generally look like. (This practice has been criticized by some as highly problematic, promoted by others as pragmatic.) Separate from this are the needs of pollsters and survey makers (who may or may not be affiliated with the government) who just want to make sure that when they do a survey, they don't take for granted they are getting a representative slice of the population (something that comparison with census numbers, again, can be useful for). So there are lots of different usages going on here, not just one, and all of this is somewhat parallel and separate from generic social notions about race (which don't map cleanly onto the US Census categories). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It happens all the time. Try filling out a survey online. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

How is propositional, formal, mathematical, etc., different to philosophical logic?

How is propositional, formal, mathematical, etc., different to philosophical logic. It is certainly different and if that is show it difference in form of arguments and how it is to be criticized if wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BT-7A (talk • contribs) 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The replies to your previous questions suggest that nobody here is able and willing to enter into the kinds of discussion you appear to want. If your question is not answered by Logic or related articles, then it may be that Wikipedia is not going to be able to help you. --ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a mathematics degree, and studied formal logic at university. Both my brothers are university academics in other fields, with a firm grounding in philosophy, including philosophical logic of a non-mathematical character. And we find the domains intersect frequently. Propositional logic is a specific formalism, but the underlying principles of logic are not exclusive to mathematics. Conversely, philosophical logic can be described in mathematical terms. Your premise, therefore, is wrong. You have supplied a conclusion and demanded premises and evidence to demonstrate it. This shows me that you are unfamiliar with logic as practised by mathematicians, philosophers, scientists, or the man on the Clapham Omnibus. If you are unwilling to learn what is offered, you will never appreciate why your demands go unanswered. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"The AF PX Spring Sale! Buy One, Get One Hundred Free! All-You-Can-Eat Sushi Bar!!!!! While Supplies Last!"

• Battle of Midway

Since the early spring of 1942, the US had been decoding messages stating that there would soon be an operation at objective "AF." Commander Joseph J. Rochefort and his team at Station Hypo were able to confirm Midway as the target of the impending Japanese strike by having the base at Midway send a false message stating that its water distillation plant had been damaged and that the base needed fresh water. The Japanese intercepted this and soon started sending messages that "AF was short on water."

Why did the Japanese encode an intercepted plain text message? I mean if you have intercepted a plain text message, the original sender already have known that this message is out there for everyone to hear. There is no need to keep it a secret. Re-encode this message only provides your enemy highly valuable study material.

Did the Japanese know how to use secret code properly? Did they have guidelines regarding the use of their cipher? -- Toytoy (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say they encoded a plain text message. It says that they intercepted the message, and they then no doubt passed this "useful intelligence" among themselves, in their usual manner.

Is there some particular significance to the bizarre section heading, or are you a troll? --ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an example of a plain text message one might intercept and then send along in code. StuRat (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If they resend the intercepted message to their HQ in Japanese or English plain text with "Midway" replaced by their code word "AF", it's extremely stupid because they have given the U.S. a part of their secret language.

If I understand cipher correctly, there are at least two layers of coding. The first is to replace your written language into some sort of mumbo jumbo. For example, you may replace all instances of "ice cream" into "frog pie" or "watery venus ruler". The text is still readable by humans, they just don't under what you mean. Then you encrypt your message using a machine. The encoded message is now not readable.

It sounds to me that the U.S. had deciphered the secret code but could not figure out what "AF" mean. They released a plain text message from Midway. Then they intercepted a coded message which, after decoding, turned out to contain "AF" in it.

This is quite unimaginable to me. I don't think anyone who knows how to operate a military intelligence system can be so stupid to let his operators encrypt ALL MESSAGES to the point that his enemies can use them to generate test output so easily.

Suzuki: "Kato san, I just learned they have opened a new sushi bar on Midway Island!"

Kato: "That's great!"

Suzuki: "Let's pass this wonderful news to the HQ!"

Kato: "And don't forget to use the word 'AF'!!!!!"

It looks like they are sending out grocery store flyers to attract unsuspicious Japanese customers to me. Intelligence people are not supposed to take a bite so easily.

To me, it looks like some people have created a lousy story to cover some secrets even after the end of the war. -- Toytoy (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the person who decided to send the message was probably not a cryptologist, so it's an easy mistake to make for a layman. Another famous example of Japanese incompetence in the field is when they sent the declaration of war to the Japanese ambassador to the US, with orders to present it just prior to the attack. They sent it both in code and marked "for the ambassador's eyes only", which meant the ambassador had to learn how to decode it himself. They failed to allow time for this, and thus their declaration of war was late, which was a great propaganda blow, as they would forever be remembered for a "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor. StuRat (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Pearl Harbor decoding fiasco is another weird story to me. Sometimes, TOP TOP TOP SECRETS are just broadcast around the world so everyone can hear. A message can be read by a soft-spoken lady over shortwave radio: "34 74 90 48 09 23 54 ...." No one knows who was the listener. The message could be from Tokyo but the message could be heard in Moscow or Singapore. Just about everyone who has a receiver can get the message. Then only the Japanese ambassador has the one-time pad to decode the message. This kind of secret code can be decoded in minutes.

I think the message was received and typed by a radio operator in the Japanese embassy. He did this job all day long not knowing which message goes to whom. And probably more than 90% of the messages were for other unrelated diplomatic or military units. Another officer picked up messages for this embassy and one of them was marked "FOR THE AMBASSADOR'S EYES ONLY".

The ambassador took the message to his top secret room where the one-time pad is stored and decode the message. It won't take very long to decode the full text. You don't need to be a math guy. You just need to look up the one-time table.

I am very skeptical to these war-time stories. -- Toytoy (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There's still some learning curve. For example, is the current code just written on a page of the code book with today's date on it, or is it more complicated than that ? StuRat (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Consider that sending the info along uncoded is also a problem, as then the US, who they presumed didn't know about their plan to attack Midway, would wonder why there was so much interest in a seemingly minor detail at Midway, which would only be significant if it was about to be attacked and thus cut off from resupply. StuRat (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

These listening post operator must have been trained and trustworthy people to access military secrets. I really don't think the Japanese forces could have been so unwise to train their people to encode plain text messages. On the other hand, many listening posts are created to pass all intercepted information all the way up. They don't review and filter information. However, they select the proper channel to transfer each piece of information. You only use your best encryption system to send top secret messages. -- Toytoy (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I still say that the number of people who know a code is greater than the number of trained cryptologists. As such, they may have thought the code was unbreakable (particularly if they were unfamiliar with computer decryption). And, if it was unbreakable, then sending all messages in that code would make sense. StuRat (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In the intelligence business, you assume ALL YOUR ciphers are broken and EVERYONE in your country could be a God-damn @#$% traitor. Then you use creative and inhuman ways to mitigate damages. -- Toytoy (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The screw-up, such as it was, is that the Japanese cryptologists hadn't caught on that the US had caught on that the Japanese had broken a US code (wow, confusing!). "Midway's water generator is broken" wasn't sent in the clear, but rather in a US code that was known to be broken over transmission media that were known to be interceptable (I forget if over air or via tapped telegraph line). The Japanese cryptanalysis group then retransmitted that info, but not as a straight retransmission (if nothing else, swapping "AF" for "Midway", but also language translation, vagaries of word choice and grammar, etc). And even by the now-primitive standards of 1940s cryptography, encoding a subtly different plaintext message didn't provide additional value to a codebreaker. The Japanese did understand code compartmentalization (see Japanese naval codes, which discuss diplomatic vs military vs merchant), but there weren't all that many usable ones (nor are there today, really), and virtually all of them were broken at that point. Certainly you don't pick a code that is "less secure" for less important information; you pick the best code you've got. And that loops back to the main screw-up by the Japanese -- they didn't properly account for why the Americans were using a less-secure code. — Lomn 14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Canonical Works of Literature

Who decides which works are admitted to the canon of a particular culture? And how are those decisions made. ie. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art: the neoclassical canon.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeraldJR (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to think that there's a formal process. I suppose, in the case of school boards setting curricula, there might be, but, in general, it's up to what individuals choose to read or ignore. This can change over time as tastes change. For example, Huckleberry Finn may lose popularity because of the name of the character "Nigger Jim". StuRat (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no single canon. There are, however, books that most educated people have read at some point in their lives. These sorts of things are largely determined by what sorts of books are assigned in places of education. Most Americans who have finished high school and college have probably read Hamlet, for example. (I myself was assigned to read it at least twice.) Over the years, the commonly-assigned books certainly change. I was assigned to read Invisible Man, for example, and not Moby Dick, whereas I imagine that thirty or forty years ago the latter would have been required reading and the former not. In terms of what books are included, there is no single formal process, but there are multitudes of general trends as to which books educators find "work well" with different ages and feel are important for educated people to have read. There are also issues of appropriateness — Ulysses is frequently ranked as one of the most important or best novels in the English language, but its difficulty for a reader, along with its explicit sexual content, mean it is unlikely to show up on all but the most challenging and insulated high school reading lists. (And despite its high praise, I suspect most educated people have not read it, though they probably have heard of it.) In prior eras you can find similar things at work, but it does usually fall back on formal educational systems. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Check out Great books and Great Books of the Western World for a sample of views on the topic. The second link of course is a very famous series of books that intends to represent a canon that is somewhat fixed and definite. IBE (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We also have western canon which deals with the same topic (but for art and music etc as well, not just literature). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

USATEMCOM

Any idea what USATEMCOM is or was? I've run across the term in a document from 1965: a manufacturing company in the USA (Indiana) was trying to contact them, and from the context I'm guessing that they were trying to become USATEMCOM's supplier for whatever they manufactured. A "Major General Turner" was involved, so it may well have been something in the US military. Google gives me just 20 results when I search for USATEMCOM, and they're all Portuguese pages where Google separated out the word to <USA tem com>. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B1B9:4E32:3CE8:AB45 (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the "USA" obviously refers to the United States of America. The "COM" typically means "command", in a military sense. The "TEM" could possibly mean temporary. Given the date, during the Vietnam War, I would guess this was a temporary command post set up for command and control of that war. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Most COMs use "US", not "USA" in their acronym. I've never heard of a temporary command with an acronym — by definition, the things with acronyms are usually established to one degree or another. That they would be dealing directly with a manufacturer like that seems unlikely. I don't think that's it. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The "USA" in "USATEMCOM" probably just means "US Army". See U.S. Army Central (USARCENT) --Robert Keiden (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Major General Carl C. Turner was the United States Army Provost Marshal General from 1964-1968, which seems like a pretty good match and a possibility. (As an aside, in 1971 he was sentenced to three years in jail for soliciting 136 firearms from the Chicago police department and keeping them for his own use.) I ran the acronym and variations of it through quite a few search engines (including military tech reports and Congressional reports/hearings) and came up with nothing. There was a company called Temcom, Inc., that made various aerospace/rocket sensors and things for the military and NASA, but all references I've found to them date at the earliest from the early 1980s. Knowing which company it was might help narrow it down in terms of what industry they worked in (e.g. electronics, versus metalworking, versus other things). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked back at the document in question (it's regarding a letter to Birch Bayh's office; I work in the archives that has Bayh's papers) and can tell you very little. The sender is Grote Manufacturing of Madison, Indiana, but they don't specify what they're trying to sell. The document is a carbon of a letter from Bayh's office to the company responding to a letter that they sent to Bayh, which I can't find. I just noticed that the Byah staffer typed "US ARMY" on the top of the carbon; I'm sorry that I missed that earlier. This is everything I know about this document. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B1B9:4E32:3CE8:AB45 (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

More on Major General Turner: [33]. --Robert Keiden (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that they're this company. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B1B9:4E32:3CE8:AB45 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Grote has been in business since 1901 , making automobile products since the 1920s, and have been focused on "high end" auto safety since ~ the 1930s. Whatever they wanted to sell was probably connected to transport. I wonder if USATEMCOM could be some misformation of TACOM (USATACOM?) In 1965 they could have been the responsible party for auto-related acquisitions (while in a state of major reorganizational overhaul [34].) The acronym could simply be wrong (Bayh's or Grote's mistake, or both). --Robert Keiden (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds pretty promising to me. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sidewalk with roof?

I suppose this is an architecture question. I'm trying to describe something in my screenplay and was wondering how I should refer to something. Typically, at any strip mall, at least in the US (I'm picturing a Wegmans), there's a sidewalk with a roof over it that is connected to the storefronts. The roof is supported on the other side by columns that go down the strip mall. Is there a word for this type of roofed sidewalk? Is there a word for this type of roof? Thanks! 129.3.184.139 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If it was in Italy I would say it was a loggia, but not sure if there is a different term for the wooden verandah-like structures that I think you are thinking of. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I name them only as "covered sidewalks" because "loggia" seems a much too fanciful a term when compared with some of the classic ones. However, I think "loggia" is correct, in English and Italian, as the article linked above shows. Bielle (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think your first instinct was right. Calling it a loggia will likely lose many in a US audience. A "covered walkway" is the variant I would choose. You might also want to include a pic to illustrate exactly what you mean, as it could be covered in many ways, all the way down to a canopy. StuRat (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Arcade? --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, technically correct, but will make Americans think of video arcades. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe porch, but they are usually for a single premises. "Covered sidewalk" is the term I would use. I presume you mean something like you would see in a Western, like in these examples: Virginia City, MT, Kingman, AZ; or southern hemisphere colonial-influenced architecture in these places: Broken Hill, NSW, Cobar, NSW and Simon's Town, Western Cape. Astronaut (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Natively, the southern hemisphere colonial-influenced architectural examples you mention are called "verandahs", but they would normally be understood to be attached to each individual building, rather than a long arcade / loggia that would, for example, run down the whole block of buildings. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

See also stoa. —Tamfang (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A portico. Like the ones in Bologna, which aren't shown well in our article. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Political parties of Israel mizrahi sephardi reform conservative non-zionism

Is there any political parties that advocates Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews who are Reform and Conservative Jews? Also, which political parties are non-zionist?

Wikipedia has an article titled Politics of Israel. If you have any further questions about any other countries, you can always answer them by reading Wikipedia articles titled "Politics of Whatever" where "Whatever" is the name of the country you are interested in. From those articles, you can follow links to individual articles about each party and find out what their positions are on various issues. --Jayron32 16:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that answer was a bit unhelpful. The answer to the OP question is by no means self-evident by a quick reading of that article. --Soman (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't by a quick reading. Which is why there are links in articles which can be followed to find more articles. For example, one can find a link to the article titled Likud, which is an Israeli political party. That article explains the ideology of that party in some detail. The Politics of Israel article has further links to all of the other parties. Clicking on each link in turn will give a person access to the same information for each party. --Jayron32 16:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The terms "Reform" and "Conservative" refer to streams of synagogue-based Judaism that don't exist as religious affiliations in Israel. What correspondence there may be with the synagogue-based Progressive Judaism movement in Israel has no necessary correlation to any political party, nor to the Sephardic or Mizrachi-identified populations. Israeli Jews who are halacha-observant and affiliate with an orthodox or Haredi (so-called ultra-Orthodox) community, are highly likely to support its associated political party. This helps ensure government support in terms of funding and legislation for their educational and welfare requirements, and seeking the imposition of halachic law upon all Jews in the country (e.g. marriage and burial) and in some spheres, all inhabitants (e.g. restricted public transportation on Shabbat). Israel's non-halacha-observant Jews, known as "secular" (Hebrew: חילוני, hiloni, m.pl. hilonim), are likely to vote for parties according to platform planks on national security and socioeconomic issues. Some parties (e.g. Meretz) campaign for pluralism and against "religious coercion" (i.e. imposition of halachic restrictions and requirements upon the secular and non-Jewish populations), as do some politicians (e.g. the late Josef "Tomy" Lapid) from more centrist parties. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Another approach to the OP's question would be to look at a sectorial interest group such as the Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow Coalition, and see which political party (if any) it's endorsed since its 1996 founding.-- Deborahjay (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a really excellent and knowledgeable answer. Thanks for providing that insight! --Jayron32 21:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Shas is the conservative Sephardic party, no? Well, mainsteam with regular government posts Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In a word: no. Shas is not conservative (with-a-capital-C) in the Jewish-religion sense: it's Sephardic Haredi, which is fundamentalist, advised by its spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. Neither in the political sense: it's a large minority party whose platform is to support its mainly Mizrachi (Haredi or traditional) constituents' interests. To which end it enters into the government coalition led by a (larger minority) mainstream party, conditional upon receiving government ministries* and choice committee spots. This gives Shas the power to set policies within existing legislative frameworks, including influential budget allocations. *To appreciate this, note that the Interior Ministry in Israel, usually a top Shas demand, isn't about federal lands and natural resources like the U.S. DOI.-- Deborahjay (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point about the small but important difference. Though i must point out that MOI's around the world are similar and unlike that of the DOI in the US.Lihaas (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Either the Calendar is wrong or the Clock is. It's that simple.

There are 12 months in the year. There are 12 hours on a twelve hour clock.

Are these the undisputed indisputable facts? Are you with me so far? Now. Now. Take the apocalyptic year, 2012. And take an apocalyptic morning, let's say tomorrow morning. Let me claim that there is no way I will survive tomorrow morning.

At what point can I know for a fact that I was wrong. That, despite the unrelished meetings, I did survive? If the claim is that I will not survive tomorrow morning, I will know I am wrong at... (think of a time.)

Now if the claim is that we will not survive 2012, that claim can be falsified at..?

Okay. Your two answers were: 12:00 noon. That's when I know I was wrong. I survived the morning. 1-1-13. That's when we know we survived 2012. Do you see a bit of a discrepency here? Let's go back to the indisputable undisputed facts. There are 12 months in the year. There are 12 hours in the A.M. and 12 hours in the P.M. Yet after the last day of the 12th month it's the FIRST month and after the last minute of the ELEVENTH hour (not twelfth) it's the FIRST hour.

12 and 12. Twelve months. Twelve hours each in the a.m. and pm. No "zero o'clock" or "0/1/2013" on either one. Oh shit. I kind of fucked up here in my thinking in that, er, there is a minute 0 but there is no day 0. I guess I may be quite wrong here. But the hours - the hours - if you will excuse this little derailment.

THe hours go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12-AND-SWITCH, 1, 2, 3,4 ,5 ,6 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12-AND-SWITCH

while the months go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1-AND-SWITCH, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 1-AND-SWITCH

"january 1st" has the same mental feeling as "12:01 am". but one has a 1 (january) and one has a 12 (noon and midnight).

Either the Calendar is wrong or the Clock is.

logically the 1 o'clock should be at the top of the clock, just like January is the first page of the calendar. I rest my case, your honorables. I argued it as well as I could. I even kind of foreshadowed with "undisputed" and "indesputable" where the i and the u are different, having one or two legs respectively like the one or two digits of 1 and 12. but this is secondary to the blinding logic displayed previously.

the question

truly, verily, which is wrong? Thank you. 80.98.245.172 (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You are - the way we mark the passage of time is essentially arbitrary, and nothing you have written demonstrates anything beyond this fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am demonstrating and inconsistency. Mathematically, would it be possible to define two kinds of 7's instead of a nine, written identically but differing in value (one having the value previously known as "8" which now has the value previously known as "9" - a figure that no longer exists)? Of course. We could count: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8 - with the two sevens having two different values, like a capital i versus lowercase l (identical in some fonts). But that's stupid. "How much is it? It's $7. "You mean $7 as in '5, 6, 7' or 7 as in '7, 8, 10'?" "Uh, the big seven." "Oh okay. So almost $8." "Right, almost $8. What used to be called $9." "I came for some groceries, not a history lesson" "Sorry." So you see, we could easily count, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17, 18, 20. and so on. But we don't. Because it's stupid.

So an argument against what's possible isn't really convincing. I would like to know which makes more sense. 80.98.245.172 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

80.98.245.172 -- The clock uses modulo 12 arithmetic (see modulo arithmetic), except where "0" would occur as the name of an hour "12" is used instead. The fact is that hour numbering systems (originally "6th hour of the day" means noon etc.) were invented before the concept of mathematical 0 was commonly known in Eurasian cultures.. AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

AnonMoos: Exactly. And so does the calendar, except where a "0" would occur as the number of the month, "12" is used instead. So if it's both "modulo-12" arithmetic, why does one flip at 12 and one flip at 1? Or, are you saying that "the calendar uses modulo 12 arithmetic, except where "0" would occcur as the number of the month 1 is used instead, whereas on the clock where 0 would occur as the number of the hour, 12 is used instead? Which do you think is more natural? 80.98.245.172 (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Using 1 for 0 makes more sense to me, because it derives from how we would talk. Think of how years are presented in a super-pretentious manner: The 2012th year of the Lord. By that standard, year 1 is "The 1st year of the Lord". It just makes sense. But looking at the history of counting the hour, it becomes obvious why the first hour would be a 12 and not a 1 or 0, and its simply because the clock is drawn as a circle. You start the day in the 0th hour and progress to 1, on and on to 12 (or in older systems, 24). Then it starts over. But when you look at the time during the 0th hour, the dial will be next to a 12. Is that why it's called 12 O'clock? I dunno. But I can see that connection being made for clocks, as opposed to months, which have names rather than numbers, and are not typically measured on a circle (I can confess however, to once finding an 18th century clock that did have a month dial). Someguy1221 (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both the calandar and the clock derive from Babylonian times, this is covered some in the article Duodecimal which covers the use of base-12 systems in horology (the study of timekeeping) as deriving from Babylonian. The rest of your post sounds like amateur numerology which is akin to astrology and horoscopes in terms of a reliable field of study. So to give you a short answer, the fact that the number 12 shows up in various methods of time keeping (both hours and months) is because it derives from the base-12 numbering system in use in the Ancient Middle East. The "2012 is the end of the world" bit comes from a particular interpretation of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar, which resets on December 21, 2012. There's nothing particularly notable about rolling over the Long Count calendar, it has happened 12 times in the past and nothing much happened on those dates. --Jayron32 18:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

User Jayron32, you seem not to have taken the time to get the meaning. Please raise your left hand to turn from AM to PM and vice versa as I count. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... Okay. Now I am counting months. Please raise your left hand when we reach a new year. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5....

So you see, actually even though I gave you the same list, which is a 12-cycle, you are choosing two different points to roll over on. Does this make sense to you? That when we turn from 11 to 12 we go from am to pm or the end of the day in the case of midnight, whereas when we go not from 11th to the 12th month, but the 12th to the 1st we change years? Does this make sense to you? This kind of off-by-one error would make sense if the two things were divided in an off-by-one way, like there's 11 months but 12 hours or 12 of one, 13 of the other, or 10 and 11. But dividing into 12 in both cases, this does not make sense. I understand that it's historical. I'm asking from a usability perspective.

Also, I have a qualm about the fact that people say we use the base-ten number system due to having ten fingers. In fact we only name 9 of the 10 digits. (Which is why ten takes two digits). If I count from my right pinkie in, I can only give 9 of the fingers digit-names; the tenth finger has no name, and is supposed to represent a roll-over. We should be using base-11, so that we can count from 0 to 10, and then roll over to 1-0 when we run out of fingers. 80.98.245.172 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Good luck getting the small group of people known as "everyone else" to adopt your system. As AndytheGrump already notes, there is an arbitrariness built into the system. Arbitrary systems are by definition inconsistent. They don't change merely because they are inconsisent. It is what it is. If you want to invent your own personal clocks and calandars and eleven fingered hands, be our guest. But don't expect the whole world to suddenly wake up one morning and agree that your system is somehow "better". --Jayron32 19:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jayron. Thanks for taking the time to see what I'm talking about. Actually, I don't want to change anything. I would just like to hear some arguments about (for example if we were starting ab ovo) which one "would be" better. Which one makes more sense all other things being equal. I think it's quite weird to change AM-PM at a different time from changing from 12 to roll around to 1. Don't you agree? If high noon is when we get to pm, wouldn't have putting high noon at 12:59 plus one have kind of made more sense? In this case the clock would be slightly rotated for 1 on top. Thanks for your ideas. I realize this is a bit pedantic. 80.98.245.172 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But not in a good way. When the time is 1 o'clock, that means the first hour past noon/midnight has just ended. It doesn't mean it's just starting. The first hour starts on the stroke of noon/midnight, but doesn't end till an hour later. It's like it takes a whole year for a baby to become 1 year old. It enters its first year of life the moment it's born, but the number 1 doesn't get to be associated with it till it's finished its first year.

The calendar is differently organised. It becomes the first month (January) immediately the 12th one (December) ends. We don't have to wait till January is completed before we start calling it January. The moment we turn the page, we're on the January page. Same with the days of the month. The 1st day starts immediately the last one of the previous month ended. The moment we turn the page, we're on the "1st of the month" page. The first hour of the first day starts at that point, too, but we have culturally agreed to recognise it only at the end of the hour in our timekeeping language. Some other languages may have a completely different way of telling the time, where they talk about "7 minutes of the first hour" to mean what we call 12:07. It's a language issue, not a logic or science issue. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if we are going to be pedantic, it's worth noting that trying to make the system less arbitrary (or at least, easier to work with) has been tried before - in post revolutionary France, where decimal time was introduced, along with a decimal calender - though the latter named the first day of each ten-day week primidi which still leaves the problem the OP notes. The system didn't really catch on - possibly because the Republic didn't have the power to fix the rather fundamental problem that 365-and-a-bit isn't a power of ten. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with either system, just a different conventional way of assigning numbers to periods of time (as stated above). More peculiar if the fact that there was no year zero in our date system (the year after 1 BC was 1 AD, but even this is logical if you think of it as first year before and first year after). Mathematicians cannot agree on whether to start the natural numbers at 0 or 1. Dbfirs 20:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I think "the year after 1 BC was 1 AD" is a wonderfully wrong-headed view of history. As Vicki Pollard would say, "Yes, but no, but yes, but no". First, they created a new era, starting with the supposed birth year of Jesus. Pages of a book, months of the year, fingers of your hand, notches on your bedhead etc all use the natural numbers, starting with 1. It would have made no sense to start the Christian Era with any number than 1. Later, they dreamt up the "BC" (latterly "BCE") thing to refer to the years before Jesus's birth. Likewise, it would have made no sense to start the BC Era with any number than 1. The AD series and the BC series are both perfectly fine in their own right. The only problem is that they're not easily amenable to a mathematical view of history, which demands an unbroken arithmetic series. That does not make it "peculiar" that there is no Year 0 in our system. It would have been extremely peculiar if there had been. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Later thought: Look what happened when the Gregorian Calendar was introduced in 1582. Thursday 4 October (Julian) was immediately followed by Friday 15 October (Gregorian). The Gregorian calendar was not retrospective, so there's a 10-day discontinuity in the series of dates where the Julian interfaces with the Gregorian. I've never heard anyone who says it's peculiar that there's no Year 0, say that it's peculiar there are no such dates as 5 through 14 October 1582. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it's only "peculiar" to a mathematician who thinks of BC numbers as negative integers, and to astronomers who really do use a 0 (year). I wasn't criticising historians (or Bede) for the use of "first year after" and "first year before" which, as I wrote above, is equally logical. It all depends on the original meaning of the numbers that we now use. I agree that the "missing days" are even more peculiar, and the idea was rejected both by some governments and by many of the general public at the time. Dbfirs 06:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a consequence of the fact that dates are specified within a period (month, or year), while times are specified relative to a point of time. There is nothing fundamental about these choices: the Roman calendar specified dates relative to a point (a day) rather than within a month. --ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious to know which millennium the OP thinks the year 2000 was part of. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• My reading of the question implies that the issues here are primarily philosophical in nature. I'd direct the OP to the venerable Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in particular here, [35], [36], and here [37] Weighty reading, but far more reliable than any WP articles on the topics. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

famous & mean book reviews

Howdy. English doesn't seem to have an equivalent to German Verriss (dict.leo suggests scorcher/scorching review or slating (review), but basically it means a mean takedown of a piece of art, specifically a devastating book review. Anyway, this is what I am looking for: withering, mean, even evil, but also hilarious reviews which are famous/legendary works of literature in their own right. My favorites so far include Clive James' 1978 review of Brezhnev: A Short Biography and Dwight MacDonald's 1958 By Cozzens Possessed, which effectively destroyed Cozzen's reputation as a writer. Might make a nice anthology, looking forward to suggestions: --Janneman (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Eduard Hanslick's review of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto is notorious, as is Dorothy Parker's terse dismissal of The House at Pooh Corner. --ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also see The Literary Offenses of Fenimore Cooper for one by Mark Twain.Taknaran (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hanslick's is one of hundreds of bad reviews of music contained in The Lexicon of Musical Invective by Nicolas Slonimsky, described as "a compilation of hilariously bad reviews by critics of composers since Beethoven's time." -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Having just read Clive James' and Mark Twain's superlative examples of the art of murder by review, I have to wonder what either would have had to say about Wikipedia's prose - I suspect that it might be painful to read. Meanwhile, I'll add "Eschew surplusage" to my list of obnoxious but necessary edit summaries. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Diana Rigg, the actress, once assembled a collection of devastatingly-hostile theatre reviews called No Turn Unstoned (1982, bibliographic information at the Wikipedia article). While I've glanced briefly at this book in a bookstore, I've neither acquired, borrowed or read it. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

UN General Assembly Chamber

Oddly we dont have a page for this, but does anyone know the size of the hall? How many delegations sit in each row? How many rows? And what is at the back where the non-member state entities sit (Like Palestine)Lihaas (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But we do have a page on the United Nations Headquarters#Structures, including this paragraph

The General Assembly building holds the General Assembly Hall which has a seating capacity of 1,800. At 165 ft (50 m) long by 115 ft (35 m) wide, it is the largest room in the complex. The Hall has two murals by the French artist Fernand Léger. At the front of the chamber, is the rostrum containing the green marble desk for the President of the General Assembly, Secretary-General and Under-Secretary-General for General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services and matching lectern for speakers.[8] Behind the rostrum is the UN emblem on a gold background.[26] Flanking the rostrum is a paneled semi-circular wall that tapers as it nears the ceiling and surrounds the front portion of the chamber. In front of the paneled walls are seating areas for guests and within the wall are windows which allow translators to watch the proceedings as they work. The ceiling of the hall is 75 ft (23 m) high and surmounted by a shallow dome ringed by recessed light fixtures. The General Assembly Hall was last altered in 1980 when capacity was increased to accommodate the increased membership. Each of the 192 delegations has six seats in the hall with three at a desk and three alternate seats behind them.[8]

—— Shakescene (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but does anyone know if how many delegationgs sit on each row?Lihaas (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Honolulu in 1840

Can somebody help me make out the exact wordings in this image? And if anybody know who may have been the artist (there is a name in the words but I have idea who he is or if he was the artist)? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The top line says Honolulu, Oahu, Nov. 1840. J D. Dana from shipboard. The bottom line is more difficult, but possibly says XXXX Exploring Exhibit --- my best guess is Milken Exploring Exhibit, but that's a wild guess. The artist is James Dwight Dana -- I have added a picture of his signature here so you can compare. Looie496 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Followup -- actually the bottom line says Wilkes Exploring Expedition, better known as the United States Exploring Expedition. Looie496 (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Something else odd about that pic, it says it was done from "shipboard", but he's clearly looking down at the town. Was he in the crow's nest ? StuRat (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's one of those time-honored "bird's eye view" illustrations, in this case as if the bird in question were a seagull. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

September 19

Was Dewey defeats Truman retracted?

Dewey Defeats Truman is infamous (and more than just the Chicago Tribune) but were these ever officially retracted by the papers and if so when? As much as I have heard about these no commentator has ever mentioned an official retraction, was it just an oversight? Thanks. Also references/citations would be helpful (I couldn't find any or any reference to any). Marketdiamond (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Given you know the date of the headline, I suggest you visit the Chicago Tribune's archive here (from our article's external links section) and search through the next edition for a retraction. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an educated guess, but I'm assuming Yes since no newspaper would want to have its reputation ruined by refusing to correct obviously false news. Futurist110 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't guess or assume our answers here. There's a difference between telling the real story in the next edition (an implicit acknowledgment they got it wrong) and saying explicitly "We were wrong". No way of knowing which of these happened, without looking at the actual newspapers. Medeis's link is the place to visit. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The answer is yes: Never again, we hope. The November 4th edition of the tribune included that along with 20 other articles about Truman's victory or tangentially related issues. I can't read the article itself as it's behind a paywall. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Addendum: It's interesting to me that although the announcement of Truman's victory was on the front page on the 4th, the paper's mea culpa was shoved back to page 22. I can't read the articles on the front page either, so I don't know if they mention the mistake. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It does make a certain amount of sense that the correction/retraction was back on page 22. Corrections are often pushed back in the later pages. Dismas|^(talk) 08:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciation all, great info! Marketdiamond (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This should probably be added to the article. Somewhere it should also note that there was another major error on the page — one of the paragraphs of the "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" story was printed upside down, if I recall, a nice sign of the rushed state of things. (There is a copy of the paper on display at the Newseum.) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Public and private Campaign financing

In most countries, political campaigns are financed by a mixture of public and private funds. Is there any countries with purely publicly funded campaigns? Or purely privately funded campaigns? A8875 (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In the U.S. at the federal level, the amount of "public funding" of campaigns is such a pittance compared to private funding, it might as well not exist. It basically amounts to pissing in the ocean. There are also stipulations which a candidate has to follow to voluntarily accept the public funds. Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Public_financing_of_presidential_campaigns has some information. During the current election cycle, neither candidate has accepted the funds, as they can raise so much more money if they refuse them. There is literally no incentive anymore (especially in the post-Citizens United world) to accept the public money. At the state and local level, there are a smattering of "Clean Elections" movements attempting to pressure candidates into a fully-publicly funded campaign. Everyone kinda laughs at this and goes about wiping their asses with the huge volumes of cash they get from donors. --Jayron32 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We have overlapping articles called campaign finance and political finance (they have merge tags) - some of the sources sound like they might be promising. Political finance claims that India and Switzerland have no public funding, and gives Sweden, Germany, Israel, and Japan as examples of countries that have particularly generous public funding, but at least Germany and Japan also have private funding (I assume Sweden and Israel do too). I would imagine some one-party states could be considered to be examples of countries without private funding. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Holy Sites in an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Treaty

Has there been any agreement between the two sides over who will get permanent control and sovereignty over Jewish holy sites outside of Jerusalem (such as the Cave of the Patriarchs) in previous Middle East peace negotiations? Also, have there been any speculation in the news as to how a peace treaty will affect these sites? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the issue of many holy sites is for final status negotiations. For example, in regards to the Cave of the Patriarchs, negotiations haven't given a final decision, BUT negotiations have created temporary agreements. Since 1996, under the Wye River memorandum, Israel and the Palestinian Authority agreed to divide access to the Cave of the Patriarchs. Under this agreement, Muslims are granted access to 81% of the Cave of the Patriarchs; Jews are granted access to 19% of the Cave of the Patriarchs. However, for ten days each year, Jews have access to the full site (these 10 days have special significance in Judaism; the source below does not say when they are but perhaps they are the Ten Days of Repentance). What will happen in the future is open for final negotiations.

Hope this helps.

Sources - [38] --Activism1234 05:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What kind of shark saves a human?

I just read this amazing story, here about a man from the Republic of Kiribati that was rescued by a shark after being 105 days adrift as a castaway. What kind of shark does such a thing? Thank you! Timothy. Timothyhere (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)