Revision as of 14:03, 26 August 2017

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

• WP:RD/M

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

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.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 21

Is camping at Haiti's Citadelle allowed?

I've looked around online to find any answers to the questions I'm about to ask, but there is nothing to be found yet, so I came here to ask. I'm planning to go to Citadelle Laferrière in Northern Haiti in the future. I love the outdoors in general. I'm wondering since it is in a national park, if camping or sleeping for a night under the stars is permitted in or next to the premises of the Citadelle. If so, would it be safe, how much would it cost, and would I pay a guide or the office to do that? If staying for a night at the Citadelle is not allowed, is there a time limit to stay at the mountain top fort? 173.170.94.104 (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you ask the same question at Yahoo Answers? —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F9E3:2F35:FA19:8314 (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Try posting your question here: https://en.wikivoyage.org/Wikivoyage:Tourist_office (I googled "camping in Haiti". I would not do it.)196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Camping is a high-risk activity in certain parts of Haiti and is not recommended." https://en.wikivoyage.org/Haiti 196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

https://travel.gc.ca/destinations/haiti

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/haiti-travel-warning.html

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

August 22

White people and slavery

Were white people the first race to abolish slavery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.121.11 (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No – because human races do not exist. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 09:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. Races exist; they just are not strictly defined in the way that people think they are. The next time a black man gets shot for walking down the street in the U.S., ask him if his race exists! Saying race doesn't exist is disingenuous. Saying that race is a cultural concept is different than saying it doesn't exist. Culture is real. Culture affects human lives every day in profound ways. See Race (human categorization), to wit "Although such groupings lack a firm basis in modern biology, they continue to have a strong influence over contemporary social relations." (bold mine) Race and society is also a good read. But no, please don't play the "race isn't real" bullshit. It's real. Just because the Nazis and the bigots don't properly understand what it is doesn't also mean it isn't real. --Jayron32 11:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't a better way of phrasing your question be, "which society was the first in history to abolish slavery?"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Answering my question, using our article on Abolitionism, I'd venture to suggest France in 1315. That article seems to suffer from some of our usual systemic biases, in this case a Euro-American view of the world. That said, I'd doubt we'd have recorded history of an earlier abolition, though happy to be corrected. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

For this, we have to stick with written history. There are oral stories that may imply that slavery was abolished. In written history, the Qin dynasty abolished slavery in 220 BC. Unfortunately, those laws were overturned when the Qin dynasty fell. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, Wang Mang of the Xin dynasty abolished it in 9 CE, but it was later reinstated. --Jayron32 12:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

We should get that information into our article. Got any references, 209 and Jayron? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

From the Misplaced Pages article titled "Wang Mang" , and I quote, "In 9, Wang Mang instituted a revolutionary land redistribution system...Wang also abolished slavery." --Jayron32 12:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

So, OP, I don't know what "race" Chinese people come from, but it's that one. No-one is going to beat 220 BC --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Traditionally, the Chinese are considered to be "yellow", as opposed to "white", "black", "red", etc. That's kind of an obsolete term nowadays. But at least it undercuts the OP's likely implication that whites would be superior because they abolished slavery first. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's rather like saying the British were the first to end the war in the American Revolution.--WaltCip (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The question doesn't get into "why" slavery was abolished. Qin abolished slavery when he was done with his slaves as a mechanism of financial war against rich landlords. In reality, Qin was noted as a highly abusive slave owner. Wang, similarly, usurped the throne and executed extensive land redistribution away from the ruling Lius and to his family and friends. This included abolishing slavery as an economic means of crippling the Lius. It didn't last and slavery didn't actually end. The rich and powerful families refuted the laws, refused to cede their lands, refused to free their slaves, and killed Wang to retake the throne. I expect that there are many historical examples of slavery being abolished as a form of economic war. One side forces the other to give up slaves, not because slavery is bad but because it is devastating for an economy based on slavery to suddenly lose slavery. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to be fair, "slavery didn't actually end" isn't the criteria here, it's whether the government authorities have abolished legal slavery. There are slaves, right now, in the United States of America. It is illegal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If our criteria is "there is no person held in bondage and required to perform uncompensated services against their will", then slavery has never completely ended in any society, and likely never will. If the question is "when were slaves legally emancipated" that's a different question entirely. --Jayron32 19:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

209.149's post illustrates why such cut and dry answers don't work well for all periods of history.

If a nominal ruler makes a proclamation, but is powerless to enforce it, has he abolished anything? Even in theory? Or has he just talked about what he would like to have happened? (Anyone can write a law, after all.) Periods with conflicting ruling powers make it difficult to be pedantic about what was "technically" legal or illegal.

ApLundell (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Ashoka of the Mauryan Empire (most of modern India) is credited with "abolishing" the slave trade circa 260 BCE. His edicts prohibited the buying and selling of people, but didn't actually free the existing slaves. Solon, Archon of the city-state of Athens, prohibited debt slavery sometime around 590 BCE and further freed all citizens of Athens who had been enslaved by other Athenians, but foreigners could still be held as slaves. Dragons flight (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

See also Jubilee (biblical) for an earlier possible example, depending on how it is interpreted. Dbfirs 15:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Help understanding supermarket prices

Sorry if this is an incredibly stupid question but my maths skills are absolutely zero. When I go into the supermarket some products list their prices as "per 100g" and some "per kg". How do I convert between these? For example, some canned spinach is listed as "54.4p per 100g" while a bag of frozen spinach is "£1.15 per kg". How do I convert the kg one into grams and the 100g one into kg so that I can compare the prices properly? Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.255.78.25 (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

One kilogram (kg) is 1000 grams (1000g), which is ten times 100g, so to get the price per kg from the price per 100g you just multiply by 10: 54.4p per 100g is equivalent to £5.44 (i.e. 544p) per kg. Or you can do it in reverse: divide by 10 to convert from price per kg to price per 100g: the frozen spinach is 11.5p per 100g. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I often have to explain to people that if you multiply by 10, you move the dot to the right. If you divide by 10, you move the dot to the left. Then, they have to work out some way to remember that multiply is right and divide is left. Of course, I assume that they also need some way to remember which way is right and which is left. But, I can often get people to eventually comprehend multiplying and dividing by 10. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's very easy. Multiplying produces a larger number, so the whole number part becomes bigger (decimal point moves to the right). Dividing produces a smaller number, so the whole number part becomes smaller (decimal point moves to the left). A potential source of confusion is that shops price food by the hectogramme and also by the quarter for comparison. A quarter is 114 g, so if meat or cheese is priced at one pound/hg it will be one pound 14 p a quarter and ten pounds a kilo. 1 lb is thus four pounds and 56 pence and 2 lb are nine, pounds and 12 pence. The rule is that a kilo is 10% more than 2 lb - in this example ten pounds and 3 pence. The difference is accounted for by a rounding error. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

AndrewWTaylor provided a clear and simple answer. Please ignore the above about hectogrammes (which is a non- preferred term for 100g) and quarters and lbs (which food is not allowed, by law, to be sold in.- I suspect the poster is trying either to confuse the issue, or is trying to be funny, which doesn't help the questioner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.221.49 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. -- Jack of Oz 19:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Why don't the supermarkets just give all the prices per kg and make comparison simpler? Is there some legal difficulty with this? Clearly the disparity causes more of a problem to some people than I would have expected (naively I'd have assumed that pretty well anyone would know that 1 kg is ten times 100 g). By the way I presume the whole discussion above is relevant specifically to the UK - I wonder what would be the situation in other countries. rossb (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Why would a supermarket display a 90 gram bar of soap (say 70 cents) at $7.70 per kg? Customer walks up, sees $7.70, and walks away. Far better from the management's point of view to display 0.77 cents per gram. Geez, this is Marketing Deception 101. Akld guy (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If you look closely at supermarket price tags, you'll find that they often list the standardized price in small type below the unit price. Check out this Google Image Search : .

ApLundell (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

82.38 is confused. Customers ask for a quarter or a pound of something and traders happily sell them what they want without fear of prosecution. What is illegal is weighing it with a machine which is calibrated only in imperial units, as was explained when this topic came up on the Humanities desk in September:

I know one of the Metric Martyrs. The circumstances were that, for the convenience of his customers, his prices were per pound, but, in compliance with the law, his scales were calibrated in kilogrammes. He used a conversion table to work out how much to charge, but his arithmetic was faulty. Consequently he was charged with supplying short weight for the money paid. This is an offence under s. 28 (1)(b) of the Weights and Measures Act 1985. Per the fine for that offence is unlimited, and if you can't pay it's off to jail you go.

Is the logic games section of the LSAT biased against women?

I can't find any data online. The test maker has a study on bias and finds men score slightly higher than men on the overall test but does not give a breakdown by sub-sections. However, from reading the article on Spatial visualization ability, men on average have significantly higher spatial ability than women. Since the logic games section involves solving visual puzzles under timed pressure, does this mean women on average are at a significant disadvantage? Muzzleflash (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

this source states that women perform poorer on the multiple choice section of the LSAT. Of 19 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that the test is biased against women, through design or purpose, however. See correlation does not imply causation. --Jayron32 11:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yet also see systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk)

It isn't systemic bias if the outcome is a requirement of the overall system. For example, most state governments in the United States have come to the conclusion that being able to parallel park a vehicle is a requirement for getting a driver's license. If a study demonstrates that females fail parallel parking far more than males, it is not systemic bias because parallel parking is a requirement of the system. If, instead, the test required the person to pee into a bucket sitting three feet away, that is not a requirement of the system and would likely favor males over females. So, it would be systemic bias. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent point. Anti-discrimination laws, rather than disallowing discrimination against various classes, should say "No discrimination against anything that does not impair their ability to perform the job" (or serve in the military, etc.) StuRat (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but there's all kinds of problems with the presumptions and conclusions one leaps to (without any sound basis in either evidence or logic) when faced with data like "females perform lower" on some measure. That's a correlation, but no correlation by itself is sufficient to draw any conclusion about what caused that correlation. There's a dozen possible conclusions one could draw from that data, and none stands any more chance of being the "correct" conclusion over any other if all we have is correlated data. --Jayron32 14:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The other elements we look for beyond a correlation are time/order and a theoretical mechanism. For time/order, it's not likely that their answer on the test caused their ability to change, so we don't need to worry about that here. And there certainly are theoretical explanations as to why women might not be as good at spatial visualization, dealing with primitive men hunting by throwing spears at moving targets, etc. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

August 23

"Proof" of the principle of skepticism?

In AI, a logic-based agent is one which represents knowledge/beliefs as a set of sentences. A key aspect of logic-based agents is that they only admit a sentence if they are 100% sure it's true. I call this the "principle of skepticism". It forgoes the need for unlearning. It is usually assumed that deciding what to unlearn is hard, and it is better just make sure that you never believe anything false in the first place.

I have a sketch informal justification for this principle:

Suppose there were a 1% chance you would admit a belief if it were false.

You would go around gaining knowledge, perhaps much faster than you would if you demanded 100% certainty.

However, sooner or later, you would admit a belief which was false.

Because that belief is used as the basis for making new inferences, the probability of admitting another false belief increases.

If you didn't manage to unlearn the false belief, then, more quickly than it did before, you will admit another false belief, and the probability of you admitting a false belief increases again, and your ability to unlearn weakens again.

It's obvious what happens. Sooner or later, your inference system is quickly destroyed, and it admits false sentences as often as it rejects them, from which there is no hope for recovery.

Is this justification sound? And in any case, I was wondering if there could be made a formal "proof" or sorts of the skepticism principle, in the context of AI or computer science, or in general. PeterPresent (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You may find a larger number of people who know about this kind of question in the AI StackExchange. 87.112.201.156 (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that would be appropriate. It's not really an AI question. It's just trying to find a justification for being a skeptic. PeterPresent (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that fuzzy logic specifically deals with the cases where 100% certainty is impossible. StuRat (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Probability deals with cases where 100% certainty is impossible. In fuzzy logic, beliefs are still only admitted if they are definitely true; it's just that the beliefs are imprecise. A fuzzy sentence would be "Bob is tall" as opposed to "Bob is 190cm". It's still that we accept "Bob is tall" only if we are 100% sure of that fact. Incidentally, I think most AI professionals don't think very highly of fuzzy logic. It is only covered briefly in the standard textbook, certainly to a much lesser extent than non-fuzzy logic or probability.

As for probability, it's still the case that beliefs are only admitted when we are 100% sure they are true; it's just that beliefs are of the form "the probability that Bob's height is >180cm is 0.8 given the current evidence" and things like that. They are easily amenable to being updated with new evidence, but it's still the case that we admit a statement like "the probability that Bob's height is >180cm is 0.8 given the current evidence" only when we are 100% sure that statement itself is true. If we didn't, the problem I described in my OP would still occur. In other words, the laws of probability follow the laws of logic. PeterPresent (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Fuzzy logic has it's place, like in medical diagnosis. StuRat (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Why do none of the 3 New York commuter railroads go to Downtown Manhattan?

Manhattan's widest river was tunneled under by 1908 so why not, after going c. 50-110 miles from the outer suburbs/exurbs you can't go 1-3 miles more to reach the Wall Street region? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

It's still expensive to tunnel under rivers, so you can expect them to save money by doing this as few times as possible. StuRat (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• It has to do with the bedrock for one part. Look up the construction of the Twin Towers (New York City) which had to have special underground retaining walls built due to the unsuitability of the loose soil. The skyscrapers in Manhattan are built where the bedrock is close to the surface.

Secondarily, many of the buildings at the time those railroads were built were not structurally stable enough to have heavy freight train traffic. :Finally, there is indeed the Path Train system which had a terminus at the WTC (I haven't been on that train since the 90's, so I don't know its disposition since 9/11), and the a multitude of smaller subway trains and above ground bus routes that will get you to Wall Street.

In any case, Wall Street is a cobblestone anachronism, almost all business is conducted in the skyscrapers in midtown, the only sort of things of interest downtown that far are tourist attractions, city hall and the court buildings and the diamond district with some shopping on Fulton Street--there's simply no call for major rail to the area. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't follow the question; there's 4-5 New York City Subway lines that go through downtown Manhattan; the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line goes all the way to The Battery. Of course, the commuter rail doesn't have many stops in the city, but that's because that's not what a commuter rail does. In every city in the world with a commuter rail system similar to New York, the commuter rail's purpose is to gather people from the suburbs and exurbs and get them into large hub stations in the city center; from THERE people take local light rail/bus/etc. to their exact destination. The New York commuter rail systems get everyone to places like Grand Central Terminal and Penn Station. From there, commuters distribute on local public transportation to their destination. You see the same system in Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington, DC, London, Paris, etc. The question is based on a false premise. I don't know why the OP would think that the commuter rail would have many stops in Downtown or other parts of the city center, because that's not what commuter rail is for... --Jayron32 11:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The OP omitted that the river tunnels were for heavy-grade freight trains. His question may be naive, but can be answered once one makes that assumption. The commuter rails (subways like the IRT) you mention were never freight trains. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

London has seen the inadequacy of that arrangement: Crossrail. 81.151.100.122 (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

If I read that article correctly, the Elizabeth Line is still a commuter, and not local, line. There are only a few stops in Central London; the line still serves the purpose of bringing travelers from afar to central London, and most of those will take other transportation options once there. That's the point, commuter rail is not a "metro", it's not designed to get around a city. It's designed to get to a city from the suburbs. --Jayron32 14:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

August 24

Getting dark before sunset

I can tell that it gets darker even before sunset. As the sun gets low in the sky, the sky is not fully lit like in the middle of the day. After the sun sets, the sky gets darker more rapidly, obviously. After sunrise, the sky doesn't get fully lit until few hours later. The window in my bedroom where I sleep faces east. I can tell that right before the sun rises over the neighbor's roof over half hour after sunrise that begins shining in my room, my room was kind of dark. But after the sun stops shining in my room later in the morning when the sun gets too high to continue shining through the window, my room is brighter than what it was before the sun started shining. During the partial eclipse seen from near Chicago in early afternoon, the sky grew little darker, down to about the brightness of the sky as less than 30 minutes before sunset when the moon covered ⅞ of the sun, and it was cloudy from where I viewed from. PlanetStar 06:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I cannot disagree with a single thing you say. I find myself in total accord with your point of view. Now, I wonder if I may prevail upon you very slightly, do you have a question? Richard Avery (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Presumably the Q is why it isn't full brightness as soon as the Sun is fully visible. Three reasons:

1) Insolation angle. That means sunlight is hitting at a shallow angle, spread out over a wider area, so there is less per given area of the Earth's surface.

2) Twilight travels through more atmosphere, which absorbs, defracts, and reflects more of it. This is especially true if it passes through clouds. Since reds are affected more than blues, this accounts for the bluish color at twilight.

3) Ground clutter, like trees and buildings, block more of it then. Even if the Sun itself is not blocked, part of the brightly lit area of the sky around it may be. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Your 2) has the physics exactly backwards. Shorter (bluer) wavelengths are scattered more than longer (redder) ones – see Rayleigh scattering. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.208.101 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a rather extensive article called Twilight that should answer most of the OPs questions (if they have any). --Jayron32 11:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

My experience is the reverse. My kitchen faces east and is extremely gloomy. When I get up I need the electric light. Then shortly after dawn the sun shines through the windows and I can switch it off. Later in the day, when the sun is high but not directly visible I have to switch it on again. 81.151.100.122 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your reasons. When the sun is low in the sky, it isn't just trees and buildings blocking the sun as said in 3), but because of the low insolation angle as said in 1). When the sun is low in the sky but not low enough to appear yellow or orange, the light has to pass through more of the atmosphere in order to reach us, therefore slightly dimming the light. To test out my belief about the solar eclipse, in my area the moon covered 87% of the sun, then I calculate the angle of the sun away from the horizon using sine. 87% covered meant only 13% of the sun's disk is visible, so I find the sine that would equal 0.13, and I find it at 7. Therefore, when the moon covered 87% of the sun's disk during the eclipse from where I live, the sun would appear just as dim when it is near the highest point in the sky as if the sun is just 7 degrees above the horizon and totally unblocked by the moon. During the winter time, the sun would appear dimmer than during the summer due to the fact that sun is lower in the sky. But during the northern hemisphere winter, the Earth is located closer to the sun, compensating this. Do you guys agree or criticize my thoughts? PlanetStar 03:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The distance of the Earth from the Sun doesn't vary by much (less than 3.5%), so that effect on light levels and temps is minimal. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That's still over 7% or 1/14, a significant amount. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

(She squared that amount to get the difference in light levels.) Significant yes, but compared to seasonal variations, such as the record temps in New York City, from 253K to 312K, that's a 23% difference. So, the distance is the lesser component. StuRat (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

August 25

Why didn't the US support Portugal in colonial wars in Africa against communist backed nationalists?

Around the same time the US was pouring support in Indochina to fight Soviet and Chinese backed North Vietnam, in Portuguese Africa the nationalists movements were receiving overt Soviet support (one rebel group even had a Soviet supplied Mig squadron), but the US didn't lend assistance to Portugal to fight those Soviet backed nationalist movements, going so far as to condemn Portugal at the UN for expanding the country across borders. Seems contradictory especially given US support for anti-communism in Indochina would eventually reach one million soldiers. Muzzleflash (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The US took an anti-colonialist stance following WW2, not even supporting it's WW2 allies of France and the UK in the Suez crisis. And, in this case that was probably the best choice, as the Vietnam war didn't go very well. You really can't fight communism while presenting continued colonialism as the alternative. You won't win many hearts and minds that way. The better alternative seems to have been to let the communists win, then the people will get sick of their mismanagement of the economy in a generation or two, then they will throw the communists out on their own or the communists will gradually increase economic freedoms. So far only North Korea has defied this pattern completely. Venezuela seems to be about ready to eject it's incompetent socialist government. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The colonial wars in the Portuguese colonies did not really start in earnest until after the Vietnam War had become a major domestic problem in the United States, and after the Domino Theory had proved itself a sham. So the domestic appetite for more foreign entanglements was at a low ebb. Plus, the areas where these wars were fought were not particularly strategic for American interests. Still, there were defenders of UNITA pushing the U.S. to provide support to Jonas Savimbi in Angola however. The article U.S. support for FNLA and UNITA has more on this. --Xuxl (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Oil Change, how much required?

Any idea how much oil I need for an oil change on my 2007 Renault Clio 3 Diesel?

Most shops sell either like a 1 litre bottle or a 4 or 5ish litre bottle? Will one suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.41.143.98 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

See RENAULT CLIO 3 ENGINE OIL CAPACITY. I just copied your question into the Google search bar and BINGO! There it was. Alansplodge (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I just found the same page. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You will need to know the engine size to use the chart. You apparently have lost your owner's manual, and they often are written for multiple engines, anyway, so you might look at the engine directly to see if it's written on it (or the cowling over it). StuRat (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Or it may be on your vehicle registration documents (not sure if that's true for Korea). Alansplodge (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

August 26

• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk