Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 14

= October 14 =

Sundays in Israel
According to Judaism,no one should work on Sundays.What do they define as "work"? Does the Israeli Army work on Sundays?Adi4094 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The day of rest in Judaism is Saturday, not Sunday - see Shabbat for more information. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See Pikuach nefesh. I expect the army tries to avoid non-urgent work on the Sabbath, but urgent work required to protect life (which is the main purpose of a standing army) would be allowed. --Tango (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, not everyone in the Israeli Armed Forces is very Orthodox. They might not even all be Jewish religion.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For an ignorant (and disastrous) miscalculation based on similar premises, see Yom Kippur War.--Wetman (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When I lived elsewhere for uni one of my flatmates (who had lived for a time in a kibbutz in Israel) said that the only place he could buy cigarettes on a Saturday was the shop on the army base. I don't know if the army base shop was open to everyone on a Saturday, or if it was closed to Jews but he was allowed to shop there on a Saturday because he was quite obviously not Israeli. JoeTalkWork 23:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As has been noted above, Israel being a Jewish state observes the Sabbath on Saturday, or more precisely: from Friday evening to nightfall on Saturday. The IDF, like hospitals, police, and similar institutions, operates on a limited basis during those hours. Shops and places of entertainment may be open or not, depending on various considerations that include kashruth observance (for restaurants), proprietors' preference, local ordinances, etc.; some reopen on Saturday night. Public transportation such as bus companies and the national train service don't operate, but private taxi companies offer limited or full service. The lack of public transportation for the non-Jewish and secular Jewish populations is particularly vexing for Israelis in those public schools and other sectors of the economy that still maintain a 5-1/2 or 6-day work week and thus have a comparably reduced "weekend." -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mamma Mia
Who is the model in the advertisement of Mamma Mia musical? (The bride)~ Slmking (talk • contribs) 12:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be Lisa Stokke, who played the character Sophie (the bride) in the original London cast, and who sings on the soundtrack CD (which also features the same photo). Google Images results for Stokke shows she resembles the ad (more, I think, than Tina Maddigan, who played the same character in the Broadway opening). But I've not found definative evidence; perhaps someone with the CD can check the sleeve notes. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally this would be something I'd expect to see either in the Mamma_Mia! article or the Mamma Mia! Original Cast Recording one, so I've asked at Talk:Mamma_Mia! -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific about which advertisement you mean?--Shantavira|feed me 13:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * S/he probably means this . And I would certainly go along with Mr. McWalter on this one. Caesar&#39;s Daddy (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

world history
As a     result of the French Revolution a five - person law enforcement body was later establised. OUESTION /? What was its name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.249 (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See French Revolution. Falconus p t   c 14:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) There were several such bodies created during the French Revolution by the revolutionary government or arms thereof, some of which worked together and some worked against each other. The most prominent were the nine member Committee of Public Safety, which became something of the de facto executive branch of the revolutionary government, and the similar named Committee of General Security. There was also the Revolutionary Tribunal, which was the de facto judicial court of the revolution. There were likely others, as various factions within the Revolutionary government (the Montagnards, the Girondists, the Jacobins) and at various times each established committees or bodies to do various things in the government. See our articles on French Revolution and the various sub-articles for more info. The Reign of Terror was a very confused time, and at times there was near anarchy in most of France. -- Jayron  32  14:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Homework? TastyCakes (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The answer you're looking for is likely the Directoire.--Xuxl (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

searching for architectural information
As part of a project I am working on, I need to gather a lot of research on a particular site, that of the Leca da Palmieras in Portugal, but, so far all I have found are dozens of photos of the area, and as yet have little idea about how it works, access routes, locations of various rooms, and such like, or about the land around it, in particular I would like to have a detailed contour map or the surrounding area.

So, does anyone know anywhere that I can get at this information, for example labelled plans or sections of the site, maps of the area, perhaps even any previous archtectural studies there, but without actually going all the way to Portugal. Anything but more photos of the nice views around there.

148.197.114.207 (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you just been searching on the internet, or have you visited the library of the nearest college with an architecture department and asked the librarian there for books or materials in their architecture collection related to your search? I have found things in a good architecture library which are not found on the internet. The particular things you seek are unlikely to be available (especially free) online. If you are a student there, they should also be able to get materials for you through interlibrary loan. Edison (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have looked both on the internet and in the library, neither seems to have anything much specific to this one building. Would there be somewhere a complete set of plans, perhaps copies of those used in the actual designing and building, that I could get at? 148.197.114.207 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Start with the spelling  Leca da Palmeira.--Wetman (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has just a stub article Leça da Palmeira. Wikimapia provides a map and satellite image of the location. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Geography question
which landform (one of the largest of its type in the world) is shown in most maps as  dissected by a dashed imaginary line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.88.204 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this homework question a trick question? I can think of at least two. Livewireo (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can think of a river, several lakes, a continent and an island. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Either a homework question, or more likely a trivia question which the IP probably already knows the answer to. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A more interesting bit of trivia would be the largest landform bisected by a real dashed line. Inquiring minds want to know! &mdash; Lomn 18:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Struve Geodetic Arc? Kinda... Fribbler (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought the answer would be "Africa" which is "dissected" (assuming this means "bisected") by the imaginary equator. But if the OP couldn't figure that out alone, either the answer is not as obvious as that, or kids these days! Adam Bishop (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * New Guinea/Papua New Guinea? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...or North America, since it's not a question of bisected. Or the Chukchi Sea and the International Date Line. Or...--Wetman (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ...or the Pacific Ocean, or whatever... Marco polo (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The lines that usually match what is described are usually the lines of latitude known as the Equator, the Arctic Circle, the Antarctic Circle, the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn as well as the longitudinal Greenwich Meridian and the International Date Line. Of these, the that most likely meets the OP's criteria (disecting or bisecting a large landmass) is the Tropic of Capricorn which divides Australia neatly in half.  -- Jayron  32  20:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Landform (continent) Dissected (divided) = Continental Divide; dashed imaginary line = File:NorthAmericaDivides.gif. is my best referenced guess -- Preceding unsigned  comment  01:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll vote for Greenland and the Artic Circle. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the Landform page says oceans count, and the Tropic of Capricorn is often shown as a dashed line, I'm going with the Pacific Ocean. Pfly (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * which landform (one of the largest of its type in the world) is shown in most maps as  dissected by a dashed imaginary line?
 * My answer: the continent.
 * Continents are the largest type of landform generally recognized.
 * In most maps, continents are subdivided (not strictly "dissected", since that implies an investigation, but anyway) by political borders. Political borders are often represented on maps by dashed lines -- in particular, that's the most common way of showing sub-national borders.  And you don't get much more imaginary than political borders: while some follow physical geography, none are required by physical features alone.  They all stem from the human mind, and our social tendency to organize into concepts of ingroup and outgroup.  --M @ r ē ino 16:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

BeKoF intro.....
We are just a bunch of emo hiphop vampires brid...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.183.133 (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you a question? --ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Trolling, trolling, trolling, keep them doggies trolling, rawhide! DOR (HK) (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

MEITEISM
Typically a small religious group based in Manipur, INDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.183.133 (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you a question? --ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * He may be asking about the Meitei people of Manipur, India, quite possibly their religion (see: Meitei_people). -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Like many beginner or less resourced english speakers, the OP may not yet have learnt the quite complex syntax/grammar of how to ask questions in english. Similarly with how to be polite in english. So please be forgiving and helpful. 92.29.118.227 (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Youngest voting age
Which country has the youngest voting age? Are there any countries which allow people to vote who are under 18? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Check Voting age the lowest I can see is 16 - though seems Iran was 15 until 2007. ny156uk (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just heard on the radio this morning that the Shia party in Iraq is holding a primary where they're allowing 15-year-olds to vote, but in the general election, you have to be 18. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther King's wife
Is Martin Luther King's wife black or white? For the images we have mrs King is white. Do she have any rlatives which is black, or is she just white?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Coretta Scott King is was most definately a black woman. Being black has little to do with skin tone, and the concept of Race is pretty much bullshit anyways. She comes from black american culture, other people respond responded to her as though she is a black woman, and she self identifies self-identified as black. Counting up her "white" ancestors, should it be found one way or the other if she indeed had some, would have zero bearing on whether or not she should be considered black. -- Jayron  32  20:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Jayron's comments but would point out that Mrs. King, sadly, has passed away, so any discussion of her should be in the past tense. Marco polo (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So noted and corrected. -- Jayron  32  20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To offer a little more explanation: the reason why many African-Americans are much lighter-skinned than the average, um, African-African, is that during the History of slavery in the United States it was fairly common for white male slave-owners or overseers to have sex with black female slaves. It's not exactly what we'd call sexual slavery today, but it certainly wasn't consensual, since after all these women were slaves.  Of course, there were also a lot of "black" people who were the product of perfectly happy interracial marriages, too, but children of legitimate relationships like that are fairly likely to self-identify as mulatto or biracial, whereas children of white-slave relations were almost always considered blacks, and slaves, in the eyes of society and the law (there was even a legal latin term for it:Partus sequitur ventrem).  --M @ r ē ino 16:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of order: I know of no one in the USA today who would self-identify as "mulatto." It's considered a rather pejorative term. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

black and white
From this site said black man to go together with white women is 2.65 time slikely than white man to go together with white women, but they didn't say what happen in 2007. I live in the south central side of orange county, let's just say south of irvine, and my whole life I've never found any white man marry black women. The articles OP last time link is people born in the 1910s, and 1930s and marry like around the 1940s. These is obviously obsolete. Those guys they gave me is at least in the 70s right now, some is decease. I'm wondering about the 2008 consensus of black/white intermarriage.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what question you are trying to ask. Can you please ask your question more clearly?  Marco polo (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict with Marco Polo)Of course, you are a sample size of 1, and you your personal experiences would have little bearing on actual occurrances. You asked this same question two weeks ago: and you got a series of responses which clearly showed that your personal experience could not really be translated to a greater statement of truth. People came up with half a dozen examples of celebrities that matched the black wife/white husband pattern; if we were to count up non-famous people you would likely find many many many many more. Being located in a small part of one county in one metropolitan area does not mean that because you have never experienced it; that it doesn't exist. In my small high school in New Hampshire I had two biracial classmates; one had a black mother and a white father, the other the other way around. But I would never attempt to make any broad statements about statistics in this area from my small experience. -- Jayron  32  20:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese "culture" question (maybe it's not really about culture)
How come the Chinese don't have a concept similar to the Japanese gaijin and the Korean weiguk? Or do they? --80.123.210.172 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course they do. That both those terms are etymologically Sino-Japanese/Sino-Korean should give you a clue.
 * The formal term for foreigners - depending on context, with many of the same connotations as "gaijin" - is waiguoren 外国人. Notice that the same characters are used in gaijin/weiguk. Colloquially, you will find parallels in the Cantonese Gweilo, and the northern Chinese Laowai. Those articles may be helpful. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe because of size of China and its history, Chinese people has always been rather hetrogenous in languages and cultures among its people. The Japanese sense of "in" and "out" groups are unheard of.  --Chan Tai Man 21:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)
 * The concepts of ingroup and outgroup are universals of human psychology, found in every culture in the world. -- BenRG (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True, however it's fair to say that some cultures are more accepting of outsiders or define their ingroup more loosely. Among cultures of large societies, Japanese culture defines its ingroup relatively strictly and is relatively closed to outsiders.  My sense is that this is less true of China, particularly in coastal cities.  I don't know enough about Korea to compare it.  Marco polo (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm white European and I live in Melbourne Australia which is a very multicultural city. I have both Chinese and Japanese friends and both gaijin and gweilo are terms we frequently use in jest. Two other jokular terms I like are banana and egg, a banana is a yellow person who is really white on the inside and an egg is a white person who's yellow in the middle. Of course you have to be a little careful you don't offend anyone, but generally most people here anyway are pretty hip, probably because it is such a mixing pot, you wouldn't get far if you were really racist. Vespine (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How did they take to the Jackson Jive sketch? --71.111.194.50 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you that you must renounce your citizenship to become a citizen of China, so it seems they (at least the government officials) aren't all that comfortable with cosmopolitanism. Vranak (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just like the US then. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? If that were the case, then how do you explain the birthers trying to claim that Obama has both US and Kenyan/British citizenship?  Winston Churchill had both US and UK citizenship.  Are you really trying to claim that there is no such thing as an American citizen with dual or multiple citizenship?  99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As an example: my boyfriend was born in Canada to American parents. He has both Canadian and American citizenship. However, while Canada recognizes his dual-citizenship, the USA does not: he is considered only an American citizen. So, it's a matter of which government you ask to determine if he has dual-citizenship. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Cantonese Gweilo (ghost/spirit – elder / honorific) is not the same as the Putonghua (Mandarin) Laowai (elder/honorific-foreign /outsider), and generally is considered to be much more derogatory than Laowai. More along the lines of Da Bizi (big-nose). DOR (HK) (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends on context and location. Here (in Australia), gweilo is most often the colloquial term for "white person", or, depending on the context, Anglo-Saxon white person; sometimes used jocularly but usually neutrally (and not pejoratively) - and is used in most dialects of Chinese, not just Cantonese.
 * I confess I've never heard Da Bizi used in real life - is it a northern Chinese thing? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more of an old thing. Although Chinese still joke about the big noses of foreigners, Da Bizi is generally only a nickname used by people who have it as an inside joke. In Shanghai 'laowai' is the most common, followed by the more literal 'waiguoren'. Steewi (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I live in NE China and not a week goes by that a young child walking with their parent(s) doesn't point at me and exclaim in surprise "waiguoren!" ... I always immediately point right back and exclaim with the same surprise "zhongguoren!" (Chinese person!) ... that usually puts their reality through a blender. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did that too. It was totally worth it for the stunned look on their faces, and the insane giggling that eventually followed. Steewi (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

PalaceGuard008, every single time I've heard someone say "Gweilo is only offensive in a certain context," or something like that, the situation is an ethnic Chinese person "correcting" a (usually) White person. In other words, what Chinese might think is not too offensive may well be very offensive to non-Chinese.
 * 218.25, Steewi, I had exactly the same situation, and response, in Taiwan some 30 years ago. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Pay Palestinians
This is not the place to argue the Israel-Palestine conflict. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. However you have interrupted my suggestion to move to email so I will post it here.
 * Not reference to user name, but to sir name. However, this discussion should continue by other medium than the reference desk, perhaps by email. Muslim communities exist peacefully in the US and do not seek dominance by force of other religious communities due to separation of church and state and a more powerful and dominant state which tolerates various religious belief but not all religious practice. China has found a way to allow the existence of Capitalism in a Communist state. To permit peace in the region and worldwide will require a balance that only statehood for Palestine can provide in the presence of statehood for Israel. The sane world recognizes this. Both the House of Peace and the House of the Sword recognize this. Israel can give up statehood to separate church and state or acknowledge statehood for Palestine to achieve peace. Otherwise Israel risks becoming the victim of the House of the Sword with much of the rest of the world in tow. Be reasonable. You can not have your cake and eat it too. 71.100.5.245 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Correspondent: Pay Taliban $20 a day not to fight By David Edwards and Daniel Tencer Monday, October 12th, 2009 -- 8:59 am

Could Israel pay Palestinians not to fight? 71.100.5.245 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This concept was discussed in Vietnam too. It didn't work there either. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Israel is not really fighting a war against tens of thousands of soldiers. It's fighting terrorists, who are fewer in number but more committed to their cause, whatever that is. Terrorists are often from middle-class families. One may join an army for the money, but one becomes a suicide bomber only because of fierce ideological or religious devotion. It's worth noting that the Palestinians receive more foreign aid per capita than any other entity in the world (or at least they did before Iraq and Afghanistan became part of the U.S. budget) -- and the Israelis get lots of money from the U.S. -- but this has not convinced them to stop fighting. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that along with the 72 virgins Muslims are promised their families will receive a ton of cash. Maybe this is just in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other predominantly Muslim countries but if applicable to Palestinians it would seem like cash might work. Just compensation perhaps (versus bribe) for Jewish people (re)-claiming the historic father/mother land by force. 71.100.5.245 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm distressed at the lack of references we are giving our OP. Please provide references when you give answers.  Further, you're way oversimplifying.  This link, for example, the 2nd Google hit on "terrorist recruitment", quotes some think tank guy as saying: Among Somali Americans, the refugee experience of fleeing a war-torn country combined with isolation, perceived discrimination, marginalization and frustrated expectations as well as local, criminal, familial and clan dynamics, make some members of this community more susceptible to this sort of extremist influence.


 * Bugs may be referring to the "Barcalounger" column by Cecil Adams who in 1991 explored paying off the Viet Cong instead of fighting them. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Mwalcoff is absolutely correct -- Muslims cannot be paid to restrain themselves unless it's on their terms, and as the wages likely won't be set by an Islamic court of religious law, the odds of it working out are virtually none.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 23:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that offering them a bribe would only make them angrier and more determined. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's almost impossible to bribe a whole people into accepting the conquest of their land. Not by giving them something like $20 anyway - perhaps if you institute a democratic system of fair and efficient government, give them indoor plumbing, roads, amphitheatres, gladiators, the alphabet and magnificent baths... maybe then.
 * Their land?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the catalyst for recruiting terrorists it monetary, but the root cause that drives people to become terrorists almost certainly aren't. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh boy. Err... thanks for breaking up my post... I'm not getting into that one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Palestinian National Charter asserts that "Jewish claims of historic ties to Palestine are inconsistent with the facts of history and what constitutes statehood" -- completely ignoring that prior to usurping the title, "Palestinian" referred to Jews of the land. The Palestine Regiment of the British Mandate was composed of Jews.  The Palestinian Talmud referred to that Oral Law canonized in the Land of Israel, as opposed to that which was codified in modern-day Iraq, which is called the Babylonian Talmud.  It's because people don't want to get into that that such widespread revisionist history propaganda is disseminated so easily.   DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Giving aid in a conflict zone needs to be done very carefully. If they get money because they are fighting then in effect they are paid to fight and that is what they will do. Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The strategy was used by the US more or less effectively in Iraq (see Awakening movements), but context is incredibly important. For example the Sunni militia had more reason than money to side with the US forces: they were fighting some common enemies.  They were also less purely driven by ideology than real terrorist organizations.
 * I think giving people economic opportunities can help stem terrorist recruiting, so maybe Israel would be well served by spending more money on development and improving quality of life for Palestinians, but that's another issue. Rckrone (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick search on /terrorists middle class/ found this interesting paper on the relationship between poverty, education and support for terrorism or participation in terrorist activities in the Middle East. Interesting factoids: Poor Lebanese are less likely to become Hezbollah fighters than non-poor Lebanese. Better-educated Lebanese are more likely to become Hezbollah fighters than less-educated Lebanese. Poor Palestinians are less likely to become suicide bombers than non-poor Palestinians. Suicide bombers are better-educated than the average Palestinian. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Those sound like very scary statistics so I wonder if there is something else going on here. What possible differences in thinking could render such results? 71.100.5.245 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You can pay a lot of cash to "buy" the loyalty of an enemy military leader and make him surrender. It may work (or not: honor and pride, in culture-specific forms, are usually highly regarded among military people, and this kind of deal would be considered treason at any army), but even if it does, subordinates are likely to riot against their masters and choose other leaders, even more radical than those. MBelgrano (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is key. Afghanistan is a tribal society, you don't have to pay off every member of a certain tribe, you just have to get their leader "on board".  Doing that may include a number of things, direct financial support among them.  TastyCakes (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is to keep him on board. Not so trustworthy from the looks of things.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is like the unsuccessful Land for peace formula without the Land. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because the Land for peace formula didn't take into consideration the root of the specific Palestinian (and general Islamic) attitude towards Jews.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is a general Islamic attitude towards the Jews. Islam is a diverse faith, and I don't think there is anything inherent in Islam that makes the Israeli-Palistinian situation intractable on religious grounds.  The situation is intractable for purely political reasons.  The state of Isreal was established because the Jewish nation was a stateless people, and needed/desired a state to become full participants in the international world.  The lack of a national homeland was one of the root causes of the sort of Anti-semitism that led to the Holocaust.  The problem is that the land on which they established their national state, kinda already had people living on it.  The intractable nature of the problem is a) The Jewish People needed a national homeland b) The Palestinian people who were already living there have rights too.  This is a prickly issue because both sides have a point in the issue, and it requires one side or the other to give up something of which they have every right to keep, but are willing to give it up anyways, in order to be resolved.  That is the intractable nature of it; neither side is particularly wrong on the basic premise of their positions.  Where one side or the other goes wrong is in the actions they take to defend their position.  -- Jayron  32  03:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears as though you are reciting the common rhetoric that has been promulgated by the media over the last few decades, and in concert with WP:AGF and my general perception of your quality as an editor, I do not put any blame on you for failing to uncover the aforementioned ruse. The media will have you believe that the issue is a political one based on what is commonly known as "the occupation" of the Shomron...Judea and Samaria, commonly referred to in modern parlance as the West Bank, the Golan Heights, Gaza.  If only Israel would withdraw and end the occupation, everything would be wonderful.  In reality, though, such a resolution (and unfortnately, all peace processes to date focus on this) would only solve the issue if, in fact, the occupation that began following the 1967 Six Day War was the cause of such tension.  But the Six Day War was a pre-emptive strike against the act of war committed by Iran (blockade of international waterway, such as the Straights of Tehran, is an act of war) taht resulted in Israel taking control of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip.  We had this war before an occupation existed -- Egypt and Syria created the United Arab Republic with the overtly declared intent to destroy the State of Israel.  It cannot be, then that the cause of something (occupation) happens after its effect (Arab hatred) -- this is sort of what's not clear to the majority of the world's population.
 * So then some say it was not 1967, but 1948, that caused a rift. That does not explain why there were riots in Tel Aviv-Jaffa in 1921 or  pogroms/riots in 1929 in Hebron -- the source of the hatred must therefor go back further than that.  One could claim that it began in the late 1800's when the Zionist movement began and thousands upon thousands of Jews began emigrating to the region.  But if one looks at population levels at the time, they reflect that the more the Jewish population increased, the more the Muslim population increased.  That's because, prior to the Jews moving there, there was little to no agriculture, industry, science and modern medicine, modern education, commerce, bringing that area into the 20th century.
 * But Jews were discriminated against even prior to that. Jews who lived in Muslim countries were called dhimmis -- second class citizens who were forced to pay jizya-tribute in order to practice their reliigous views -- based on sura 3 in the Koran, that those who do not believe in Allah must "grab a rope from Allah and a rope from man."  (Islamic Anti-Semitism, Why the Jews, Telushkin + Praeger)  Jews are not allowed to have independent rule, and this cannot have anything to do with the establishment of the State of Israel, which came many, many years later.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 19:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are referring to history as if it should carry the weight in a decision yet as an Israeli Jew surely you must know the Jewish people spent 40 years in the desert specifically to rid the ways of the past from the doings of the following generations. Although my parents were Democrats and I respect and support the principles for which they stood I do not and can not serve my fellow man as an employee. So I think the present and coming generations of both Jews and Palestinians have the same opportunity to embrace for themselves a way of life which while honoring and giving respect to the past does that which needs to be done to make the present and future independent of the past in their own lives as I have done with mine without disrespect to my mom and dad or those which came before. 71.100.5.245 (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is poor and your argument is without merit. The Palestinian National Charter asserts that Israel has no right to exist because the Jews are a religion and not a nation, and that any ties to the land are either inconsequential or absent.  That's a complete revision of history, as is most of what they state about the Israelis.  Are you suggesting that what happened before today should not be a factor in deciding what happens tomorrow?  And -- I am not an Israeli.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider that recognition of fact is not argument. Consider that my name suggests I am descended from the Jews before Hebrew was created, if not in fact, in spirit. Consider 9/11 was the result of the need to wake the world in support of the Palestinian cause. Consider the need to avoid its repetition with nuclear followed by biological and chemical weapons. Consider the effect of 9/11 to cause withdrawal of support for Israel in favor of support for statehood of the Palestinian people. Consider the possibility of peaceful transition to Palestinian statehood to overcome a commitment of their supporters to nuclear, biological and chemical war. 71.100.5.245 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you talking about? Your name is a 9-digit number.  9/11 has nothing more to do with the Palestinian cause than it does with the general Islamic attitude towards everything non-Muslim.  In Muslim tradition, there are two domains: Dar al-Islam (House of Peace) and Dar al-Harb (House of the Sword).  Those domains in which Muslims dominate are referred to by the former term, while those domains not yet under Muslim domination are termed the latter -- "not yet" because Jihad is proscribed for all regions not under Islamic law, in order to conquer and transform them.  While Jews constitute a thorn in the side of Islam, Christians are also dhimmis and their pervasive presence and success without Muslim control similarly constitutes a target for Islamic conquest.  Those who fail to recognize the belligerence of traditional Islam fail to recognize a serious threat -- one that is integral to the Islamic faith.  The world's problems will not be solved by giving the Arabs land, money or anything else short of overarching authority.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 00:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Fear of one's betters
I'd be interested in reading a bit of serious sociological (or management?) research into the reluctance (or so it has often seemed to me) of people (I'll call them X) making personnel decisions to employ people (Y) who could well be seen, or could justifiably see themselves, as distinctly better qualified or more competent than themselves (X). (Sorry for the syntactic/stylistic ineptitude, but I've only just woken up.) Any authors, key terms, or other pointers for me? -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If I'm understanding your question correctly, the common term is "hiring your replacement": hiring a subordinate who is qualified to do your own job. I don't know if researchers use a different term or not. --Carnildo (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the try, but no, not quite. Let's suppose that a high school in an English-speaking country has classes in German and that one of the four teachers of German is due to retire. The school advertises for an additional teacher and the three or four teachers of German are charged with the choice among the applicants. None of the four, and none of the applicants, is a native speaker of German. The four know that they have, and suspect that the applicants have, varying degrees of pedagogic skill. Two of the four often stumble when attempting to converse in German and even the better two have pronunciation that would immediately sound odd (or charming) to native ears. Their own academic backgrounds are less than stellar. The applicants all have relevant masters degrees from English-language countries, but one applicant also has a doctorate from Germany. My hunch is that this one applicant will make some of the current teachers feel distinctly queasy. They certainly won't say "He'd show me/us up as relatively incompetent in German" and they may not even think it; but they'd find other hints in the CV to support worries that he "might not fit in", a notion that could gain agreement with remarkable speed. (This would be in addition to the openly expressible notion that he's overqualified and thus might get a job at a university, in industry, or in a better school after an annoyingly short time. Although of course it could be expressed as this.) &para; I freely admit that I don't know what I'm talking about; I merely have anecdotal evidence and would like to edjicate myself. (Oh, and my German is virtually non-existent.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the chapter on "Injelititis" in Parkinson's Law. Unlike some of Professor C. Northcote Parkinson's other phrases, neither "Injelititis" nor "Injelitance" (Incompetence plus Jealousy) became part of common discourse, but some of the ideas come close to what you're describing. For example,"The injelitant individual is easily recognizable at this stage from the persistence with which he struggles to eject all those abler than himself, as also from his resistance to the appointment or promotion of anyone who might prove abler in course of time. He dare not say, 'Mr Asterisk is too able,' so he says, 'Asterisk? Clever, perhaps—but is he sound? I incline to prefer Mr Cypher.' He dare not say, 'Mr Asterisk makes me feel small,' so he says, 'Mr Cypher appears to me to have the better judgement.' — p. 95 of the John Murray edition (London, 1958); p. 81 (Chapter 8) of the Houghton Mifflin Sentry edition (Boston, 1957). —— Shakescene (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)"


 * Hah! That's pretty good. Of course it's insufficiently nuanced and doesn't even purport to be scientific, but at least it gives me a search term or two. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call this 'fear of one's betters' -- it's more along the lines of self-preservation. I mean, how critical will it be if your company could be running 8% more efficiently, if you don't even have a job there? Vranak (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't be too likely to lose your job in that situation, just be less likely to get promoted. It's just selfishness, really - people do what will benefit them, rather than the company, and I guess you can't really blame them. --Tango (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If John the upper manager doesn't do what's in John the upper manager's best interest, no one else will! So good on him for protecting his interests. I don't want him to lose his wife and kids and more than he does! Vranak (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean might is right? That's fascism. 78.151.123.102 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If John the upper manager is in a position to hire or to not hire certain people, then yes, his 'might makes right', you could say. You could also say that a company has no place for people who don't fit in. That means people who are too smart, who have too much integrity, and so on. The idea that people of merit deserve any job they apply to is pure lunacy. Companies want warm bodies, not supple minds. Vranak (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That view fulfills the definition of the "Injelititis" mentioned above. I've met people like that, they really exist. 78.151.108.233 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily a zero-sum game. One can try to do what is in the interest of the greater good while still endeavoring to protect one's own interests. Of course this is unlikely, in practice. Bus stop (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It could be called "fear of one's fears," because it can take on a wide variety of forms, all of which involve fear of that which one is personally insecure about. A superior may not like you for non job related reasons. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The minimisation of personal jealousy as a powerful rule of behaviour and evaluation of others is something that occurs in many/most walks of life, particularly in people who have not learnt to behave with professionalism. Including educational settings. This rule seems to be a fundamental part of machismo and/or authopritarian and/or bully and/or working-class culture (and a maladaption as using it does not make things better, so working-class/authoritarian/machismo/bully cultures stay like that). A number of writers have commented on working-class people being very sensitive to the slightest suggestion of "superiority" of the subject, which comes to the same thing. Rather than the theorectical ideal of evaluating people entirely on their objective merits, it is the inverse of jealousy that is measured, especially how loyal to the assessor the subject will be. (The assessor desperately needs supporters to reinforce and confirm his/her position of power, and will severely punish all traces of realk or potential disloyalty, such as for example someone who is not a passive only-do-what-I'm-ordered-nothing-more supporter but shows initiative, which is seen by the assessor as dangerous insubordination as the subject could obtain some power and put the assessor in jeopardy). Not directly relevant to the OP, but aggresive management-by-fear leaders like to create an in-group and an out-group, or perhaps just an outcast. The out-group supplies victims for the leader to demonstrate that the leader/bully is aggressive and punative and not someone you should even think of messing with, and also (in the warped immature minds of bullies) gives the leader prestige as a hero who increases the esteem of the in-group by humiliating or worse the out-group. There can be a war between people with authoritarian and professional leanings in an organisation. Not sure what it would be referred to as in research literature - ego defense? Cognitive dissonance as applied to the self? There are also lists of biases somewhere on Wikipedia and many of them may apply to this situation. I've never heard of anyone researching the sociology or psychology of jealousy, but it would be very interesting. 78.151.123.102 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Aristophobia?--Wetman (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)