Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 15

= February 15 =

Why is the Holocaust always cited as the primary example of genocide?
There are plenty of other notable genocides. Armenian Genocide? Rwandan Genocide? These are very significant, among many others. So why does the Holocaust get more attention?--Whootwole (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would AGF on this one. Occasionally, someone wants to start a serious discussion on this.  Not always.  But lets see where this goes.  Ok.  Here's why.  It's the first genocide of the multimedia age.  Its the same reason why World War II gets more coverage than almost any other war, why Hitler is the model "mad power hungry dictator" etc. etc.  When history had to be recorded on paper, it wasn't as vivid in the memory.  When history is recorded at 60 frames per second, it is far more significant at a visceral level.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It probably doesn't hurt that it took place in a major European country either. I mean, Rwandan genocide? Those people are brown! Tomdobb (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that. It's much easier to have sympathy with people who have similar appearances, traditions, and lifestyles.  Also, a lot of people in North America and Britain--I'm guessing the OP is from one of the two--have family members who were personally affected by the genocide.  People aren't likely to take note of something their grandpa read on the newspaper, but if their grandpa's girlfriend died, they'd definitely take note.  --Bowlhover (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point.--Whootwole (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The main reason is that it's within current historical memory (not ancient history), and committed by a "civilized" wealthy 1st-world country. AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with the poster's question (although the subsequent comment "That's exactly my point." might sound a bit like soapboxing) . A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's also relevant that it was committed against the citizens of "civilized" wealthy 1st-world countries. Some of the imperial powers did some pretty bad things to their colonial populations (though nothing so large-scale and systematic), but they aren't in the same category in the popular consciousness. Algebraist 02:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take a stab at providing a partial answer at least in regards to the Rwandan Genocide. The Rwandan Genocide is a relatively recent event.  The the Holocaust has decades lead over Rwandan to be cited as an example.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What about scale? According to our articles, the Holocaust claimed about 9-11 million lives, the Armenian Genocide about 1-1.5 million victims and the Rwandan Genocide about 1 million lives.  It seems reasonable to cite the Holocaust first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I don't think that alone is enough to explain the way the Nazis and the holocaust are treated as being in a whole different category of evil from other dictatorships and genocides, though. Algebraist 02:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, at the risk of being misunderstood, the Nazis are sexy. By that I mean that people find them to be an interesting topic to study, even if they are repulsive. They are the quintessential 'bad guys'. They had the snappy uniforms, the huge crowds, the insane ideology. For whatever reason, people find that interesting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a "whole different category of evil" except as explained by scale and awareness. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor do I understand conjoining "sexy" and "repulsive", but that may just be a matter of personal taste. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that some people feel a need that the Nazi episode be incomparable and inexplicable. (This has the incidental benefit that any alleged warning signs of fascism can safely be ignored as irrelevant.)  —Tamfang (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A simple answer to the original question is that the Holocaust was what Raphael Lemkin had in mind when he coined the word "genocide."John Z (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As for why the Holocaust is so well-known, it happened during World War II. No other war involved, to a first approximation, every person in every country in the world.  That the English-speaking countries directly fought Germany also helps; you'd expect English-speaking people to care more about the enemy their country spent 8 years trying to defeat than about Rwanda or Armenia.  --Bowlhover (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of motive, we actually got a number of good answers to this question. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Enough already!.
 * ^ Agreed! Although, at risk of adding more fuel to the fire, more people died in the Holocaust than in either of the genocides cited in the original question, hence the reason why it's often cited. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 02:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. All posts by anon and all posts solely responding to him/her removed. Algebraist 02:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * the facts are preserved here. 82.120.97.16 (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Has anyone tried looking for studies of the cultural impact and importance of the holocaust? I'm sure they exist, but my cursory search found nothing useful. Algebraist 02:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

do you want my opinion? I realize I might not have had the best strategy in pointing out that the answer to your question would offend a lot of Jews. My answer, which is based on careful research as well as correpsondence with experts in international affairs, could certainly be offensive to Jewish people. Would you like my answer anyway? (just the best-referenced part) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.97.16 (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there is another aspect to this. Not only is the Holocaust generally accepted as 'the greatest evil of all times' in Western mass culture, but the resistance against Nazi Germany is heralded in Western historical concept as the most justified act of all. If someone today wants to start a war or conduct any other form of aggression against another country, then the first thing to do would be to try to demonize their enemies as analogous to Hitler (Saddam, Milosevic, etc..). --Soman (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

do siamese twins have ONE or TWO ID's?
Do siamese twins have ONE or TWO passports, etc? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Conjoined twins are two people sharing body parts. Abigail and Brittany Hensel, for example, states that they have "driver's licenses" -two, not one. They would then, logically, also have two passports. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In Jewish law, DICEPHALUS conjoined twins (twins with two heads on one body) are considered to be ONE individual. I have researched this subject and a paper of mine in Hebrew appears on my website at www.geocities.com/chaimsimons/dicephalus.html Simonschaim (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting question, and the answer no doubt depends on where you are; except that there must be countries which have never had to address this particular conundrum, making the answer more of an opinion than a fact. Certainly in English law conjoined twins are two individuals - one of them, for instance, can issue proceedings against the other, and each of them can get married. If a pair of such twins are UK citizens, it seems to me that they must each be entitled to hold a passport. If such twins were to come from outside the UK to live here, it's conceivable that one of them could be naturalized as a British citizen and the other not. And marriage could also lead to their having different nationalities. Xn4  ( talk ) 14:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I believe that's based on the idea that the heart is the defining characteristic, so if there is one heart, there is one lifeform. --Tango (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely there being two brains, both able to communicate, should be more relevant to determining whether there are two legal individuals? AnonMoos (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The comment is probably in reference to Jewish law, which uses a more ancient approach to human consciousness. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That the brain was responsible for thought and conciousness was rather disputed until well after Jewish law was written. I don't think Jewish law explicitly deals with conjoined twins (Conjoined_twins mentions no recorded cases that long ago, and being written down in Jewish law would probably count as recording), so it's just based on an interpretation of more general (misinformed) statements. --Tango (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The subject of conjoined twins does appear in the Jewish Religious literature throughout the ages. Some of this material can be found in English. This includes: English translation of the Babylonian Talmud at Menachot 37a by the Soncino Press, London, and in the Schottenstein edition published by ArtScroll Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, NY; Rabbi J.D. Bleich, Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature, “Conjoined Twins” in “Tradition” vol.31, no.1, Fall 1996, published by Rabbinical Council of America, NY; Drake D, “One Must Die So the Other Might Live”, published in “Nursing Forum”, New Jersey, vol.xvi, no3, 4, 1977. Dicephalus conjoined twins (two heads on one body) who are joined from the bottom of the neck downwards are regarded as one person in Jewish law; however with other types of joining, they would almost certainly be regarded as two persons. Simonschaim (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks.. why do most of them take place in the morning?

 * September 11 attacks
 * 2004 Madrid train bombings
 * July 7 2005 London bombings
 * Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway
 * 1993 World Trade Center bombing
 * 1992 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires
 * 1994 AMIA bombing
 * 1998 United States embassy bombings

and others... why?. is it because there are more victims in the morning? --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be selection bias... You've chosen eight attacks which happened in the morning, and are attempting to extrapolate to a general trend. I can pull up eight nightclub bombings and say "Why do most terrorist attacks happen at night in bars".  There are terrorist attacks weekly, and I don't know that most DO occur in the morning... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For at least 9/11, the terrorists probably selected early morning so it would receive the maximum amount of media attention. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of the reasoning for the 9/11 attacks was when the least amount of people would be on fully fueled planes. Tomdobb (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Would the last poster clarify the last sentence? Are you saying that the terrorists did not want large numbers of passengers to potentially fight them off or a concern for safety, which doesn't make sense to me.  I lived in downtown Manhattan at the time so perhaps I am sensitive.  If it is true, it is interesting.75Janice (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)75Janice


 * I have read that Janice's first guess is correct. I don't know how reliable the source of this information is.  --Anonymous, 04:50 UTC, February 15, 2009.


 * If I remember Tomdobb's idea, I have heard it before, and I think the rationale wasn't that the hijackers minded killing more passengers, its that they didn't want anyone getting in their way. Remember that on one of the 4 planes, the passengers DID disarm the hijackers and.  Full flights mean more of a chance of vigilantes stopping them... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  06:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed remember what the attackers here cared about was using their planes as weapons. The passengers as victims were likely of little concern to them. They obviously wouldn't have wanted completely empty planes (which would probably have been far more like to have been shot down) but on the whole passengers would probably have been seen as an annoying distraction. Remember that while getting a large number of victims was surely seen as a bonus, the terrorists clearly weren't just aiming for that. Their targets were choosen due to their status more then simply the number of putative victims Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall the suggestion the London bombers choose morning so it would have a greater effect as a result of coverage throughout the day. Note that with any attack aimed at a transport system, the attack would always be at rush hour so either early morning or late evening (as was the case of the recent Mumbai attacks for example). While I'm not sure, early morning might often be better in the Western world since the greatest density may be then (since I think there's a larger difference in the time people finish work then start work) Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this one? The Oklahoma City bombing was also one that happened in the morning, right after the workday officially started. Anyone's guess is just as good as mine.72.229.135.200 (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't I hear that McVeigh was delayed on the way there? Or is that wishful thinking (that he meant to blow up a nearly empty symbol of the oppressor)? —Tamfang (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You attack transit in the morning because that's when it is most heavy (going to work). You attack buildings mid-morning because everyone has arrived to work. Additionally if you are a clever terrorist you want a full day's news cycle to monopolize. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The 9/11 terrorist pilots also were flying by sight, so they needed a clear view. Additionally, there is a rush hour in the morning and another in the afternoon. The problem, from a terrorist viewpoint, is that after an attack on the afternoon authorities have plenty of time to clean until the next working day. --Mr.K. (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

what is the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli civilian deaths?
I am not looking to start any debate etc, so please no long paragraphs, just simple numbers thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Over what period? AnonMoos (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * total, since it is all recent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's little agreement on how many of the dead were civilians. For the period since 2000, our article Second Intifada has a lot of information. I don't presently have total figures going back to the '40s. Algebraist 03:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

if I'm reading the article correctly, then between 2000-2009:
 * The sources do not vary widely over the data on Israeli casualties
 * There is little dispute as to the total number of Palestinians killed by Israelis

so that we can be quite certain of the figure, which is
 * 4,745 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces

versus
 * 1,053 Israelis were killed by Palestinian attacks

so the ratio is
 * 4745:1053

or
 * 4.5:1 Palestinian vs. Israeli deaths

But what about before 2000? Are there no reliable figures for that period of time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Israeli–Palestinian conflict has some figures for further back. Algebraist 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Go back further and you'll have to define the area that constitutes Palestine - or whether there is an ethnicity question. I imagine they'll be much harder to find. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? I don't think it's that hard to define these things previous to 2000. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting analysis of the casualties of the first two and a quarter years of the so-called "al-Aqsa intifada":. Among other interesting facts, if you just count sex (male vs. female) alone, ignoring all other factors, less than 5% of Palestinian deaths during that period were female, while over 30% of Israeli deaths were female... AnonMoos (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not a statistician by any means, but, as approximately half of the Israeli Defense Force is female, one would expect there to be higher numbers on the Israeli side. I don't know how many women are in the Palestinian forces, but I doubt their numbers are anywhere close to half. "Ignoring all other factors" is not always wise. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) See comment below. // BL \\ (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the other graphs in the linked article, you will see that women soldiers does not come close to accounting for the discrepancy. AnonMoos (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find Bielle's estimate unlikely. While women make up approx. 50% of the Israeli population, I'm quite sure they don't constitute 50% of the IDF. Married women, Druze and religiously observant Jewish women are excused from service, there are far fewer women than men in the standing army, nor are the great majority of women called for reserve duty. Though combat roles for women is a recent development in the IDF and not yet all that widespread, a female soldier on active duty would be counted as a military casualty were she wounded or killed. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have any commentators given reasons to account for the discrepancy in the male/female distribution of non-combatant deaths? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems like we can't immediately rule out the possibility that most of the discrepancy can be explained by a combination of random chance, faulty data and some form of bias in the analysis. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the default "null hypothesis" is still the following: during that period, the Israelis had a much greater tendency to target combatants, while the Palestinians had a much greater tendency to be indiscriminate. AnonMoos (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A general problem here is that the IDF and Palestinian organizations are not 100% analogous. Israel repeatedly claims that a large number of Palestinian casualities are 'Hamas terrorists' (and thus 'military targets'). However, Hamas is a political movement with 10 000s of members. A Hamas member in his own family residence is not a uniformed military combattant, and bombing his residence is an attack on a civilian. The equivalent of the Israeli discourse would be if Palestinian organizations labelled all IDF reservists (i.e. virtually all adult Israelis within a certain age-span) as 'military'. --Soman (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They really don't bother to limit it to reservists; Yusuf al-Qaradawi has declared that since Israel is a militarized society, basically any attack against Israelis under any circumstances is Islamically legitimate. AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Who are 'they' in your first sentence? It seems like it ought to be Hamas, or perhaps Palestinian militant organizations in general, but then you cite a source who is not affiliated with Hamas, or even Palestinian. Algebraist 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Qaradawi is not Hamas, but his thinking with respect to a number issues (including this one) is similar to that of many in Hamas, and Qaradawi's statements are probably much more comprehensively documented in English-language sources than those of Hamas ideologues. AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Source for that claim? Algebraist 03:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Source for which claim in particular? I linked to the Qaradawi article because I knew it would be a Wikipedia page that would discuss the same line of reasoning which I've also seen expressed by Palestinians in newspaper articles from past years, newspaper articles which I didn't feel like trying to dig up when linking to the Qaradawi article was quick and easy... AnonMoos (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the claim that Hamas's thinking is similar to that of Qaradawi. Algebraist 04:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The conjectures comparing the two sides and seeking equivalencies are pointless if no adjustment is made for the highly evident and widely disparate natures of the "target" populations and means of fighting. Palestinian militant forces deliberately targeting and attacking Israeli civilian populations from within and without the borders of Israel has been a constant feature of Hamas and Hizbullah activity for decades and even as recently as a few hours ago in the Western Galilee, not far from my home. The terror effect is not adequately measured by number of fatalities. (Note: Ynetnews is an English-language web edition produced by Yedioth Aharonoth, one of Israel's mainstream dailies.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Deborahjay for providing a better look at the number of woman in the IDF. I trusted too much to the Info Box and did not read deeply enough into the article. My apologies to the readership. // BL \\ (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

from 1988 about 17122palestinans:4144 Israelis ratio  you calculate the ratio it should be noted theses are western sources that i don't trust in the Arab Israeli conflict '' This unsigned comment was added at 21:09, February 21, 2009 by User:Nightshadow 2007. ''

book title
Some once recommended a book to me but I have forgotten the title. The book is quite special as is alternates between the story and a shory commentary of the writer explaining why he wrote the preceding paragraph and what he thought when writing it. Has anyone heard of the book or read it? thanks --helohe (talk)  03:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know anything about the story? What genre?  Any specific country/ period?  The more information you give us the more likely it is that someone can find it even if they haven't read it. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov. --Richardrj talkemail 10:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's not that one, you might be able to find it in the List of metafictional works. It seems to have been a popular style in Russia.  I had gotten as far as Metanarrative, but then got stuck. Richard's link cleared that block. Thks.  --76.97.245.5 (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the list was very helpful --helohe (talk)  13:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Poetic Forms
If you create an original poem in your own words but use a form that was created by someone else, are you violating any copyright laws or infringing on any intellectual property, or are you protected because you did create your poem using all your own words?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronos46 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all you should know that we can't give you legal advice. You should talk to an Attorney.  Secondly I believe that the standard with copyright is whether you are creating a derivative work.  Derivative_work 82.124.81.10 (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're fine. See sonnet, etc. --Wetman (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The answer will likely depend on the jurisdiction, the complexity/originality/ingenuity of the form, etc. See, e.g. sweat of the brow. I can imagine a situation where the "form" of the poem may be so complex and original that the form itself will attract copyright. For example, the layout of a newspaper is a copyrightable work. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be copyrightable. If the form were a protectable piece of art, he'd be in trouble, like if you walk back and squint your eyes at the poem from 10 feet and it looks like Andy Warhol's Marilyns.  Tempshill (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A poetic literary form is not subject to copyright. --Wetman (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence for that? There's certainly no problem with the sonnet, which is not only old enough to be out of copyright, it predates the very notion of copyright by 500 years. But the situation might be different with recently invented poetic forms, like... um... have any poetic forms of note been invented in the last 100 years? The clerihew? Nope, slightly too old... -- BenRG (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends on what you call "form" I guess. A form in the sense of a genre is probably not subject to copyright, but what Tempshill described almost certainly will. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not an answer, but if form (or style or whatever) were subject to copyright then there would have been a single cubist painter, a single phantastic realist, a single space opera or a single rap musician (which may be true). You might as well suggest to pay royalties every time you use a word which has been uttered  previously by Chaucer, Shakespeare and Co.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Copyright in the U.S. applies to "original works of authorship" fixed in a tangible form of expression. Ideas, procedures, and methods are specifically excluded. To the extent that poetic forms are procedures or methods for arranging words based on elements such as stress, syllables, or sounds, the forms themselves would almost certainly not be covered by copyright.  An original expression in a form, such as a sonnet or a sestina, most likely would be.  By way of analogy, you can't copyright the idea of a diet cookbook; you could, conceivably, copyright a book of recipes written in iambic pentameter.  The original work would be the recipes themselves, not the meter.  --- OtherDave (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oil prices in Canada
(the following is moved from a talk page)

Because of the politics in Canada, can't the government get involved and regulate oil prices for the Canadian people. I still can't see how its posible that gasoline costs more in Canada than in USA when we have oil reserves that they purchase from us (which brings in loads of money). Plus our population is more than 9X smaller, so why isn't gas in Canada cheaper? After all the value of the Canadian dollar shouldn't be part of the answer (even though the American Dollar is only slightly higher in Value than the Canadian dollar) since we don't need to export anything to distribute it to the Canadian people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, perhaps Canada has fuel taxes (which are intended to pay for a lot of useful things)? Please notice that the USA is currently "addicted to oil" exactly because for decades they had plenty of cheap fuel available. IMHO this was in the long run a huge disadvantage as the car industry in particular, and the whole society in general, saw and had little reason to moderate their spending. A "tipical consumer of the rest of the world" has precious few reasons to buy a tipical fat American car that guzzles gallon after gallon. It's simply way too expensive. And AFAIK on average a person of the US spends way more fuel than a citizen of any other country whatsover. And this comes with economic and political consequences and a huge prize tag. Flamarande (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC) my own opinion and OR
 * To put it in a little perspective, Canadian's pay around/just under 1 Canadian Dollar per litre (about 55p GBP) compared with 90p - £1 in Britain. Here, the government doesn't get involved because it already is - to the tune of around 70% of the pump price. Besides, there's a definite conflict between a) maintaining relations in the Middle East (considering they can double world oil prices overnight), b) maintaining 'green credentials', c) making money and d) not wishing to interfere in commercial processes, which generally shouldn't be messed with. You may wish to see this source from about 6 months ago. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Canada has very little final good (gasoline, jet fuel, heating oil) refining capacity. Most refineries (see List of oil refineries, Canada section) exist to get dirty crude up to standard for international sale.  Much actual gasoline production takes place in the Gulf region of the US.  Being an internationally traded and standardized commodity, (traded @ the NYMEX), any significant price differences between Canadian and international prices would encourage arbitrage.  Domestic producers would buy or sell into international markets when prices were significantly different.
 * Canada does, however, interefere in other ways. Most major cities include very large (10 cent/litre +) provincial transit taxes and municipal levies.  BC has a provincial carbon tax.  Farm fuel [] programs subsidize agricultural gasoline. NByz (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is yet another matter: the price of oil is not just one price.  Right now a very unusual thing has happened -- "West Texas Intermediate", the light, sweet, "good" oil that is generally preferred, and generally more expensive, is ten bucks a barrel cheaper than the heavier, more sulfurous oil produced elsewhere, including Canada.  The reason is that demand has fallen off in the U.S. and the stuff has been filling up huge storage tanks, while demand for this oil elsewhere has not fallen off as much -- and there aren't enough pipelines to move the different grades around.  So prices of the different oil grades have gone upside down.  For a while, at least, this may be a factor in gas price differential.  Curiously, a lot of U.S. gasoline comes from "Brent" crude, which is from the North Sea, and is refined on the East Coast.  Here is a recent AP news item on it.  Antandrus  (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Canada certainly could regulate gas prices if it wanted to, but there are some serious downsides to doing so; capping prices would reduce government income if international prices rose, and might result in the price having to be subidised if they went high enough (including subsidising the Americans who came across the border to buy it). The questioner seems to be assuming that low gas prices are a good thing, and that's not necessarily true. If nothing else high gas prices encourage people to reduce consumption which is good for the planet and reduces dependency on foreign imports. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Any economist will tell you that price-fixing distorts consumers' incentives by masking the true costs, and thus results in consumption patterns inconsistent with the efficiency principle, i.e. the goal of getting the most benefit out of the resources available. If you're an oil producer and you find that you can't sell gasoline above $X, you'll divert your oil to some other use, even if the consumers want gasoline enough that they'd pay more for it if it were on offer.  Thus you get a shortage of gasoline and over-production of something else.  —Tamfang (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good topic for an argumentative paper
I am currently working on my second argumentative paper for my college English class and the third one is right around the corner. We chose our own topic for the first one and were assigned one for our second. We can choose our own topic for the third one, but I am out of ideas. I was thinking about doing something history-related like my first paper on the origins of the Kaifeng Jews. Perhaps on the first crusade. Can anyone think of something that I could convincingly argue and find supporting sources for? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind a lot of work "effects of the Mongol Empire on conquered territories" would be something not everyone does and there are definitely two opinions on that one. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For the First Crusade, you could argue about whether the crusaders were motivated by greed or religion, which is a standard question in crusade history. Thanks largely to me, our article is currently a useless mess, but it should be easy to find arguments either way. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Easy. Free will or determinism?  Tempshill (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Adam and Tempshill's suggestions lend themselves to the classic essay conclusion 'that's a false dichotomy'. I don't know if that would be appropriate for whatever you mean by 'an argumentative paper' though. Algebraist 16:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah but if I remember classes like that correctly, they weren't about being logically consistent, they were more about developing essay-writing skills. Like debate clubs, where the goal is to learn how to speak in public. (But this is probably why public figures can only speak or write in false dichotomies...) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where I come from, at least, the ability to critically attack the question is an essay-writing skill. Algebraist 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But you're British and therefore inherently more sophisticated! Over here we are constrained by the five paragraph essay! (And contrary to the article, the middle three parts are usually "repeat whatever you read".) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Five paragraphs might (just) be an essay for a first-former, but not beyond. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the paragraphs are really enormous? That could be even worse, though… Algebraist 22:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. Algebraist, these essays are double-spaced, so the paragraphs are not as big as you would think. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WWI Survivors
Were there any soldiers who were at the Front Line on the first day of WWI as well as on the last day (i.e. from the first moment that that army was in the war right to the end, besides armies that joined later, such as the US), and survived?--KageTora (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly there were people who were in the armed forces for all combatants at both the start and end of WWI, however it is kinda hard to define the "start" of the war, as hostilities began in different places at different times. Considering that some 70-80 million military personel fought in these wars, it is entirely likely that many people were on active duty for the full 4+ years of the war, probably hundreds of thousands, if not several million.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One of my books states that Corporal Edward Thomas, the first British troop to fire a shot in the war, survived until the Armistice. Hope this helps.-- Neo  Nerd  21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Most armies rotate their soldiers at the front lines. No sane general would let one guy directly at the frontlines for 4 years. A few weeks (or days) fighting and then some time away from the front. --Michael Sch. (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)