Revision as of 17:06, 22 October 2015

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

• WP:RD/H

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

October 17

Mysterious music file

Hi, this music file looks like it's not titled correctly, but I don't know what the correct title is. Any idea? It does not seem to belong in the Kreutzer Sonata, Violin Sonata No. 9 (Beethoven), but I don't know where it belongs. My friend Graham87 doesn't think it even sounds like Beethoven (it sounds more Spanish than anything); he also says it starts in F minor, modulates to D minor for the main theme, then goes to D major for the final theme, whereas the D minor Misplaced Pages article says that Beethoven didn't write many chamber works in this key, and those he did write are irrelevant here. What the heck is this mystery music?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It's La Gitana by Fritz Kreisler. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Most excellent comment, thanks very much. I will fix.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Present-day "unpopular" monarchs and monarchies

Are there any current monarchs and monarchies whose disapproval ratings exceed their approval ratings? Meaning, they are "unpopular"? Narutolovehinata5 08:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've twice now gone poking around looking for an answer to this question. What I've found is that generally, either the monarch has a purely ceremonial role and has a very high approval rating, or the monarch has real power and the government is not very warm to the idea of opinion polls. Our article list of monarchies has all extant monarchies in bold, so you can start from that list to find all currently reigning monarchs. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

(EC) An obvious problem is that in places with less popular monarchs, there may very well be no approval or disapproval ratings. For example, if you consider the fairly recent case of Gyanendra of Nepal, clearly there was a fair amount of disapproval with a number of things he did, leading up to Nepal becoming a republic, although there was obviously a lot of politics and other things going on too. But I don't know if we will ever know if his disapproval rating ever exceeded his approval rating, because I don't know if either were either surveyed.

(Although AFAIK if we go back to famous examples like Louis XVI, it's likewise probably impossible to know whether they were unpopular under your definition. Then again, I'm not sure approval ratings are meaningful if we go that far back. Thain again, we could have similar problems even now. Ignoring whether surveys were even done, it may not always be the case that approving or disapproving of the monarch is a question everyone can even answer since it's just not something that makes sense in their current world view. This will generally be when they somewhat approve of the monarch, but it will make it difficult to actually do a survey.)

Similarly the problems in Tonga from 2006 onwards with George Tupou V. (Well the problems started before then, but I believe Tāufaʻāhau Tupou IV was fairly popular even during the problems.) It's also a fairly small place and considering that & other factors, I'm not sure if there is much of a history of such polling

Even with somewhere like Thailand, which is a constitutional monarchy (albeit one where the constitution seems to often change) & where Bhumibol Adulyadej appears to still be quite respected (despite the coups and the occasional controversy over his possible blind eye, if not tactic support of them), I'm not sure if approval/disapproval polls (which do seem to be done for the goverments) really fit in to a country where the occasional lèse majesté in Thailand conviction isn't uncommon.

To say no more of the situation in an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia, or even Brunei, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Swaziland. (Consider for example how the Arab spring was dealt with in most of the Middle Eastern ones.) The other thing is when you retain sufficient power, it's often not hard to ensure a majority still support you, even if they probably shouldn't. Witness the situation in North Korea which isn't techically a monarchy. The internet is making that more difficult although even then, depending on the level of development and other factors, it may still not reach a majority. That's presuming you aren't willing to go the North Korea route and basically ban it entirely. Still if someone is popular even if they shouldn't be, they are still popular. (Although those tend to also be cases where even those who disapprove, are rarely likely to talk about it.)

Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

King Juan Carlos of Spain became rather unpopular; the last straw was when at the height of the debt crisis, he was discovered to have gone on an elephant-shooting holiday with a lady that wasn't his wife. The situation was resolved by abdicating in favour of his son, who has regained a good margin of public support. Alansplodge (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There's usually no problem with a king killing exotic animals or getting some side action. What's unpopular is doing anything extravagant and expensive while your subjects are poor and starving. That attitude didn't work for Marie Antoinette or this Burger King, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:24, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

Because I like addressing historical myths, did you read the let them eat cake article, which explains Marie Antoinette never said it? She was fairly sympathetic to the plight of the poor in France, actually. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels once said "Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story". Or maybe that was Mark Twain. In any case, she's stuck with it now. What she was actually like long stopped mattering to her popular character. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Burger King, the King was deposed in 2011, amidst a popularity slump. Dead chickens have proven to be more approvable. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:36, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the other online encyclopedia leads today with a story from the Animal Kingdom (not to be confused with the animal kingdom, the Magic Kingdom or the "real" Kilimanjaro National Park) about a 1998 preview "attraction" featuring a butchered elephant. Unlike a flying elephant, this proved wildly unpopular (even to sky people) and its reign of terror ended before it even officially began. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:57, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

Bahrain's monarchy is rather unpopular with that country's Shi'a Muslim majority. Marco polo (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Was thinking that before reading this A. Although Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, morocco cant be tht far off.Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

But see Jordan's King Abdullah flying high (for the time being anyway) and Morocco and its king - Popular but prickly. Alansplodge (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

I know most Arabs rejected partition, but were there any Arabs in favor of the principle of partition? If so, what were they going to name the Arab state? Foreach n everyday (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have the impression that there are as many opinions as Arabs in Palestine. As the joke goes: two Arabs imply three irreconcilable opinions.--Denidi (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That's the joke with Indians ;0Lihaas (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've heard it with Irish or Scottish. Don't remember exactly. It seems that's a pretty common joke which gets localized. --Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• And I from a Jew about Jews. —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Palestine" is the Arab name for the area, so presumably they would retain that name in some form, like the "Palestinian Republic". StuRat (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The PLO claimed the State of Palestine, or simply Palestine, as an independent state. It would comprise both the West Bank and Gaza Stripe. Otherwise, you have the Zero-state solution, One-state solution, Two-state solution, Three-state solution, or the Obama’s four-state solution. I have not heard about a Five-state solution, but obviously, Jewish people do not have to stick together, they can also split. Palestinian Republic is a red-link. If someone knows something about it, he should create an article.Denidi (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Can stock holders sue the company they have a stake in?

If a company does something pretty stupid that costs billions. Think: VW's dieselgate, or BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill, can the stock holders sue their own company? Would that make sense? Is there any legal doctrine that blocks this sort of behaviour? It could be claimed that the stock holders are the company, and, consequentially, you cannot allow them to sue themselves. That does not exclude suing the directors or former directors, obviously. But these won't be able to pick up the bill. --Denidi (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Not only is this allowed, it is fairly commonplace. Such lawsuits are often undertaken by "activist investors" (though that term has a somewhat pejorative connotation).

To name a few names: attorneys for Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling did file suit on behalf of BP shareholders in the case of BP investors who lost value due to BP's alleged corporate misrepresentation of risk prior to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. This class-action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders was in addition to a lot of other litigation surrounding that disaster. It was a little bit complicated, because BP is not an American corporation; shareholders in the United States frequently actually own American depositary receipts, rather than actual shares. See also: the main website of the Federal Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, for lots of related court cases. In this specific case, the damages were so absolutely massive that the Federal Court of the United States created a "mega"-class superseding many individual classes, so the class-action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders was engulfed by one grand unified court case on behalf of every plaintiff who suffered damages. This was a special case: see Deepwater Horizon litigation. (Many of the specific civil and criminal claims relate to activities that took place offshore, so throw in the weirdnesses of maritime law and admiralty law and what you have is a court case that confuses and amazes anyone who has tried to follow it).

Most places distinguish between a corporation (as a legal entity) and the shareholders (the individuals who own shares of the corporation). So, if some (or all) shareholders pursue legal action against the corporation (or against the board of directors, or the executive team, ...), that is not the same as litigating against themselves.

There are other avenues than litigation. A few years ago, Ralph Nader began seeking public support to pressure Cisco into changing its policies, alleging that the corporation's mismanagement was depriving shareholders of value (e.g. alleging that the executive teams was failing to fulfill their contractual obligations to maximize shareholder value). You can read the first of several open letters on his blog, Ralph Nader’s Update #1 to Upset Cisco Shareholders (2011). He has written similar open letters to other corporations, e.g. Letter to the Top 10 Institutional Shareholders of Liberty Media Corporation, and many more cases.

Very recently, Mr. Nader created a Tort Museum to explain to the public how litigation against corporations can be an effective way for the public to apply pressure to large corporations. On review of Mr. Nader's long history, he has successfully pressed for change in many industries and government systems (all the while, working outside of the conventional political system), by acting as a shareholder and as a litigant.

Nimur (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Denidi - see Derivative suit. Neutrality 23:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Portraits of ancient Greeks and Roman Emperors

There are some graphic portraits of ancient Greeks and Roman emperors. I want to know that are they, in general, a true and actual copy of the person in question? or they are just a fictional work? Thank you. 46.225.203.54 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe that such busts are unskilled or deliberately inaccurate depictions of the individuals portrayed. Obviously the sculptors were skilled enough to create lifelike images. That being said, there might, of course, be some "airbrushing", although busts of Socrates, for example, are not very flattering. I once went to the Princeton University Art Museum to see their bust of Caracalla, an image of which I had seen in an art book. The curator admitted to me that the bust had been determined to be a renaissance copy, not an original, but he assured me there was no reason to doubt its accuracy as a copy. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

In terms of strict photographic accuracy, both busts (Antoninus in particular) suffer from "cut-off skull" - see attached. This sort of technical error is common in Roman (as against Greek) art - the works of Praxiteles, for example, don't have this problem. Tevildo (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The one labeled Trajan looks kinda like Freddie Morgan of "Spike Jones and His City Slickers". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Back to the topic: We have an article about Roman portraiture, which should answer many of the OP's questions. In general, compared with depictions of humans in other ancient cultures, Roman art was characterized by an exceptionally high degree of individuality and naturalism, though there were considerable differences between different time periods, some of which tended more towards idealization than others. Specifically as regards emperors, it is also important to keep in mind that their portrait busts were produced in large numbers, each obviously being copied from some other, so it would be unreasonable to expect that each copy could have maintained the same degree of fidelity. Greek portraiture, as far as I know, generally tended to be more on the schematic, idealizing side. For example, even though there are numerous extant "portraits" of Sokrates, none was probably produced during his lifetime, and what they reflect is probably a schematic, indirect memory of his general type of physiognomy more than an authentic "true-to-life" portrayal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Might go without saying, but they weren't as white as their eyeballs. Most had irises and pupils. The original artists probably noted those, but this way's caught on for centuries, for some dumb reason or another. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, October 21, 2015 (UTC)

I've read before that emperors liked to be modelled with bull necks, in a visual reference to a hero of generations past. In my head that was Enobarbus, but I can't find anything about it with Google to support or deny this memory. The Romans were keenly aware of the power of propaganda in images (plenty of books and papers on this in Google), and emperors were styled with imagery that would resonate with the populace, to be reminiscent of a particular god or character trait. Aside from that, I would think that if a sculptor didn't ensure an at least flattering image of someone like Caligula then a) they would not survive for long and b) their work would not have survived, either. How true this would be of more benevolent emperors is an interesting point to ponder, but not really Ref Desk material. --Dweller (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Fairly sure it wasn't Enobarbus, but can't remember who it was. And this section of our article on Augustus, who was a brilliant politician, is very interesting reading: Augustus#Physical_appearance_and_official_images --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

October 18

Patent trolling for benefit of the public domain

Every so often I have some idea that I think someone with more money and available legal expertise would try to patent. But for ordinary people, patents are just "a license to get sued"; besides, I don't really believe in intellectual property. So the question is this: if you have a new idea, and you just want to spoil it so that nobody can claim a monopoly over the entire idea (i.e. to prevent a corporation such as a private patent troll from taxing the public for millions or billions of dollars), is there anything you can do to accomplish that? I understand of course that someone could come up with a particular way to accomplish it not previously mentioned that would be patentable - but frequently patent holders end up with control over the entire concept, not just a particular way. (I know ideas aren't supposed to be patentable, but from the cases I read about I often wonder if there is any idea too obvious to patent) In light of common issues like biopiracy, where traditional practices tend to end up as the property of a corporation, it's non-obvious to me how much do you have to say in order to establish "prior art" or some other barrier. So ... how would you go about trying to intentionally spoil any effort to patent something you have thought of? And are there any public organizations or sites where people actually try to do this now? Wnt (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

We are rather into legal advice territory here, but anything that's been published to someone who's "free in law and equity" to use it (that is, not under an NDA or similar obligation of confidentiality) forms part of the prior art and can't be patented. HOWEVER, much of the skill of a patent attorney is in drafting the patent so as to distinguish the prior art. Doing this sort of thing without (competent) professional advice, as you point out, is a recipe for financial ruin. Tevildo (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tevildo: I fairly doubt that simply publishing novel ideas is going to ruin someone financially. But for example, does the publication have to be in "fixed form" as a printed document to prevent patenting elsewhere? Does it have to be in each country where a patent could be filed? And so forth. I feel like I shouldn't have to reinvent this wheel - hasn't anyone ever tried to prevent a patent from being possible? Wnt (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

All the information we can give here is available at prior art, which I assume you've read. Beyond that, we can't go. Sorry. Tevildo (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm I would suggest sources like where people have looked in to and discussed establishing prior art via open source content, generally software but occasionally in other areas, may be of useful to the OP without violating our good prohibition against providing legal advice. It's perhaps worth noting, as do these sources note, one big problem is the need to patent examiners or even filers, acting in good faith, to actually find any prior art. Nil Einne (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a common misconception that prior art invalidates a patent. Such misconceptions are frequently promoted by people who are not patent attorneys, and have no expertise advising on what is and is not patentable. If you talk to a patent attorney, one of the things they will probably tell you is not to take patent advice from non-attorneys. (In the spirit of full disclosure: I am not a patent attorney)!

If you talk to a patent attorney, they can advise you on whether a claim is patentable. It is sometimes important to disclose prior art if you did actually know about it. Neither the existence of prior art - nor an inventor's awareness of that art - directly determine whether a claim is valid.

Prior art may be one of the considerations during the Office Action phase of a patent application in the United States. The USPTO may reject a claim: "If the examiner finds that the claimed invention lacks novelty or differs only in an obvious manner from what is found in the prior art, the claims may also be rejected." But that isn't a final decision: an applicant (or an attorney working on behalf of said applicant) may reply with a refutation of the rejection, or with an amended claim that is believed valid.

For a start, at least, have a look at the United States Patent and Trademark Office website, including:

• FAQ: What Can Be Patented?
• The Patent Process Overview

Prepare yourself for a lot of reading. Patent language is verbose, specific, and technical. Many people find such verbosity to be boring and difficult. This is why many skilled inventors pay attorneys to do the patent paperwork for them.

Nimur (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

October 19

Westernmost Virginia ≠ West Virginia

Why is westernmost Virginia not part of West Virginia? The State of Kanawha article has a useful map, File:1861 Virginia and Kanawha.jpg, which depicts far western counties like Wise and Lee with slave populations comparable to the counties that did secede, and my (admittedly very sparse) knowledge of the area's history and culture can't explain why these counties would have preferred to stay with Richmond, not Wheeling. The only possibility I can imagine is Confederate control of the Cumberland Gap, about which our article says In June 1862, Union Army General George W. Morgan captured the gap for the Union. In September of that year, Confederate States Army forces under Edmund Kirby Smith occupied the Gap during General Braxton Bragg's Kentucky Invasion. The following year, in a bloodless engagement in September 1863, Union Army troops under General Ambrose Burnside forced the surrender of 2,300 Confederates defending the gap, gaining Union control of the gap for the remainder of the war. Was this perhaps relevant, since a defending force at the area's key strategic point might have made it impossible for the area to go Unionist? Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This article implies that the counties included in West Virginia were those that sent representatives to the constitutional conventions that founded the state. Virginia's southwestern counties were firmly under Confederate military control and therefore probably not able to send representatives. (The article does state that a few of the counties that joined West Virginia were under Confederate control at the time, but maybe because they were not very strategic—and therefore not heavily garrisoned—and were close to Union-held territory, they were able to take part in those conventions. By contrast, southwestern Virginia, as you note, controlled access to the strategic Cumberland Gap.) Marco polo (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• First, West Virginia is a name, not a scientific claim. Second, The book and the series 'How the States Got Their Shapes go into this in quirky and delightful detail. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Is How the States Got Their Shapes at all reliable, whether in print or in TV series? The snapshots I saw make the book look like something one guy wrote for his friends and for children, while the History Channel has given us lots of reasons not to trust its programming. Of course I understand that it's just a name; the issue is that Lee, Wise, and other nearby counties appear to have had (and to have) a lot more in common with Wheeling/Charleston than with Richmond. It's like asking "why did the northernmost part of Ulster not become part of Northern Ireland", a situation easily demonstrated with a map showing that area's disconnect from much of the rest of the province. Thanks for the WVEncyclopedia article, which indeed helps me understand somewhat: while it doesn't address the subject directly, it talks about counties periodically being added to the future new state, including the easternmost ones in the summer of 1863 (not long after Gettysburg), and the whole discussion of the process makes it seem that like-minded counties were added when militarily/politically possible/practical. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, the answer to the County Donegal question is the same as the answer to the Wise/Lee Counties not joining West Virginia question, and it has nothing to do with coincidental differences in location and everything to do with internal and external politics surrounding the formation of those entities. There's no rule to say that the names of these entities has to match the strictest definitions of them (that West Virginia had to include the westernmost counties of Virginia, or that Northern Ireland had to include the northernmost county of Ireland), and the reason Donegal is not included in Northern Ireland has little to do with it's geographic separation, and everything to do with the political situation at the time when Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland seceded at the time. Political divisions are not beholden to any strict definitions of direction and geography. --Jayron32 16:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've seen the show from time to time, and to me it has what I would call "the ring of truth." Obviously, any facts they present could be cross-checked. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the book is reliable, I read the whole thing. Geography has always been one of my favorite subjects, and I came across nothing that struck me as unfounded or counter to my prior knowledge. The essential point is that West Virginia is simply the name that was given to that portion of Virginia which was not beholden to the cause of slave-ownership and which decided to secede from Virginia and join the Union. (The Constitutionality of this, and why the two states weren't reunited after the war is a separate question.) It wasn't an east-west split as such. I highly recommend the book and the series. μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no accounting for the peculiar ways folks decide to name stuff. Cape Cod is a peninsula, not a cape. The Battle of Bunker Hill took place on Breed's Hill. The Bayeux Tapestry is an embroidery, not a tapestry. The Banana River is not a river. They never played polo at the longest-lived version of the Polo Grounds. And the so-called "West Side" of St. Paul, MN, is straight south of downtown St. Paul. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Cape Cod is both a cape and a peninsula; they need not be mutually exclusive (that is, there are Capes which are not Peninsulas, Peninsulas which are not Capes, but there can also be geographic features which are both). Specifically, a Cape (geography) is where the coastline makes a sudden change in general direction; at Cape Cod, the coastline changes about 90 degrees, from almost due east-west (Long Island-Connecticut-Rhode Island) to almost due north south (Massachusetts and New Hampshire). While there are capes which are not really peninsulas (for example, Cape Hatteras, which does not extend deeply into the surrounding water, and thus is a cape and not a peninsula), there are many Capes which are Peninsulas, such as Cape Cod, Cape Ann, Cape May. There are also capes which are islands (Cape Breton, for example, and also strictly speaking Cape Cod as well, since the construction of the Cape Cod Canal). Being part of one classification does not preclude one from being part of others. --Jayron32 20:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So a cape covers a lot of ground. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Number of air strike missions per day in Syria

I was just reading this story and was wondering: does NATO or any NATO-members release their Syrian/Iraq bombing statistics? 731Butai (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The US DoD does. As of October 6, since August 8, 2014, official score is 7,273 US, 1,605 Rest of Coalition. I'll leave the math to you. Can't find anything official for Russia, but that might be more down to me not reading Russian. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:53, October 19, 2015 (UTC)

"As of 15 September the UK had conducted 1,300 sorties, including 288 strikes against ISIS targets" from a report downloadable from a House of Commons briefing paper (scroll down to the bottom of the page). Presumably, the "sorties" which were not "strikes" were reconnaissance flights and missions in which a target could not be identified, but it doesn't specify. Alansplodge (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"missions in which a target could not be identified" I thought the NATO members were only striking ISIS targets? The Kurds are our allies, and so are the moderate rebels; attacking Assad forces would be an act of war. So what other possible targets are there? 731Butai (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all. Aircrew are instructed not to attack unless they can clearly establish that they are striking the right target. If they can't be certain, they bring their ordnance home again. For instance, if aircraft are sent to destroy an ISIS communication centre, they need to be certain that they're not attacking a school or a hospital in error. That's what I meant. Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

They're still targeting al' Qaeda, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, October 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think those count toward "Operation Inherent Resolve" figures, but I could be wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, October 21, 2015 (UTC)

what terms are used to describe paranoia, fear and concern regarding the increasing reach of main and alternate media leading to increasing privacy violations?

OP thinking "witch hunts" perpetrated by media propaganda doomsday scenerio, "gamergate" feelsMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Gobbledygook? Brouhaha? Plain fear mongering? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:57, October 19, 2015 (UTC)

Yellow journalism? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

WiFi harmful? Trash effective? Emissions exacerbate? "Expert fear" equals argument from authority or appeal to emotion? We Report, You Decide?!? Are these loaded questions? Does America fear its government? Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear stir shit in the woods? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, October 19, 2015 (UTC)

• Paranoia, fear and concern are all nouns. There is no collective term. However, people who are aware of the dangers of intrusion of their personal privacy are therefore, just aware. Some of those, want to do something about it. That's called activism--Aspro (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And #ThereAreThose who want to make people aware of their awareness, but that's it. Big Brother is a noun. A proper noun. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, October 19, 2015 (UTC)

• Relevant to the general topic is "If You’re Not Paranoid, You’re Crazy: As government agencies and tech companies develop more and more intrusive means of watching and influencing people, how can we live free lives?" in The Atlantic. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Web users 'fear media intrusion' , fear of a "media witch hunt", mass media phobia Ssscienccce (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's always amusing to hear about folks who are "out there" yet fear they might be being watched. The government is the least of our worries. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

October 20

Aladdin

Aladdin was most likely Arab. Why he is mentioned as Chinese in Misplaced Pages? --The Avengers (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

For the reasons already explained at great length in the article. ‑ iridescent 17:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Who says he was "most likely Arab"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It is part of Arabian Nights and the Aladdin from Disney movie and the Disney TV series is not Chinese. --The Avengers (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Disney changes a lot of things for its films and shows. So, why not the ethnicity of a character? Dismas| 17:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you (the OP) actually reading the articles before you criticise them? As (correctly) stated in the leads of both Aladdin and Arabian Nights, Aladdin is not a part of the original Arabian Nights, but was added by the (French) Antoine Galland in his 18th-century translation. How Disney chooses to represent things has no particular relevance to reality (there is no record of any romantic connection between John Smith and Pocahontas in reality, for instance). ‑ iridescent 18:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

She probably didn't have a raccoon best friend, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, October 20, 2015 (UTC)

Next you'll be telling me there's no evidence for a talking wolf ever being appointed Sheriff of Nottingham… ‑ iridescent 21:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, but at least that's relatively credible (and less falsifiable). Wolves are pack animals, raccoons are generally solitary, and when they do cohabit, it's with their own gender. At best, Meeko and Pocahontas only hooked up for a couple of magical nights in the early springs, and there's no evidence Thomas Rolfe had a tail or any littermates. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, October 20, 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Wolfe, on the other hand, had many tales. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, October 20, 2015 (UTC)

• If I were addressing a remark to the OP and not to some other participant, I'd use only one indent. But that's just me. —Tamfang (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, Persians are not Arabs. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, October 20, 2015 (UTC)

Lots of Muslims are named Aladdin. I don't know Whether he was an Arab, Persian, Turkmenistanian , Uzbekistani, Mongolian, but he could least likely be a Chinese. Then Aladdin would have a Chinese name like Chang, Zhang. This is fiction and no one knows from where the story originated from. Till now China, Hong Kong didn't make movies or TV shows showing Aladdin as a Chinese hero. If Aladdin was Chinese then Hong Kong would have made a movie about Aladdin played by a Chinese actor as they make movies and TV series about Journey to the West. The Avengers (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's quite clear you aren't interested in reading the Misplaced Pages article OR the source material used to write it, both of which discuss in detail the history and provenance of the story in question. If you aren't interested in doing so, please carry on your debate elsewhere. This isn't the place to assert your opinion and engage in arguments with others.--Jayron32 03:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No one is forced to answer my questions or argue with me. Anyone who feels my questions as baseless, are free to ignore my comments. I am not editing the main article or making unsourced edit. And quoting the article____ "The story is set in China, and Aladdin is Chinese. However, most of the people in the story are Muslims; there is a Jewish merchant who buys Aladdin's wares (and incidentally cheats him), but there is no mention of Buddhists or Confucians. Some commentators believe that this suggests that the story might be set in Turkestan (encompassing Central Asia and the modern Chinese province of Xinjiang). This speculation depends on a knowledge of China that the teller of a folk tale (as opposed to a geographic expert) might well not possess,"______ — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Avengers (talk • contribs) 05:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you quoted that part, does that mean you understand now that it makes sense that Aladdin was Chinese because that's what the story says he was? And the reason he had a name you may not associate as being Chinese is probably because the teller of the story, may not have even know what sort of names would be Chinese. And in any case, may not have cared since the story tellers primary motivation was likely to tell a story their audience would understand and enjoy, not to tell a story some random person hundreds of years later would consider accurately set?

Note that no one said the story originated from China. If you read our article, it definitely never says that. In fact, it implies it could be Arabic, although we don't really know where it came from since we don't have good historic sources.

A story teller doesn't of course have to set their stories in their current locale, they can set them in any locales they know about. In the modern internet world, if I want to set my stories in Norway (to give a random example), I may give my characters names like Anne, Inger and Karl , rather than Zhang Chang or Aladdin. But if I were composing my story hundreds of years ago as a perhaps somewhat educated but likely non-expert on cultural geographical matters, things may be different.

Since the records of this story are slim, we don't really know what the original setting for the story was. It's easily possible it wasn't even originally set in China with a local character but this was changed by some later retellers for various reasons like that one mentioned in our article about China being the Far East. But what we do know is the oldest versions we have appear to be set in China.

In a similar fashion, I could write a story set in India (with my character being Indian), and at the last minute decide to set in in Norway (with my character being Norwegian), change a few place names, and hope no one notices. Regardless of whether they do, my story is still set in Norway with a Norwegian character, even if many of the details may fit better with my original composition of it being in India. Some random person on the RD saying my character isn't Norwegian isn't going to change the fact that my character is Norwegian, because I explicitly said it was in the story in a clear cut manner (rather than coming from an unreliable narrator for example).

BTW, I take it you also understand that Journey to the West is largely irrelevant as a comparison, because it's a classical Chinese novel so therefore something HK film makers are liable to be interested in. While Aladdin is set in China, but of unknown origins (probably not Chinese) and has characters many Chinese audiences may be less likely to identify with, so may not be something that HK filmmakers will be intrisicly interested in, even if it happens to be set in China.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, Muslims are not Arabs. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, October 21, 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, Disney Aladdin is from Agrabah, which is is a wing of Hollywood's fabricated Ayrabland. So he's Californian. At least he was back in 1992, when The Los Angeles Times (and the liberal media empire, in general) concerned itself with goofy archaic notions like magnetic tape. Not quite clear if any of this still applies since the September 2001 agreement. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, October 21, 2015 (UTC)

What is the second most widely used calendar in the world?

Obviously the most common calendar is the Gregorian , but what is next most common? Either in the sense of number of people for whom it is the primary calendar of their lives (ruling out many purely-religious or traditional calendars), or number of people who use the calendar at all (thus including those ones). ± Lenoxus (" *** ")

I'm pretty sure that every major government, society, and education system in the world uses the Gregorian calendar for common use almost exclusively, so the list of peoples that do not use the Gregorian calendar in common usage would be miniscule and mostly consist of small, isolated cultures. It's pretty damned close to as universal as you can get, insofar as I suspect the number of people using it is within significant figures of the population of the entire world. As far as calendars which are at least in partial use around the world (for religious or cultural purposes, rather than official or common usage), my suspicion is the two most common are the traditional Chinese calendar and the Islamic calendar (Hijri or AH calendar), given the number of Islamic people and the number of Chinese people are both well north of a billion. --Jayron32 19:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I take part of that back. It seems that the Solar Hijri calendar is the official calendar of both Iran and Afghanistan. --Jayron32 19:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Also found that the Thai solar calendar is in official use, but it is merely the Gregorian Calendar which has been phase-shifted 543 years, so it's based off of the Gregorian calendar, and uses the same months and days, but has a different year. --Jayron32 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect in terms of actual day-to-day usage, as opposed to religious and traditional use, the Ethiopian calendar is up there as well. To the best of my knowledge, the only country not already mentioned where the Gregorian calendar is not in official use is North Korea, although the months of the Juche calendar are identical to those of the Gregorian calendar so DPRK dates are always just Gregorian date minus 1911 years. ‑ iridescent 19:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Similarly to the Juche and Thai Solar Calendars, the Minguo calendar is in use in Taiwan, and is just the Gregorian calendar with a different year number. --Jayron32 19:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

And apparently the Indian national calendar is the official calendar of India, though in practice the Gregorian Calendar seems to more widespread for every day use. - Lindert (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Japan also has its own year-numbering scheme for the Gregorian calendar. -- BenRG (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

October 21

ArtReview Power 100 list

I discovered this while trying to fix multiple discrepancies between the lead paragraph of the page for Okwui Enwezor and the section headed Recognition. In an Edit history check of previous versions by numerous editors, his ranking in ArtReview' annual list of the "Power 100" in the art world is variously mentioned as 24th, 42nd, 54th for the years 2010, 2011, 2014 - with the present version completely ambiguous as it mentions two years! Meanwhile, the citation links for each mention are either dead or lead to the ArtReview website's announcement that within hours the 2015 list will be published there. My repeated attempts at viewing the lists for previous years, e.g. 2014, yield nothing. What to do? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to fix this page. I have added the more recent Archive.org archive for the 2014 list, removed the mention of 2011 and can confirm he was in 24th place in 2014. I have also added a archive for the 2010 list (and confirmed his position), but couldn't find one for the URL used (well not one with the desired information). I didn't otherwise try to sort out the lead mentioning 2014, and section only mentioning 2010. (Probably the lead should mention 2014 as the current most recent ranking and also possibly highest position. And perhaps the section 2014, and the previous years where he has appeared? I'm not sure if it's necessary to mention every single ranking although wouldn't remove it. And I guess that's a discussion best held in the talk page anyway.)

For significant pages that have existed for a while, you can normally put the URL in to the archive.org main page and find at least one working archive. (This didn't work for the older 2010 URL, archive.org only seems to have started archiving some of those pages fairly recently.)

It doesn't appear he is in the 2013 or 2012 list . But he was 52 in 2011, 42 in 2010, 67 in 2009 and 83 in 2008. The 2014 entry is marked as a re-entry, so the absence in 2013 isn't surprising. 2008 is also marked as a reentry so I assume he was missing from 2007 too but was in some earlier year. Also it looks like information about the people is updated in those pages, so you get stuff like Okwui Enwezor being "Curator of the Venice Biennale in 2015" mentioned in 2009, well before it was known . However the positions etc seem correct.

The pages seem to be working as recently as September so I'm not sure why they aren't now. If I had to guess, they took everything down in preparation for the 2015 list, and they'll probably be back up after it's revealed, although it's still good to add the archive URLs in case they disappear.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Legality of selling useless products and services

How do they get away with it? For example: homeopathy, psychs, astrologers, but also less mystic alternatives: ultrasound insect repellents, hair growth products, cell phone radiation shields, bio-whatever. Obviously, believers in this kind of stuff won't buy them and sue afterwards. However, one of the several skeptics community could buy such products or services and sue them. From a legal perspective, how do providers cover their asses? --Llaanngg (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

They generally have sufficient small print to cover their asses. "For entertainment purposes only" sort of disclaimers. In other cases companies break the law until they are caught and then they start a new company. A lot of mail order companies have no physical location and can simply vanish(also known as "fly by night" companies). HighInBC 15:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not so much the selling of these products that gets people into legal trouble, but rather the false advertising. For example, if people want to buy something that blocks cell phone radiation, why not? It does what it's supposed to do: block out the electromagnetic waves. Where there's demand, people will step in to provide a product, that's how a free market works. However, falsely claiming that something provides (health) benefits can get someone into trouble. That's why a lot of 'alternative' products rely primarily on word of mouth advertising or make ambiguous and unfalsifiable claims. Also note that if there is not (yet) any conclusive evidence that a products works that does not mean that you can successfully prove in a court of law (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the product does not work. - Lindert (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In the concrete case of EM waves blocking that I saw, it's a bracelet that when wear on your wrist would absorb the waves. So, no blocking here is possible. It also let's you keep using your phone, somehow. Isn't that magic?--Llaanngg (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Even in the case of mainstream medicine, you'll never see a sign on the doctor's premises saying "Healing guaranteed" or "No cure, no pay". -- Jack of Oz 20:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The efficacy of medicine is rarely 100%, but mostly above 0%. A serious doctor won't guarantee 100% results, and not only due to the laws against it. But the cases above are different. Any claim above a remedy, device or advice with efficacy 0% would be a lie. That's way beyond marketing fluff. Why is it possible to get away with that level of incompetence? Is it OK to cheat the ignorant? --Llaanngg (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, provided that you cover your legal bases. See Consumer_protection for an overview of some laws in some jurisdictions. Also caveat emptor, there's a sucker born every minute, free market, etc. The good news is, in the USA, actual drugs are treated a bit differently, since the Kefauver_Harris_Amendment.SemanticMantis (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Belgian Congo

In the Belgian Congo, did the concept of 'civilised persons card' exist? If so, what information is available about it? --Lærskroos (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you direct us to where you learned of the concept of "civilised persons card" so we can better understand where we may help you? --Jayron32 23:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume the OP is referring to some kind of Internal passport. Tevildo (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This book starting on page 176, section 11.3 is titled "introduction of identification methods in the Belgian colonies" and is likely an excellent starting point for the OP to begin their research. --Jayron32 23:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent link Jayron. For those without the time to browse: the Belgian colonial authorities believed in the Hamitic racial theory and thought that some tribes were ethnically closer to white Europeans and thus superior. An identity card and an internal passport were required for travel outside of a person's tribal area; the identity card was marked with the person's tribal origin and therefore some Africans were given preferential treatment. Some commentators see this system as an underlying cause of the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Alansplodge (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

October 22

Reference request

Does someone have access to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026240791262394X , "Truth Goggles" by Jim Giles doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(12)62394-X. I would like a copy. If you download a copy I can email you for you to reply to me or I can download from here if someone can post a dropbox link. Thanks much. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Nazi Propaganda

Does anybody know of any relevant secondary readings that focus on how the Nazi's chose to depict Judaism as a religion, as opposed to how the Jewish people as an ethnic/racial group, were portrayed. Thanks in advance --Andrew 17:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk