Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

January 10

Why not wall off Pakistan to stem the flow of Taliban?

The Taliban are a constant threat because they keep operating in Pakistan and recruiting from there, a place where the NATO coalition can't touch (unless to get exceptionally high-value targets.) The Afghan-Pakistani border is about as porous as a sponge. Newly-minted insurgents would keep coming over like a river.

The Israeli strategy worked against the Palestinians when they walled off the Palestinian-held areas; the attacks against Israel dwindled quite a bit.

So can't there be a wall between Pakistan and Afghanistan? How much would it cost per mile / per kilometer? How effective would it be? What "tweaks" would the wall need to be as effective as needed? Thanks. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who would build it? Pakistan? Not bloody likely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confused about what an insurgent is. They don't cross borders to become insurgents. They are rebels within their own country. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Along much of the sparsely defended space between Afghanistan and Pakistan, there is no meaningful border. Yeah, there's a line on the maps, but it doesn't have much functional meaning. --Jayron32 06:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the Israelis have paid too much attention to precise "official" borders when building their walls. HiLo48 (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a border insofar as there is control to decide who gets to move across it. There is no such control in the areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why the analogy between the Israeli-Palestinian border and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is a bad analogy: the people who have functional control over the Is-Pal border is the Israeli government. The people with functional control over many parts of Af-Pak border is the Taliban. Plus, it's patently ridiculous to consider building a wall along the entire Durand Line. It's 2,640 kilometers long, and crosses some of the most inhospitable terrain on earth. The Green Line is nowhere near that long; something like 320 kilometers. To defend that 320 kilometers, Israel is building a the Israeli West Bank barrier which is over 700 kilometers in length [1]. That would mean that someone would have to build and defend some 6000 kilometers of wall along the Durand Line to create a similar barrier; and that's in an area where no Karzai government or U.S. forces have been able to establish any realistic control. It just isn't happening. --Jayron32 07:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it's apples and oranges. Israel built the wall to try to keep terrorists out. Pakistan has no corresponding reason to build such a wall, or dig a trench, or whatever it might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never bloody suggested that Pakistan would build the wall. I would hope for a joint effort between the ISAF and Afghan indigenous forces to put up a barrier that would stem the tide of incoming fighters to replenish the numbers of Taliban fighting our forces. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wall would have to totally encircle Afghanistan. That could run into money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of this question we can get involved in without breaking our own rules is "How much would it cost per mile / per kilometer?". The rest invites opinion and speculation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the working conditions, it's reasonable to suppose that it would cost at least as much per given distance as the Israel wall did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to [2] the cost of the Israeli wall in 2005 was cited as US$2,000,000 per kilometer. Even assuming that a Durand Line Wall could follow the actual border close enough to match its length exactly, that would cost over US$5,000,000,000, and if the wall followed a similar pattern as the Israeli wall did, it would cost something like US$10,000,000,000. And that's just to build the thing. You also have to have the people to patrol it and maintain it. That costs money to. --Jayron32 07:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would cost a darned sight more per kilometre to wall off the mountainous Pakistan/Afghanistan border than the Israeli wall cost, too. And it would be rather pointless in most places - anyone capable of scaling the mountains to reach the wall would presumably be well capable of climbing another few metres over it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, a nice fantasy, but not practical. The experience of Israel and East Germany vs. China and Scotland suggest that a short wall could be sustainable, but a long wall would not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about that Berlin wall. Shadowjams (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I alluded to that above: East Germany. They built the Berlin Wall. As I recall, they also strung barbed wire around their border with West Germany, but that was to keep people in rather than out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They had some disgusting anti personnel mines too. Fortifications of the inner German border is the relevant article. Editorial aside: you know your economic system isn't working when importing bananas is cause for celebration in the 21st century, and you need minefields to keep your people in. For good times about east germany, see SM-70. Stellar system they had going there. In contrast, all these imperialist countries have to deal with illegal imigration... interesting. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure the mines were there just to prevent someone from accidentally leaving the country. Surely no one would want to leave a Communist country. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it was the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall, so was actually to stop those sneaky fascists from getting in. Exactly why they would want to wasn't explained. Alansplodge (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this idea, too. Rather than a wall, I suggest putting razor wire down on both sides of a "kill zone", with soldiers posted on the Afghan side with night vision goggles who shoot at anything which moves within the zone. Aerial drones could also patrol the area. Yes, it would still be somewhat expensive, but not prohibitively so, and may well be the only way to win the war. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How so, which soldiers, and which locations along the kill zone? You're taking foreign soldiers, with no experience or background in the terrain, placing them in the mountains to patrol some razor wire and asking them to defend the land against people who have lived there for generations, and which outnumber them. "Oh look, the Americans are defending that valley over there. Lets cross over here instead, come up behind them and kill them all". It should be noted we're essentially doing everything you're saying already, and it isn't working. Look, we've got more border patrol agents patrolling the southern U.S. border with Mexico than there are troops in Afghanistan; that's a shorter border, through a less rugged terrain, and it's not in enemy territory. And people cross that border all the time. Now, give a longer border, worse terrain, less soldiers and supplies, and the people crossing are trying to kill you. Good luck with that. Your solution only works if the U.S. had infinite resources in terms of personnel and materiel and supplies. The deal is, with infinite resources, all strategies work all the time. With what is available, it simply isn't possible to kill every living thing along the Afghan-Pakistan border. --Jayron32 21:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US has always made a half-hearted effort to close the border with Mexico, since having illegal immigrants in the US is in the business interest of many, as they provide virtual slave labor. I don't think the entire length of the border is protected. Also, just shooting anyone you see is a lot cheaper than trying to humanely detain them and return them to their home country. And, I suspect a much larger number of people attempt to illegally cross the border from Mexico and all points south (millions), than attempt to cross the Afghan-Pakistan border (thousands). StuRat (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Walls won't work. Maybe we need a completely new approach to the OP's concern that "The Taliban are a constant threat". What is this "war" really about? HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the cost and manpower, wall guards spread out over that distance would be very vulnerable to targeted attacks (from both sides of the wall). This is fighters looking to kill enemies and not just illegal immigrants (or emigrants like East Germany) who want to sneak across a border without confrontation. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to be an "armchair general", but that's not what the RD is for. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You build fire-bases on the tops of mountains overlooking the border, or the "line of control", which may not correspond exactly with the border (you want to draw the line where it's easiest to defend). Rapid air response is also essential to deal with any attacks. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that, presumably, there are generals and such who have far more military strategy training and experience than you, and you're not really contributing anything here to the corpus of military strategy, right? You don't suppose there's actually a general reading this message board, and saying "Holy shit! Fire bases on mountaintops? Why the fuck didn't I think of that! Someone get a war council together, we need to try this StuRat's plan out right away! You there! Bring me a mountain to put a fire base on!" Besides which, as I said above, but it bears highlighting, with infinite resources all strategies work all the time. The U.S. does not have access to infinite resources. How many troops is necessary to control a 2700 kilometer border? How many bases? How far apart? What will it take to keep them supplied? What losses would you call tolerable in accomplishing your objective? What air support is sufficient? What level of collateral damage to allied Afghans is tolerable before you start to lose their allegiance? What is the troops strength of those you're trying to stop anyways? What materiel and personnel do they have? How are they organized? It's not as simple as building fire bases on mountaintops and flying a few drones over head and viola! Problem solved! How am I certain of that? Because the problem isn't solved already, because if it was easy enough for Randy in Boise to fix it in his spare time on a Wikipedia message board, then the entire military leadership of the U.S. would have already worked it out and done it by now. --Jayron32 00:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we do as you suggest, and accept that whatever generals do must always be the right thing, then we will be in real trouble. They have specifically built bases in valleys, overlooked by the Taliban on higher ground, which is a recipe for disaster: [3]. As for how many troops it would take, maybe 10 per km, or 27000 total, with half in front line bases and half in rapid response aerial forces, and bringing in supplies and providing other support. To make the supply runs less frequent, bring in larger quantities of supplies that last (so dried or canned fruit instead of fresh fruit, etc.). And positioning troops on the border keeps them from interacting much with noncombatants, versus putting bases in cities, where there are sure to be incidents. StuRat (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because the strategic planning would go much better with you in charge. --Jayron32 00:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't go much worse than it is. Looks like the current plan is for us to leave, and Taliban to take over again. StuRat (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So say you. On what do you base your conclusions and analysis of the results of the U.S. plan? --Jayron32 13:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It [full withdrawal] will pave the way for the Taliban to take over militarily" [4]. StuRat (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NATO coalition is not even in complete control of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Something that surely must be a prerequisite to such a suggestion as the OP. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are fully capable of taking control of each spot along the border. However, current strategy is to then withdraw from most positions after periodically pushing insurgents out, which just lets them come right back in again. StuRat (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article request

i would like to talk about my mother. she was an important explorer in the 60th. wrote many books and was one of the founders of the "club des explorateurs français". i would like to know if it is possible that she could be included in "wikipedia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laetitia yalon (talk • contribs) 12:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consult Wikipedia:Notability, especially Wikipedia:Notability (people)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that your mother IS notable according to these guidelines, then see Wikipedia:Requested articles. Alansplodge (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could Piers Morgan be deported because of the petition of one person?

I hope you understand to what I am referring. Kyxx (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not 20 Questions. If you expect a reply to your question, it's your responsibility to provide us with some context. I'm not sure why you didn't do that. Anyway, the matter he is referring to is this [5]. --Viennese Waltz 13:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some Wikipedians need sex, it takes away the bad mood. Kyxx (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a prospective partner in mind to have sex with me? If so, please provide more info. Futurist110 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get your Kyxx on Route Syxxty-Syxx. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any foreigner could be deported if they were deemed to be some kind of security threat. This particular case is just a publicity stunt staged by a few gun lovers, and I would be shocked if any action was taken on it. This Alex Jones character is so far out there he makes Rush Limbaugh look like a liberal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't easily believe that the U.S.A. which belives so heavily in freedom of speech and thought would deport someone just because some of them don't agree with his opinions. Gurumaister (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the person is a criminal or a national security threat, as long as they have their papers in order it's very unlikely they would be deported. Ironically, if Jones were a foreigner, he'd be on the next ship out of the country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Apparently this is an opportunity to rant about personal feelings, rather than provide objective, correct answers. No,~~ it seems quite unlikely he'll be deported [6]. ~~And Bug's understanding of deportation law is not to be relied on.~~ Shadowjams (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are your personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I've striken it. My apologies. Shadowjams (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No problem. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As other people have already said, No, Piers Morgan will not get deported. Futurist110 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it was the right to free speech that allowed some rednecks to suggest it in the first place. No harm done to anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I saw a clip in which Alan Dershowitz pointed out to Piers Morgan, the value of having a character like Jones on his show, as an "exhibit".[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"'Tis better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"; the best value in free speech is it emboldens fools to speak, so that they may be easily identified and then properly ridiculed. --Jayron32 01:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The media and internet commentators seem strangely confused about what the White House petition website is. It's not a way to short cut the legislative process or to overturn the Constitution. The only guarantee you have is that if your petition gets enough signatures, someone from the President's staff will respond to it. Not make it into law, not overturn a law, not let a state secede and definitely not deport someone for what they said. Personally I disagree with almost everything that Piers Morgan said, but you have to be an idiot to try to claim that you deserve 2nd Amendment protections while trying to strip someone of their 1st Amendment rights.Tobyc75 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is already moot, as the White House has already politely rejected the petition.[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy... the constitution doesn't allow website petitions to overturn Congress or the Constitution... shocking. Shadowjams (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Your sentence is ambiguous. If you mean that website petitions are not empowered by the constitution to overturn congress or the constitution, then you're right of course, but who ever said they were? If you mean the constitution doesn't allow petitions aimed at overturning congress or the constitution, well, yes, it does; that's the right to petition for redress of grievances. It would be unconstitutional for the president to act beyond his authority just because of some petition, but there's nothing shocking about people petitioning, even for things that are obviously impossible under the law. --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sardonic. Tobyc75 has the best statement in this entire thread really. Shadowjams (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they're not willing to embrace serious job creation and important defence proposals either petitions.whitehouse .gov/petition/secure-resources-and-funding-and-begin-construction-death-star-2016/wlfKzFkN . Incidentally the whitehouse petition site appears to be on the blacklist, I guess because people were posting whatever random petition they started everywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no chance the White House would take the petition seriously (I'm not sure if anyone ever really did), but the law is not clear if the government could deport Morgan if it wanted to. —Kevin Myers 02:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably most of the people who "signed" the petition took it seriously. Whether we should take them seriously is another matter. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my point above timestamped 01:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC). This is the utility of the White House Petition website. --Jayron32 02:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Münster Rebellion

why did the guild craft supported the polygamy in Münster Rebellion?--84.110.1.114 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article, The Anabaptist Commune of Münster 1534 -1535 offers some thoughts. Firstly, any moderates or opponents of the Anabaptists had either left the city or been expelled. Those who remained were sympathetic to the teachings of the leaders of the rebellion. Secondly, it points out that accounts of the rebellion were written by its opponents, however; "There is indeed no doubt that the Anabaptists instituted polygamy for which Kautsky and similar writers offer a simple explanation. By late summer 1534, Münster had about 9,000 citizens, 2,000 men and 7,000 women, most of them left inside the city by their husbands and fathers who had flown. Kautsky argues, that the Anabaptists emphatically attempted to prevent moral disintegration and to protect the large number of single women from sexual assault by the male population, and specially the number of mercenaries inside the walls. By marrying them to respected Anabaptist men, the women's honours could be protected, and the vast majority of such “pro-forma” marriages were never to be consummated. Instead of being the scene of libertine orgies, Münster had set an example for sexual morality. The truth is difficult to establish, but in view of the strict moral codex that most Anabaptist groups practiced, Kautsky's explanation seems the more plausible." Alansplodge (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There doesn't appear to be any indication that modern Anabaptists or the related groups (Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish) practice polygamy as a matter of doctrine. The leader of that particular Anabaptist group, John of Leiden, appeared to encourage polygamy as a matter of personal doctrine. He wouldn't be the only charismatic leader of a radical religious movement to espouse polygamy. I daresay, it's a common theme among many such groups. However, it is also somewhat relevent that Polygamy in Christianity#Reformation period notes that in the early years of the Reformation, Luther himself claimed there was no biblical basis in a ban on Polygamy, and notes other notable Protestant polygamists, including John of Leiden and other notable Anabaptist leaders such as Bernhard Rothmann. So, there appears to have been some support for polygamy among Protestants and specifically Anabaptists during that time period anyways. --Jayron32 20:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would just point out here that referring to Anabaptists as "Protestant" is, at least, controversial. They were persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants. --Trovatore (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

What is the maximum legal age limit for adoptive parents in the United States?

What is the maximum legal age limit for adoptive parents in the United States? Also does this video over a lady who became at mom at 70 look legit: http://video.orange.com/za/people/giving-birth-at-79-new-world-record-or-fake/ Venustar84 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every U.S. state has different laws regarding adoption. This page is where you initiate your search through the various state laws. --Jayron32 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American-Vietnamese children

I want to know the numbers of mixed children (1 Vietnamese parent and 1 American parent) currently still living in Vietnam. It must be from a reliable source. Thanks!174.20.35.57 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article from The Smithsonian Magazine from 2009 has some figures. This unpublished thesis may not itself be a reliable source, but it does cite many reliable sources, and is a good launching point for your research. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article Bui doi has a few sources as well. I hope that gives you a start. --Jayron32 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't have the figure I'm looking for nor does this has the number I'm looking for. Bui doi article doesn't has it either and it is not easy to get access to sources that are books.(the library may not has it) I'm not doing any kind of research on this. This is simply a curious question on the subject. I just want to know the number answer.65.128.142.118 (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said, I didn't expect them to have the specific number, but to have a starting point for your research. They all reference further texts. Those texts will also reference further texts, and so on. It's how you're going to find the answer. --Jayron32 06:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sound like it is going to take forever to find out the answer if there is one, I doubt that if someone has ever done the research to get the number I'm looking for.65.128.142.118 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Roe v. Wade baby

Where is the baby from Roe v. Wade right now? They should be 43 years old currently. According the Norma McCorvey article the baby was given up for adoption. I've googled it but only found unanswered answer.com and Yahoo answer pages.Dncsky (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not be surprised if you do not find any information. The child may have been anonymous ever since to protect he or she from the round-the-clock American media coverage he or she would have received solely for being "the famous baby that Norma McCorvey -- the Roe in Roe v. Wade -- gave up for adoption". Also, McCorvey was not revealed as "Roe" until several years later after both the Supreme Court case and when she put the baby up for adoption, so any adoption worker would probably not have made any connection back then. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish independence referendum, 2014

As per the said article section of the "issues"/"endorsements" (largely added by me), what is the take of Irishmen on the issue. Both loyalists nand republicans. What is Cornwall/Breton/Mannin's view on the issue? We have already listed one Welsh view, but others would be nice.Lihaas (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Cornwall, the aim of most nationalists there is to achieve the sort of privileges and cultural recognition enjoyed by Wales. Autonomy for Cornwall was the only article that I can find on Mebyon Kernow's website that even mentions Scottish independence. Just some recognition that Cornwall isn't England would be a major victory. Alansplodge (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal phenomenon involving the collective unconscious.

This may sound like a somewhat goofy question, so bear with me. Is anybody aware of the name of a certain, somewhat paranormal phenomenon involving perhaps crowd psychology? An example of what I'm wondering about is this: Somebody mentions a word/name of something that makes an impression, and then you see this word/name in advertisements perhaps on the street or anywhere else which is obviously a bizarre coincidence (coincidence as described through modern science). This is going to sound really stupid but I saw the name for this particular phenomenon on Uberfacts (twitter) a while back, I googled it, thought I bookmarked the page that gave the most information, end of story. Please let me know, because it's really bugging me. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 07:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon. --Jayron32 07:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thanks. A million credits... Lighthead ^þ 07:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it goes by that name, but it need not involve the paranormal or crowd psychology. If you dig around wikipedia, you'll see that we've had an article named Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, but it was very contentious, and was ultimately removed (lack of notability and reliable sources, if I recall). Now our disambiguation goes to List_of_cognitive_biases#Frequency_illusion, which is offers a fairly simple and well-known explanation. I also like to describe the effect as a salience/ recency bias, as in Salience_(neuroscience)#Salience_in_psychology and Recency_illusion. Basically, "Baader-meinhof syndrome" is a word made up by a blogger a few years ago (I think, I may be suffering from a recency bias ;). It (as a word) has no real currency in academic writing, though the phenomenon is very interesting and well-discussed. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a 3-part series on a cable channel, called BrainGames, which talked about what we observe and don't observe. The core premise is that we observe selectively, as we can't observe everything. They didn't get into this familiar phenomenon, but it's a bit like confirmation bias - you ignore something until you see it, and then you start paying attention to it and ascribing importance to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Methods to analyze sacred texts?

Some time ago, I found an interesting website that listed different methods to analyze sacred texts. Now, I lost it and don't exactly remember the name. In any case, can anybody list for me the methods to analyze sacred texts (socio-historical method included)? I do remember reading one of Bart Ehrman's textbooks, in which he wrote extensively on the topic, but unfortunately, I vaguely remember a thing. 140.254.227.54 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might find most of what you're looking for at Historical criticism. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see "socio-historical method of analysis" anywhere in the article. There are methods of criticisms. I think I am looking for methods of analysis. 140.254.227.54 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could start at Form criticism... AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control

Some anti-gun control advocates are using the argument that Stalin, Hitler, Mao and the Khmer Rouge "took away the guns" in their countries. Is that true? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have sources we shouldn't offer opinions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I suspect you mean gun nuts in the US. That would only be a concern if we thought the government was contemplating committing genocide on a portion of the population. I see no reason to suspect that, now, although various groups might have had reason to fear this in the past, like American Indians and blacks. StuRat (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article can clarify things somewhat--http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control. I do want to point out that preventing crazy people from getting guns is not anywhere near the same thing as preventing qualified, decent, hard-working people from getting guns. Therefore, these anti-gun control advocates are guilty of the false analogy fallacy. Futurist110 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gun_control#Associations_with_authoritarianism "Historians have pointed out, however, that the preceding democratic Weimar Republic already had restrictive gun laws, which were actually liberalised by the Nazis when they came to power." Hcobb (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Cuba and Stalin's Russia are concerned, although it's not quite the same thing, both governments issued firearms to a very large proportion of the adult population in order to resist attacks by outside powers (attacks from the USA in the former case, and attacks from Nazi Germany in the latter case.) So the effect of these governments was that more citizens had guns, not less. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in their right mind called that "civilian" gun ownership... neither of those regimes allowed gun ownership in the way the U.S. does. That's a spurious comparison. Shadowjams (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also this recent column, which directly addresses the recent right-wing frothing over the Hitler-enacted-gun-control myth. For a more detailed treatment, see Bernard E. Harcourt, On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians), 73 Fordham L. Rev. 653 (2004). The basic point is that very strict gun laws were introduced in Germany in 1919 (in substantial part due to the terms of their surrender), essentially banning private gun ownership and confiscating most privately-held firearms. In 1928, private ownership gun ownership became legal once again, but was accompanied by stringent recordkeeping; permits were required to buy, sell, own, or carry guns. In 1938, we saw the introduction of Hitler's so-called "gun control" law. For nearly everyone, it lifted regulations completely on long guns and ammunition; it created loopholes for widespread ownership of handguns; for Nazi party members and some other privileged cronies, it allowed essentially unrestricted ownership of all firearms. The legal age to purchase firearms was lowered from 20 to 18. To be fair, Jews (and a few other 'undesirable' classes) were singled out and barred from gun ownership—but this was hardly the only discriminatory piece of legislation that Hitler imposed on those groups.

In other words, the Hitler-was-a-gun-grabber meme is at best a gross distortion, and at worst a complete misreading of the historical record. Then again, even if it weren't, is reductio ad Hitlerum a good reasoning strategy in general? Hitler was also a strong proponent of, for example, the Autobahn. He expanded the network from 108 km in 1935 to more than 3700 km in 1940, directly and indirectly employing more than 400,000 people in its construction. Does that make President Eisenhower a Nazi for championing construction of the Interstate? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the Autobahn. Hitler was also a proponent of mathematics--he thought 2+2=4. Obviously, that means it isn't equal to 4. --140.180.240.178 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. A blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 1919 ban on gun ownership would have been the logical consequence of Article 177 of the Treaty of Versailles: "Educational establishments, the universities, societies of discharged soldiers, shooting or touring clubs and, generally speaking associations of every description, whatever be the age of their members, must not occupy themselves with any military matters. In particular they will be forbidden to instruct or exercise their members or to allow them to be instructed or exercised, in the profession or use of arms. These societies, associations, educational establishments and universities must have no connection with the Ministries of War or any other military authority." -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting clubs could not allow their members to learn how to shoot? That sounds well-thought-out.... --Trovatore (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similar ban on martial arts during the Occupation of Japan in 1945.[9] Seems sensible to me. Alansplodge (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

Sunni and Shia majority provinces of Iraq

Which provinces of Iraq are Sunni majority and which are Shia majority?--Donmust90 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

There's information at Religion in Iraq, Islam in Iraq, and a nice map at Demographics of Iraq. Before we go down this well-trodden road, there are similarly-named articles for every country in the world, just about, so just replace the word Iraq with whatever country you seek, and there you go. --Jayron32 02:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maps. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SOE rogue op

Given the command structure of the SOE during World War 2, how hard would it have been to run an unauthorized small-scale "rogue" operation without Headquarters finding out (by "small-scale" I mean that no more than 5-6 people in England know about it, including the person actually running it, and maybe 10-15 on the Continent)? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might get more response here if you spelt out what SOE stands for. You have linked it to our disambiguation page listing, among others, Stella One Eleven, an Australian pop/rock band formed in 1997, and Society of Operations Engineers, a British professional organization. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It stands for this. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the OP, the context provided of operations in World War II was a fairly strong clue that it wasn't a pop group. I don't have enough knowledge of SOE to answer your question directly, but there are a couple of results on Google Books that have substantial previews, which may help. Special Operations Executive: A New Instrument of War By Mark Seaman and S.O.E.: An outline history of the special operations executive 1940 - 46by M R D Foot. Alansplodge (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Burnham

I have been reading the book Burnham, King of Scouts by Peter van Wyk, (September 2003. He states that Burnham never worked as a scout for the U.S. Army. I am going to try to find Burnham autobiography to see if that is true. Just thought I would pass this along. Thanks always for the info you provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.211.242 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant Wikipedia article is Frederick Russell Burnham, which also says nothing about the US Army. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a good look through Google, but couldn't find anything except the van Wyk book that you have already read. Alansplodge (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major Burnham worked as a scout in the Geronimo campaign, but he was never a soldier for the U.S. Army. He also left the Klondike to join Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders on their way to Cuba, but he arrived in Washington too late to participate. In WWI, Roosevelt selected Burnham to raise a division of U.S. volunteers to fight in France, but President Wilson refused to use the volunteers and the unit was disbanded. Ctatkinson (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is being a homosexual punishable by the sword in Saudi Arabia as well?

I read of an execution recently in Saudi Arabia and wondered if the homosexual, the Baha'i and others were under the same sword. Kyxx (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article titled LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure what the Baha'i have to do with homosexuality, but Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia may have some general information on the attitude of the Saudi authorities. --Jayron32 13:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Kyxx has been booted for being yet another sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender ratio in biblical studies and theology?

What is the gender ratio of men and women in biblical studies, religious studies, and theological seminaries in various countries? There seems to be an overwhelming number of men than women in these fields. How many female biblical scholars, female religious studies majors, and female theologians are there in various religions in various countries? For one thing, nearly every book in the library that I checked out is written by a man. Only one book is actually written by a woman, and that is Conversations with God: Fifty Dramatic Dialogues To Bring The Old Testament Alive, by Sharon Swain. It sometimes makes me wonder if men are just attracted to this field or something or completely dominate this field as much as how some women used to dominate the fields of social work and nursing, or I'm just not looking in the right place. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is of course that many students of theology and of the Bible are looking to become pastors, and that is restricted to men in conservative churches. - Lindert (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK... so I guess it's not a perception then, but reality. I still wonder what is the gender ratio, though. Not sure if I should trust this website: [1]75.185.79.52 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in some conservative churches. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the entries in the lists in Category:Lists of theologians and religious studies scholars.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are almost certainly more women among present-day students than among established scholars. Try looking in the higher education statistics. For the UK www.hesa.ac.uk; equivalents in other developed countries, or try OECD. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just looked at the website you linked to. Seems OK, why not go to the actual survey they link to. Also, the proportion of women among undergraduates might be quite different. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Fiebig and his Kallifthongon

Something I happened to stumble upon: This print, supposedly from c. 1829, advertises a concert with an somewhat piano-like instrument called a Kallifthongon:

“

Argyll Rooms. The Kallifthongon. The Lovers of Music are respectfully informed, that Mr Fiebig from Germany, the Inventor and Constructor of this novel and harmonious Instrument, has the honor of displaying its musical powers at the above Rooms every day at 2 o'Clock..... This Isntrument is palyed upon in the same manner as the Pianoforte,....but any person who heard it....would imagine he was listeningt o a Quartet........ Admittance 1s/-.

”

(I can't read the text in the image of the print, so I can't make out if the typos are in the original or only in the seller's webpage)

So what else is known about this instrument and its maker?

Google has a few more hits, such as this one from The Literary Gazette, but little of use in answering this question.

There appears to have been a maker of musical instruments called Johann Christoph Fiebig in a place called Berngrund near Dresden[10], but he would seem to be a generation or so earlier and a maker of brass instruments. (A digression, but Berngrund, supposedly a small town on the small river Müglitz, is another mystery, as all hits appear to mention J. C. Fiebig. Google Maps gives no hit for a place of this name. I guess it could be a tiny hamlet, now abandoned or renamed, or even the former name of a street somewhere. Either way, it may not be relevant for identifying the Mr Fiebig with the Kallifthongon.) --Hegvald (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(To be quite honest, I don't actually expect anybody to be able to add much more about the "Kallifthongon", but the question may serve someone as an inspiration to write about other and similarly forgotten musical contraptions. Assuming sources are to be found somewhere, that is. And it may serve as an illustration of the limits of easily-found on-line "knowledge". --Hegvald (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

When will I be able to upload it?

A picture of a Japanese boy who locks himself up in his bedroom and refuses to leave. I am from Japan and it's a well-known social disease, I don't know if you Westerners know what I'm talking about and if you indeed have an article on it. If you have it, when will I upload the pic? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you you own this image, or it's under an acceptable license, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. It sounds like this is may be a type of agoraphobia. However, if it's brief, it may just be teenage rebellion or something else. Superm401 - Talk 21:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No no, two things, first, it's a social disease only in my country and has its specific name and there's an article on the Japanese Wikipedia about it, and secondly, I am not allowed to upload the pic and don't know why. Kotjap (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC) The Japanese name for the disease is ひきこもり — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article is Hikikomori. Rmhermen (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this behavior isn't unique to Japan, they just assigned a name to it. StuRat (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay and why can't I upload the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be autoconfirmed to upload an image. To get that, you generally have to be around for 4 days and make 10 edits (changes to Wikipedia). These can be as simple as spelling and grammar fixes. Superm401 - Talk 22:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

God, the Devil, and Gender

God and the Devil are not equals and opposites just as the two genders, male and female, are equals and opposites, are they? Republicanism (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? --Jayron32 00:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on your religion, now wouldn't it (both God/Devil equality and male/female equality)? StuRat (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Now, what was the question? HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't he ask the same question a week or two ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender is a (deeply rooted) social construct. Biological sex is extremely complicated. Neither is intrinsically polar, although we often view them that way for convenience. Neither has anything to do with metaphysics, and most Christians are not Manicheans. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite of the Devil

If God and the Devil are not opposites and God doesn't have an opposite, then does the Devil have an opposite? Republicanism (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming for a moment that such entities exist, even as abstractions, would their existence necessarily imply an opposite for each? So I don't see a justification for claiming an opposite. There may be a theological one, but I'll leave that for other respondents. Antandrus (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is good and evil in the world, and God is pure good, that does imply a separate source of evil. StuRat (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't: that's dualism. Plenty of religions don't believe in dualism, including those with a belief in the devil. If there's hot and cold, and there's a source of heat, that doesn't imply a source of cold. 86.140.54.211 (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More directly, perhaps, is the presence or absence of light, equated to goodness. Sinfulness, darkness, equate to the absence of goodness - separation from God - a choice made by humans, not something imposed upon them. That's the theory, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Republicanism -- in some traditions of Christian thought, the adversary or antagonist of Satan is St. Michael the archangel, and the two of them are sometimes shown battling it out. As I explained in my answer to your previous question, the idea of good and evil divinities as equal "opposites" is Dualism or Manichaeanism, which has been rejected in mainstream Christianity... AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's time we told User:Republicanism to take these generally unanswerable, faith based, theological/philosophical questions to some theology forum. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse AnonMoos' answer: St Michael is the traditional counterpart to the Satan-as-fallen-angel figure. If you look at the 'war in heaven' passage in Revelation, you'll find there's even biblical authority for this position. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with this,[11] the user Republicanism (talk · contribs) keeps asking variations on the same questions, over and over. Between that fact and the user's ID, some conclusions can be drawn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I have such difficulty telling these clueless folk apart. If you think we've got enough evidence, should it go to SPI? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue who the sockmaster would be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's Bowei Huang. Someone else first suggested the link a while back (I thought it was you but may be I'm mistaken) but it fits. They started editing around the time of this IP [12], who is almost definitely Bowei Huang with similar questions from both the IP and the named editor. They even threw in some RDE questions, something BWH also did when they weren't busy trying get us to discuss god or atheists in some way, or tell them what Randi thinks. Edit: Actually I see it was MX896 you were referring to [13] but either way I'm pretty sure all 3 are indeed BWH. Nil Einne (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible. I didn't recall Bowei asking about capitalism and communism, but it's hard to keep track of everything. Maybe some friendly checkuser who happens to be reading this could tak a quick look. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bowei Huang's interest were generally relating to religion (mostly from a Christian perspective), irreligion as well as political systems and movements and particularly the intersection of these, e.g. [14] [15] and a bunch of stuff relating to communism here [16]. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentalism and the Fall of Communism

Opinion Nation

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What do environmentalists think about the fall of communism and the triumph of capitalism and America in the end of the Cold War? Republicanism (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that environmentalists were a monolithic group that thought with one mind, especially about politico-economic systems. I would imagine you could find at least one person who called themselves an environmentalist who thinks anything. SO the answer to your question is that environmentalists think everything about it. Whatever opinion it is technically possible to have, environmentalists have that one too. --Jayron32 02:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You might want to be a little more specific in your question. After all, "environmentalists" are not a homogeneous group with a defined and unchanging set of universal beliefs and opinions, so the answer you get is going to vary widely dependign on which environmentalist you ask, natch. It's a bit like asking "What do Americans think about Indian food?". To expect there to be a simple answer that applies across the board is absurd. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's implying you can't be a capitalist and also care about the environment. Very sad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is basically trolling, but others reading this, on the off-chance they will still learn something, might like to check out Liberals for Forests. In Australia, the Liberal Party is the conservative party, but the Libs for Forests are openly big on the environment. As people are saying, it depends on the person, and here is something that confirms it. IBE (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixed bag. In industrialized communist nations, like the Warsaw pact countries, a lack of any concern for the environment led to vast areas of severe pollution. A lack of safety standards also resulted in ecological disasters like Chernobyl (although evacuating all the people eventually allowed wildlife to flourish there). In more agrarian communist nations, like Cuba, the lack of development of resorts, golf courses, and such has preserved many areas that otherwise would have been destroyed. China is a unique case of an officially communist government with capitalism at it's core. Unfortunately, this combines the capitalist tendency to view the environment as just a resource to be exploited with a lack of control and oversight, which would otherwise occur in a democracy, where the people won't stand for extreme pollution. So, the environment in China could be a serious problem. StuRat (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you by 'environmentalists' mean followers of Green Parties, then the answer is quite straightforward. They celebrated the implosion of the Socialist Bloc (notably the German Greens, then the only really prominent Green Party, had counterpart in East Germany during Der Wende), and they tend to refuse to see the Cold War as a zero-sum realpolitik game (thus, in spite that some Greens oppose US foreign policy, they do not 'blame' it on the fall of the Socialist Bloc). --Soman (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically enough, wise use of natural resources used to be called "conservation", whereas the typical "conservative" seems to take the attitude of exploitation rather than "wise use" of natural resources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has seen a number of (environmental) disasters due to a lack of equipment, safety checks and infrastructure." [17] Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Context, is why we usually don't like questions that are obviously going to become opinion forum fodder. Shadowjams (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisdiction of Hawaiian courts

Section #3 of Yamashita's gold (and the related Rogelio Roxas article) surprised me — how can Hawaiian courts have jurisdiction over a foreign head of state in a dispute arising from that head of state's country? Why wasn't the lawsuit thrown out of court as soon as the judge(s) realised that it didn't involve anything that happened in Hawaii? Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, this is called universal jurisdiction. Many countries have it under some circumstances, but the laws and practices vary widely. Superm401 - Talk 04:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is a universal jurisdiction issue. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Japan surrendered to the Allies, any war loot (or court cases regarding said loot) would be handled by the Allies. The US, being the major power in the war against Japan, makes sense as the one to handle it, and Hawaii, being the closest state, makes sense as the place to try it. StuRat (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside questions of universal jurisdiction, and I don't know enough after looking at that article to know if that's the case, courts (in the U.S., the states, and other countries too) may exercise jurisdiction over cases that don't have obvious links to the court if they meet personal jurisdiction requirements. There are a lot of other issues though in that instance, including Forum non conveniens and venue. Universal jurisdiction is a very specific kind of jurisdiction, one currently the subject of some debate. I doubt, but am by no means sure, that this case involves that. As Stu says, U.S. occupation of Japan (and their territories) after WW2 might have something to do with it, although I suspect (again, no means sure) that this isn't about that. You should read the personal jurisdiction article and see if that helps at all. Shadowjams (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B?

see What the letter B after those numbers stands for (in the "begin views column"? I know M stands for a million and K stands for thousands.65.128.142.118 (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billion.
Sleigh (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trajan's column

Despite making the illustrations slightly larger at the top, I'd still expect it to be quite difficult to read the top from ground level. So, was there some type of superstructure, perhaps wooden, built around it in Roman times, to allow everyone to read the top ? StuRat (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it's hollow and has a staircase inside, so you could climb to the top. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although dangling yourself over the side to see the images would be quite an adventurous method of viewing. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the images would be upside down, IBE (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some archaeologists think the column was brightly painted, rendering it much easier to make out at a distance[18]. But others don't know if that's true, and doubt that if it were it would be sufficient to make it fully discernible from the ground.[19] (Those two sources differ as to whether there is vestigial evidence of paint). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It has been proposed that the roofs of the two flanking libraries could have been used as viewing platforms (the height of these may have been about equivalent to the current street level from which visitors now peer at the column). Even if this was the case, however, it would have only allowed the spectator to view a few more spirals and it would have been impossible to follow the circular narrative of the relief." Experiencing Trajan's Column. Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the point was not to make the images visible, but to create a big-ass ornate column. It didn't matter if you could see everything, just that you knew Trajan was responsible for it, and that he could afford to make it look like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. A similar conundrum exists with the illustrations in the stained glass in medieval cathedrals, so high from the floor that it's impossible to see what is being represented.[20] Perhaps only God (or in Trajan's case, the gods) was supposed to see the whole work. Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Judiciary

Here's an extract from my political science textbook-

"... The Judiciary of India is also one of the most powerful in the world. The Supreme Court and the High Court have the power to interpret the Constitution of the country. They can declare invalid any law of the legislature or the actions of the executive, whether at the union of the state level, if they find such a law or action against the Constitution. Thus they can determine the Constitutional validity of any legislation or action of the executive in the country, when it is challenged before them."

I didn't get the last sentence properly. Help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashowardhani (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means that if a new law is brought before the higher courts, a judge can decide that the law is unconstitional and therefore not valid. Similarly, an action by the government can be given the same treatment. Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that it doesn't have to be a 'new' law; there are a lot of laws and regulations that sit on the books for a long time before being subject to a constitutional challenge. There are notable examples from various countries' histories where a supreme court's opinion on the constitionality of a particular law or legal principle changes over time, as well. The canonical example of this in U.S. jurisprudence is the court's change of heart over racial segregation: endorsed in 1896's Plessy v. Ferguson, and overturned in 1954's Brown v. Board of Education.)

As well, one should be cautious in how one reads the textbook author's chosen wording. Saying "one of the most powerful" might mistakenly lead the reader to infer that there is something particular or special about India's judiciary with regard to its authority to evaluate the constitutional validity of laws or executive actions. In fact a great many nations give either their supreme court(s) or a separate constitutional court explicit or implicit authority to repeal unconstitutional legislation and bar unconstitutional acts: the power of judicial review. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course nothing any of the previous commentators have said is about Indian law. Shadowjams (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about the meaning of a sentence written in English, which required explanation of vocabulary and grammer but not law (Indian or otherwise) per se, as given in Alansplodge's answer. TOAT was giving some general context to the question, which seems to me unexceptionable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steam clock

I remember hearing (from many), that the first clock in Gastown was financed by merchants that didn't like steam coming out of a grate in the sidewalk. 1977 was before the internet so it is hard to source, I am sure this is the main reason for funding the project by merchants. The other clocks around the world may have been built for similar reasons. Should this be added to the article after sourcing? I don't even know where to look. It seems other editors on the talk page had trouble sourcing info as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source for the Vancouver clock buried in an external link.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Punt

Hello,

the Land of Punt did have a script, how does it look like (is the script ostensibly influenced by Egyptian hieroglyphs as it could be deciphered or is it a script totally unrelated to the Egyptian)? If the Land of Punt had contact to Egypt, why aren't there any translations?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there isn't even agreement as to where the land of Punt was, we probably can't know if they had writing. If those scholars who locate it in Southern Arabia are right, then it may be that they used the old Arabian script. If, as is more commonly held, they were in Africa, we have not found any writing and so we do not know if they even had writing.

I'm afraid I don't understand your last question: translations of what into what? We know of Punt only from Egyptian records. --ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, but this History_of_Somalia#Ancient article refers to Punt as well, proposing them to have pyramids and a writing system? And I have another question, did Punt persist till 325 BC?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but it is hard to tell; if it had persisted as an organized state that long, it would have most certainly shown up in other writings. What makes Punt so ephermeral is that it is only attested in the writings of Egypt, and only as late as the Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt, which would be about 700 years earlier than your date. So, Punt would have had to existed with no one knowing it for 700 years. It's possible it existed in the Horn of Africa, but no one really knows if the civilization noted in the "History of Somalia" article was Punt or some other country. --Jayron32 06:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Land of Punt, it's always fourth down. --Trovatore (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Women's breasts

The nude photography workshop I recently attended got me thinking. There are some cultures in the world where women having their breasts bared is nothing special. These are mainly indigenous tribes in Africa and Oceania, not developed countries in Europe or North America. I haven't been to any of these places, but from what I've seen in pictures, the women seem to be rather small-breasted. Is this just a coincidence, or is there a correlation between breast size and cultural opinion about breasts? JIP | Talk 19:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The women may be undernourished, at any rate do not suffer from Western problems of obesity, have not had boob jobs and are not a specially selected sample of big-breasted women a la Health and Efficiency. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the size, I don't know. But western cultures used to expose breasts sometimes too (well, more often than they do now). In fact, at certain times in history it was a sign of being royalty or an aristocrat. See this Slate summary. Superm401 - Talk 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. The picture in that Slate column rather neatly deflates the premise of the OP's question. Matt Deres (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well-put. And it reminds me of something a black comic said many years ago: "National Geographic was our Playboy." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"National Geographic ? I hate those bastards. They used to come to my village and pay the women to take off their shirts and bras, then they would take pictures !" - Fez from That '70s Show. StuRat (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

January 14

What was her full name and the year of death?

What was the full name of Madame de Gourbillon, and the year of her birth and death? Does any one know? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find her name at birth, but her married name was Marguerite de Gourbillon and her dates are 1737-1817 (source: this page and some other Googling). --Cam (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking of US presidents - background?

The USPC Rankings of US presidents include "Background" as first category. But what does this mean? Education, especially higher education? If not: Is there a ranking of US presidents by academic degrees / certifications...? --KnightMove (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The table was recently added to our article but is a mistake which I've partially corrected. Those are Siena College rankings not USPC ones. USPC only includes 5 categories. The meaning of background is described by Siena College [21] and [22] as 'family, education and experience', you'd need to look at what they published for more detail although since it was a survey of scholars opinions, it may not have had any more details then that. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for information about a person in the 17th century

I am trying to find background information about a person called Laurence Clarke , a 17th century engraver who made prints by such artists as Hogarth. I have searched the web using Google and Yahoo with no luck. Anyone know anything about him?

Hugh Dent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.60.1 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Hogarth was born in 1697, and was presumably still in short trousers (or the equivalent) at the end of the 17th century, I rather think you mean the 18th century. I have just used Ancestry.co.uk to check the Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices' Indentures (1710-1811), Freedom of the City of London Admission Papers, and Articles of Clerkship, and have not come up with a single Laurence Clarke. Do you know where he worked, and what was the earliest date for one of his engravings that you're aware of? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Tooley's and a couple of other sources, I've only been able to find one Laurence Clark from that time period and the only information I can find on them is that they wrote a book called A Compleat history of the Holy Bible in 1737. For what it's worth, that's the only name with that spelling or any variant (i.e. Lawrence instead of Laurence, Clark instead of Clarke) in CERL, and it's the only VIAF heading anywhere close to that time period. eldamorie (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth (which certainly isn't much...) Here's the WorldCat Identities link for the one guy with that name I was able to find, but it doesn't seem likely that they are the same person: [23]. eldamorie (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A compleat exposition of the Book of Common-Prayer: and administration of Lords's Supper according to the use of the Church of England compiled by Laurence Clarke A.M. 1737, can be read online here. A.M. apparently stands for Master of Arts. Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that William Hogarth served an apprenticeship as an engraver;[24] I haven't found any references to anyone doing the job for him. Alansplodge (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no entries in Benezit or Bryan's dictionary of engravers, so it would appear that this printmaker probably wasn't very successful. eldamorie (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

613 Commandments

According the article's list of 613 commandments, it looks like whoever has written it some serious issues with the people of Canaan, Moab, and other nations. One commandment is to destroy the nations of Canaan. Do modern-day Jews really keep these commandments? 140.254.226.247 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't around anymore. When have you last met a Moabite or a Philistine? - Lindert (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)So, what happened to the Moabites or Philistines? Were they destroyed, or were they assimilated and became part of the greater Jewish community? 140.254.226.247 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For many of these peoples their later history is vague and unknown. They have ceased to exist as an identifiable group, but some may have assimilated into other cultures. - Lindert (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, which group of biblical people do modern-day Jews identify with? Did the biblical people's culture passed down their traditions, beliefs, and practices to their offspring? 140.254.226.247 (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lindert's claim that "their later history is vague and unknown" is only partially correct. We have articles on the Moabites and Philistines, and they describe what we know about their demise. The Moabites' territory was overrun by northern Arab tribes somewhere around the 6th century BC, but they seem to have disappeared from the historical record before this. The Philistines were conquered by the Assyrians (a Mesopotamian empire), just like Israel itself. Judah, the other Jewish kingdom, was eventually conquered by the neo-Babylonians (also a Mesopotamian empire). The Philistines lost their identity as a group in the 5th century BC. --140.180.240.178 (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the vast majority of Jews treat the commandments in the same way as the vast majority of Christians treat all the commandments in the new testament. They stick to some, ignore some and follow adapted versions of some. The ones about destroying other nations are some of the less popular ones. 81.159.112.136 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was a list of commandments in the New Testament. It's basically a series of gospels and then a series of letters. 140.254.226.247 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few. The Beatitudes, the Great Commandment, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD exempted non-Jewish converts to Christianity from much of the Mosaic law, including circumcision. See also Split of early Christianity and Judaism. Alansplodge (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a list of commandments in the Old Testament either: people create lists by extracting the commandments from the longer texts. In the same way, Jesus gave many commandments in the Gospels, and the Church decided additional commandments recorded in Acts and the Epistles. Why did you think Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments."? 86.140.54.211 (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maimonides law #596 is the one you're referring to, "Destroy the seven Canaanite nations". This is based on Deut 20:17. It's fairly harsh: "but thou shalt utterly destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee" (note, the Moabites aren't listed. Moabites weren't Canaanites, they're descendants of Lot.) However, you don't need a degree in biblical analysis or even to consult Rashi to ensure that you at least read the verse in context... by reading the preceding verses. It's a command to destroy the warrior-age males of cities that don't surrender, in order to ensure that idolatory is eradicated. That's rather more limited than you thought.

Now, on your other point. Modern day Jews would not be obligated by this command, as, even if they could find some Jebusites somewhere, it's a command given to the Israelites when they entered the land of Israel, following the Exodus, not a general law for all times and all places. --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You either didn't read your own link, or are fraudulently misrepresenting the source. The immediately preceding phrase reads: "Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth". You might be referring to this earlier sentence:

"thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."

which basically says "kill the males and enslave the women and children". Even by the standards of warfare of the time, this would have been exceptionally cruel.

It's interesting, since you mentioned idolatry, to examine what the 613 commandments say about idolatry:

To burn a city that has turned to idol worship — Deut. 13:17

Not to love the idolater — Deut. 13:9

Not to cease hating the idolater — Deut. 13:9

Not to save the idolater — Deut. 13:9

Not to say anything in the idolater's defense — Deut. 13:9

Not to refrain from incriminating the idolater — Deut. 13:9

To destroy idols and their accessories — Deut. 12:2 --140.180.240.178 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. You need to read more than one preceding verse to get the context. --Dweller (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common religious strategy to claim "you're taking things out of context!", with either no explanation or a false explanation of what the context should be. Anyone is welcome to read your link and be satisfied that the commandment has not been taken out of context. --140.180.240.178 (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making apologies for the Bible having some harsh laws. The utter destruction of the Amalekites is very puzzling and difficult for us to understand. This particular law mandates the killing of all the fighting age males of a city that's refused to surrender, not the utter destruction of every city encountered, which is how it appears without reading the preceding verses. That's all. --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verse 15 clearly divides the cities into two categories. There are the distant cities, where the purpose is just to stop them worshiping idols. For those, only the adult males should be killed and only if they don't surrender. Then there are the closer cities, where the purpose is for the Jews to settle there (taking back the lands that they were given by God). For those cities, they are supposed to kill everyone so that they can live there themselves. --Tango (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the 613 commandments and idolatory, that's entirely natural. The entire story of the Jewish people, from Abraham until at least the end of the book(s) of Kings, is about rejection of, and then flirtation with idolatory. Deuteronomy is the book given as the Jews were about to leave their desert wanderings, when they were fairly isolated, and enter a land which would continue to house Canaanites. The temptations were obvious and the laws given at that time reflect this. The Ir nidachat you refer to above (Deut 13:17) for example, is one of the strictest laws in Judaism, and applies to a Jewish city. The warning was successful - it never happened.

All in all, it's very difficult judging a prehistoric society by modern standards. The Bible has a number of perplexing laws that make us raise our eyebrows, while simultaneously including hundreds of palpably just, and for its time, radical laws. We also struggle with it because for most of us, we separate our lives into elements where religion does and does not have a place and a voice, while the Bible does not see life like that.

A good example of these tensions are in some of the elements of the laws of slavery.

Tolerance of a system of slavery makes us frown.

But s/he is released after a maximum of seven years and, it seems, some insisted on remaining slaves, but were forced to leave servitude at the end of every 50 year cycle

Yet, a master could marry off their slaves, which astonishes us.

But still, a slave injured because of his/her owner's negligence is entitled to compensation, which isn't exactly how we'd comprehend a slavery system working.

So, it's very hard for us to enter the mindset of Biblical-style Judaism. It's not existed for a couple of millenia... and, as I've said, some of it hasn't existed for a few millenia longer than that, as they were laws given for one point in time only. If you're really interested in learning more about it, drop me a line at my talk page and I can point you to some reading on the subject. It's fascinating. --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You call some Biblical laws "harsh", yet I wonder what you would say if any modern army were to kill every man, woman, child, and domestic animal in an enemy city. Is that "harsh", or is it a barbaric and unforgivable atrocity? Keep in mind that since a significant number of people in modern times use the Bible as a moral guide, it is entirely appropriate to judge the Bible by modern standards. The moral relativism that historians usually embrace is only appropriate for understanding historical societies, not for trying to apply their principles to modern times.

On the subject of slavery, I think people who can't comprehend why an injured slave deserves compensation is thinking of slavery in 19th century America. In Classical Greece, for example, the social norm was that a slave works alongside his master in his workshop or on his farm, doing the same type of work. Female slaves were often treated as part of the family because they did domestic tasks and could have a close relationship with family members. An Athenian writer (whose name I can't remember, unfortunately) laments the fact that slaves could walk on the streets, enter the agora, and do almost everything that a citizen could do. Slavery does not always mean, and usually did not mean, that the master beats his slave to pulp and tries to make him/her cry as much as possible. That's an overly simplistic understanding of slavery that can easily cause people to think the Bible's laws regarding slaves were especially just or unusual when they were not, even compared to contemporaries. --140.180.240.178 (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Average yearly income of a faimly who owns a coastal house

What is the average yearly income of a faimly that owns a coastal home in Connecticut? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.48 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is the average price of a one day public beach admission ticket in Connecticut? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.48 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

Marquess of Reading

Why do the arms of the Marquess of Reading contain a fasces? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proving common sense

Is there a study out there that proves that people who live in coastal towns use the beaches for recreational purposes more often than people who live farther away from them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.48 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It surely depends on the town. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Europe's taxing artists

close soapboxing

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"spending a year dead for tax reasons" seems a little less fanciful these days.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/u2-move-their-rock-empire-out-of-ireland-133364.html

Gérard Depardieu

etc, etc.

So is there an article or category for these European artists (including the Beatles I suppose, ergo Taxman), who tax our patience with their tax exiles or is this simply the camel's sticking out of the tent for a Globalization future where everybody is a tax refugee, with the 1% of the 1% of the 1% living in fortresses on privately owned islands? Hcobb (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't have any articles about people of any sort who tax your patience. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Palmistry of Tokugawa Ieyasu: can it be verified?

In both Chinese and Japanese wikipedia article there is an unreferenced trivia says He had a single transverse palmar crease. Is this ever verifiable?--Inspector (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely without having photographs, which weren't invented in those days. In the same way we can't verify Julius Caesar had epilepsy. All we can do is just trust writings of the period. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OCD

You could suffer from OCD to a greater or lesser extent? --109.232.72.49 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Shadowjams (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping of the entire earth

Is it true that the first time the entire earth was mapped was in 1972 by the Landsat-1? Rebel Yeh (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London bombings during WW2

Hi something I've been wondering about, reading the British Museum article... why wasn't there some unwritten rule that historical buildings not be bombed? How did the ancient buildings like the Tower of London get saved? Was it just luck? Was there an evil purpose to destroy irreplaceable buildings and artifacts? I'm curious about policy both from the Allies and Axis point of view. We know that Berlin was bombed to smithereens. As an aside... shouldn't there be an initiative to backup all these priceless artifacts using 3D Printing and store them deep underground? Sandman30s (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]