Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 18

= December 18 =

Admission question
"The students were selected from 6,103 early admission candidates, the largest restricted early application pool in Stanford's history." from this link. What I don't understand is the "restricted early application pool". What if there are 10,000 applications then what would happen? How are they going to reduce that number to 6,103? If they had to read through all 10,000 applications to reduce it to 6,103 applications then isn't it pretty much the same as what would eventually happen to any of the other application? Eventually only around less than 2,000 will get admitted.184.97.227.164 (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it means they got 6103 candidates who applied before the early admissions deadline. If next year they get 10,000 then that will be the new record.  RudolfRed (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with RudolfRed, I don't understand why you think the pool needs to be a certain number. I can't see anything in that link, nor in these  links which describe the process, easily found from a search, to suggests there's a limited number of applications they will even consider. The fact that the is a record suggests there's no limit. If you're wondering why it's "restrictive", the Stanford links seems to suggest it's because there are limitations on what else applicants can do if they apply for restrictive early application. A quick search finds Early action which confirms the meaning of "restrictive". Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, the word "restricted" is pretty confusing. If it means as what you're saying then "largest early application pool in Stanford's history" should have been a better way to say it.184.97.227.164 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. If Stanford has previously allowed non restrictive early applications and they had a larger pool at least once, then your statement would be incorrect but their statement remains correct. If they have never had a large pool, then both statements are correct, but it's arguably helpful to include the word "restrictive" to clarify that what Stanford has is a restrictive early application pool, not a non restrictive one. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claim is if someone applied early then there will be some sort of limitation? Like what? I would think the application process is all the same either for early or regular. Maybe really small different that doesn't make any difference beside the fact that one is early and one is regular.184.97.227.164 (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely understand what you're saying now. The point is there are limitations on what you can do if you apply under a restrictive early application process such as used at Stanford. This is described in the links I've provided but basically applicants cannot apply under another early whatever process (other early applications restrictive or not, early decision and early notification) with another university if they apply under a restrictive one. In the Stanford case there are several exceptions, namely any foreign university and any public university in the US, as well as for scholarships or special programmes and also any non-binding rolling admission process. Again this is described in the links so I'm uncertain why this is still confusing to you, as it sounds like you have a decent level of English comprehension. I'm not sure whether the Stanford exceptions are common or not but either way it doesn't seem to matter here. Stanford could obviously have a non restrictive early application process and allow their early applications to apply under other early processes at universities without restriction from Stanford (other universities may still have restrictive early application processes preventing people from apply to both Stanford and them, but that's not Stanford's fault) but they don't at the current time. If they did ever have such a process and ever had a larger pool, then your suggested statement is inherently incorrect whereas Stanford's statement is not (presuming they are right and it is the largest pool when they've has a restrictive early action process). If they have never had a larger pool (whether or not they ever had a non restrictive early application process) then your suggested statement would be okay and would clarify they never had a larger early application pool ever but also does not mention they currently use restrictive early application process. There may be the odd person confused by the "restrictive" part, but I'm guessing it's primarily directed at those who are interested in US universities who would already understand that part. And I'll be blunt, I except they're even less likely to care about anyone who still doesn't understand after being directed to a link where the restrictions are mentioned. P.S. It seems clear that Stanford doesn't use a restrictive regular application process. I doubt anyone does since it seems a bit extreme to forbid anyone from applying to other universities at all whenever they apply to your one. Nil Einne (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I except they're even less likely ... - Do you mean "I expect" or "I accept"?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nil response from Nil. I guess we'll never know.  Could be either, really.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction and poor sourcing in Nitta clan article
It quotes: "Yoshishige supported Minamoto no Yoritomo (1147 – 1199) in the Battle of Ishibashiyama of 1180 against the Taira clan.[...]The Nitta clan rose to importance in the early 13th century; they controlled Kozuke Province, and had little influence in Kamakura, the capital of the Kamakura shogunate, because their ancestor, Minamoto no Yoshishige had not joined his fellow clansmen in the Genpei War a century earlier."

Will it be a better saying that they had little influence in Kamakura because they contributed little to the Genpei War or for other reasons? Also, how is "had little influence in Kamakura" defined? Are there any sources?--Inspector (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The gist of it seems to be that although Yoshishigi had supported his nephew Yoritomo in the war, he had not done so straight away and thereby incurred a grudge. Yoritomo and the Founding of the First Bakufu: The Orgins of Dual Government by Jeffrey P. Mass (p.75) says;  "Yoshishige's initial refusal (1180/9/30) to respond to Yoritomo's overtures was replaced by an acceptance of his nephew's overlordship a couple of months later (12/22). The relationship remained an uneasy one". Coming closer to answering your question, The Clear Mirror: A Chronicle of the Japanese Court During the Kamakura Period (1185-1333) By George W. Perkins (p.253) says; "The nun's mistake may have arisen from the fact that the Ashikaga had historically enjoyed preferential treatment at Kamakura, whereas the Nitta, although locally strong, had been kept at arms length because their ancester, Yoshishige, had not responded to Yoritomo's original summons at the time of the Gempei war". Alansplodge (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just realised that if Yoshishigi didn't join Yoritomo until Decenber 1180, he couldn't have supported him at Ishibashiyama on 21 September. A description of the battle in Saitō Musashi-bō Benkei: Tales of the Wars of the Gempei, being the story of the lives and adventures of Iyo-no-Kami Minamoto Kurō Yoshitsune and Saitō Musashi-bō Benkei the warrior monk by James S. De Benneville, Published 1910 (p.29) says that despite attempting to raise all the clans of the Kantō Plain against the Taira, Yoritomo's army only numbered 300 men. So it seems likely that the grudge was because Yoshishige had left Yoritomo in the lurch at Ishibashiyama, although I can't find a source that says so directly. Alansplodge (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement about "Yoshishige supported Minamoto no Yoritomo (1147 – 1199) in the Battle of Ishibashiyama" seems to have been added by User:Prburley on 12 September. I have left a message on his (or her?) talk page - perhaps he can help solve the mystery. In the meantime, I may try to improve the Battle of Ishibashiyama page which is rather low on detail. Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Me again. A link to this question has been posted on the WikiProject Japan Talk Page by Prburley, so watch this space! Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why did, do and will languages diverge?
In the past, languages were more similar to other languages than they do today. In the future, there will be more languages than there are today. Why? Will language codification stop the process? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I question your premise. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I question your premise II. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're questioning my questioning of the OP's premise, i.e. you agree with the OP's premise? Because that's what your indentation is suggesting.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was ambiguous. I was questioning the OP's premises. Indeed, it's worse than that. I believe he's wrong. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too. That's why I questioned his premise.  :)  --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Similarly, I'm not sure I agree with "in the past, languages were more similar to other languages than they are today". In the past, most languages were solely spoken languages, used only locally, and thus contained many distinct dialects. So in border regions within one language family's linguosphere, the language spoken immediately on either side of the border would be almost indistinguishable, but the language spoken elsewhere in the two countries would still be very different. This is called a dialect continuum. Codification of languages and teaching people a written standard usually triggers a process called dialect levelling, whereby people's spoken language starts to move towards the language taught as the written standard. - filelake shoe   &#xF0F6;   10:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's estimated that half of the world's 6,500 extant languages will die out in the next 90 years . I wouldn't say languages were diversifying much at the moment. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If they had had television 2000 years ago, everyone might be speaking Latin now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Millions of people speak French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Italian, Catalan, and other Latin-derived languages. So arguably what was lost was not the dominance of Latin, but its consistency. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention one big Latin-derived language, which is English. I'm not sure if it is a direct derived from Latin but I know for a fact that it shares many similarities with Spanish and French, Italian and Spanish are very similar, Portuguese is also similar enough to Spanish. Perhaps English is an indirect Latin-derived language. In the end, they are all related. 184.97.227.164 (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not forget it. I didn't mention it because I was choosing direct descendants of (vulgar) Latin, and English most definitely is not; it just has a lot of Latin vocabulary. Please don't presume to tell me what I do and don't remember. This is a well-studied field, and your own vagueness is unhelpful. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * English is a "mutt". It has lots of Latin filtered through old French. It has lots of old German. It also has many words from other languages. "Pure" English is supposedly based on Frisian. If the Roman Empire had had television, we might all be speaking actual Latin. As it is, English has become a "universal" language instead. It's "half Latin", so I'm sure Julius Caesar would be proud, or at least half-proud. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To be correct, English isn't based on Frisian, or descend from it. The languages are cousins with a close common ancestor.  Depending on how one figures it, Old English, Old Frisian, Old Dutch and Old Saxon were likely all mutually intelligible dialects of West Germanic, though in their modern forms (English, Frisian, Dutch, and Low German, aren't really all that mutually intelligible anymore, and I don't know that any of them is any closer to their putative ancestor language than the others.  -- Jayron  32  06:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't know if anyone saw this recent claim - really brings into light that the amount of West Germanic left in English is pretty minimal. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   11:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes for a cute press release, but no linguist who studies Old English would take it seriously. The West Germanic - Ingvaeonic - Anglo-Frisian - Old English line of development doesn't provide the majority of entries listed in large modern English dictionaries, but it provides nearly all the basic grammar (inflectional morphology, pronouns, articles, demonstratives, etc.), and many of the most commonly-used vocabulary words.  During the "Danelaw" and "Cnut's empire" periods (9th-11th centuries), Old English and Old Norse were not exactly mutually comprehensible, but they had a large number of structural similarities, and it was relatively easy for someone who spoke one of the languages to learn to understand much of the other language, which did lead to some significant Norse influence on the English language -- but not remotely enough to be able to call English a real Scandinavian or North Germanic language.  The press release also omits some inconvenient facts, such as that modern Scandinavian languages have definite article suffixes and at least non-neuter vs. neuter noun gender contrasts.  For something published in "Science Daily" it's highly non-scientific... AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Languages diverge because of people's limited ability to learn. The language that a person learns is never exactly the same in all details as the language that other people learn.  Whether this will cause increasing or decreasing rates of divergence is not easy to predict. Looie496 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much question that claim. Imprecise transmission is one mechanism for language evolution, but there are many others, and more important ones. Languages adapt to changing circumstances. 200 years ago there was no need for words or phrases like deoxyribonucleic acid or spread spectrum or laptop or laser or radar. 2000 years ago, in Europe, there was no need for gun or sextant or America or potato. 20000 years ago, no city or road or iron, or, probably, king. People coin new words and simplify existing linguistic structures to make language more convenient, both intentionally and unintentionally. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Language innovation also sometimes happens for reasons other than convenience. For example, an individual or a small group will adopt a novel pronunciation or grammatical form, perhaps just to be distinctive. That innovation then spreads to other members of their community. If their community is influential enough (in today's context, let's say they are young actors in Los Angeles; a thousand years ago, maybe young warriors in the service of a victorious duke), the innovation may spread more broadly. However, particularly in premodern times, such innovations had a limited spread. People in region A might adopt the innovation, but people in region B might say, "That's how people from region A talk; we don't talk like that." Over time, different regions might establish linguistic identities in this way, each with its own innovations, for reasons of convenience or for other reasons. Eventually, a people from region B might no longer be able to understand people from region A. Marco polo (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think an example of that involves Joss Whedon and "-age", e.g. "slayage" - according to the article, apparently many other examples. Meanwhile old words practically die out ... after all, how often do you actually hear "deportment"?  I don't know, but I would think duplication and divergence should also play a role as important as in genetics: for example, "swept" in the floor sense is beginning to break away from "sweeped" in the sports sense.  Whenever we get back a slight variant of a word it can come to mean something else - avant-garde versus vanguard.  Wnt (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

See Historical linguistics and Evolutionary linguistics. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In an effort to address the OP's questions... Languages diverge because languages are in a constant state of change. When different communities speaking the same language are in constant communication with each other, the changes spread through all of them and remain intelligible. So while the Roman Empire was still in place, all its western provinces spoke and understood Latin (the eastern ones mostly spoke Greek). But sometimes communities get isolated from each other and no longer communicate regularly, and different changes take place in the language of the different communities. Keep that going long enough, and enough change will take place that the various communities won't be able to understand each other's language. Hence, after the Roman Empire fell in the west, the infrastructure maintaining lines of communication fell with it, communities in what are now Italy, France, Spain and Portugal no longer communicated with each other as regularly, and so their languages diverged.


 * We're in a very high communication period at the moment. The existence of the mass media and telecommunications means that communities that speak the same language can communicate with each other very easily, so languages are not diverging significantly. In fact, minority languages are dying out as people choose to communicate in languages with larger communities, so the number of languages is reducing, not increasing, just as it did when the Roman Empire was at its height. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Has anyone mentioned the Tower of Babel yet? &#x2013; b_jonas 10:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you extrapolate the future trajectory of a language based on the history and its current trajectory?165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sapir discussed this in his explanation of "drift", but one of his main concrete predictions was that "its" would be following "whom" along the path to obsolescence... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

== Where can I find an official reference grammar and dictionary of Russian, Polish, Czech, French, Spanish, German? ==

Where can I find an official reference grammar and dictionary for: from their respective language regulators? --Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Russian
 * Polish
 * Czech
 * French
 * Spanish
 * German
 * In many cases, from their websites. For German, for example, I followed the links in the language regulators article you linked to, and went to the website of the Council for German Orthography.  Their homepage  has a couple of links on the right to pdf files which may be of interest to you. --Viennese Waltz 10:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Czech language institute website has online versions of the reference grammar and dictionary, both of which are available in print as well. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   10:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The best Russian reference grammar written in English I know is Alan Timberlake's "A Reference Grammar of Russian". In Russian there is 2-volumed comprehensive «Русская грамматика» (1980) by the Institute of the Russian language but it can be too difficult for beginners. But these are not official as there is not any "official" grammar of Russian.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As for dictionaries the most influential were Ushakov's and Ozhegov's, the modern ones can be Efremova's and Kuznetsov's.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For French, go with one published by Larousse.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

what are the duties of the majority shareholders toward the minority shareholders
when you go from 100% ownership to 98% ownership by selling 2%, does that mean that if the company gets a chance to rape the world for a few billion dollars in free and lawful money that beats anything it would produce long-term, you (the majority shareholder) instantly must take this opportunity due to your "fiduciary responsibility" to minority shareholders? Or, can you keep running an ethical company (or whatever kind you want, sheesh, you're the owner) same as before? Or, is it subject to any promises or prospectus: what if there IS no prospectus or promises, someone just likes how you're running the company and wants a stake? Short of fraud can you continue to dominate strategically according to whatever principals you want?

I'm not asking for legal advice, just curious. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Company law, and the position of minority shareholders, varies widely (wildly!) by jurisdiction. Which piece of turf are you curious about? HenryFlower 13:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The only place that matters.  Delaware company law.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.48.242 (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And why is Delaware the only place that matters? Anyway, a lawyer would have to look into the statutes of the company to decide what is legally binding. This decision would have to stand in front of a judge. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe about half of all US companies are registered in Delaware, owing to its favourable corporation laws. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And I believe that about 0.5 percent of all companies are US companies. Where did it say this question was about American affairs?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh Jack... I bet the number's a bit higher... and yes Delaware is a major state of incorporation for a few reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The main principle is that the company can't take actions that benefit the majority stakeholder at the expense of minority stakeholders. There is generally no rule that prevents actions that harm all stakeholders equally -- for example, giving money to charity. Looie496 (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you want shareholder here, which is precisely defined, rather than the vague stakeholder, which can be extended to include anyone whose interests depend on what the company does. --Trovatore (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is very useful of you to point out. I think this principle answers my questions nicely. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a huge body of law related to minority shareholder rights. To answer a question like this I'd have to give you a Westlaw subscription for christmas, or at least hand you a treatise on Delaware Corporate law. However you're making one implicit leap that's interesting... the 100% owner obviously has carte blanche to pick management, but it's not necessary that they are in fact the management. So the majority shareholders typically can choose the management, although there are combinations of preferred stock and other voting schemes that can alter this (unlikely to be a problem though for a 98% shareholder). It's important to distinguish the fiduciary duty management has to shareholders from the duty that majority shareholders have towards minority shareholders. Those are distinct duties so be careful to not confuse them. Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Northern Canada militarily unprotected or not?
Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is specifically protected by the Canadian Rangers, aka Arctic Rangers. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And are they prepared to deter a foreign attack? Keeeith (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that the Canadian Arctic has no land borders except Alaska, I don't know how prepared they'd need to be. What is the cause of your preoccupation with unlikely military scenarios in North America? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd say they are prepared to handle any credible threat. Of course, the same would probably be true if they trust their defense to a teddy bear in a uniform who resides in Tuktut Nogait National Park. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Canada is a member of NATO, and an unprovoked attack on them would automatically bring NATO in, including of course the USA. Looie496 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would draw a parallel between Canada's northern defenses and Australia's. In both cases there are massive areas of inhospitable land where almost nobody lives. These days, with modern communications, even the small numbers of locals, plus airborne and satellite surveillance would quickly tell authorities if any significant "enemy" activity was occurring, and while not having huge military forces of their own, both have close to the latest in military technology, and very powerful friends. HiLo48 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder what does "militarily unprotected" means. Modern troops are very mobile, and Canada is surely able to deploy them at any place if needed. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

While this question does not exactly fall under the heading of requesting legal advice, I have serious reservations about the reference desk giving out information about the vulnerability of a Northern Canada to military attack. How would you feel about Keeeith asking about the ease of rape of certain "unprotected" women in whatever location? This is more serious in that we are talking about the vulnerability of a sovereign country to simple invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.114.143 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. For one, sovereign countries are responsible for their own defense (or lack of same) while part of the very definition of civilized society is that such a society protects its members against attacks. For another, while countries may have recognized legal rights, people have natural human rights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A look at the contributions of the above 178 editor to the ref desk makes it clear that their post here is plain trolling. I suggest WP:DENY. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet we continue to feed Keeith. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am willing to assume good faith in a not uninteresting question. Canada has in recent years sent military patrols to plant flags on disputed northern islands (Hans Island) and ordered new arctic-class icebreakers (CCGS John G. Diefenbaker) while Russia and Denmark have both sent expeditions to plant flags. Canada also still participates in NORAD although gone are the days of 24-hour nuclear-armed bomber patrols, the DEW line and nuclear-capable antiaircraft missiles (Project Nike). Rmhermen (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Northern Canada may need to step up naval patrols in the north, as the polar ice melts and the Northwest Passage becomes a more viable option for shipping, say for Europe to Asia trade. Unscrupulous shippers might otherwise feel free to dump their waste there as they pass.  Presumably ports will also be developed in Northern Canada for use by such shippers, and towns will develop around them.  So, at some point, a major military presence may be required there.  StuRat (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you check the distances carefully, you'll see that the north of Canada is still far away from any melted-North-Pool route. Add to this that the north of Canada is not connected to any railroad service, and has a very low population density. Why would any ship travel so far? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, to cut the travel time from Europe to Asia. The ice pack will be lessened each year.  At first it will only be gone in summer, but eventually it should be gone practically year-round. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But these ships traveling between Europe and Asia are very, very far from the North of Canada. Any naval patrols on the North of Canada waiting for ships to dump their waste will be as bored in the future as they are today. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect you're looking at a map so distorted that Greenland appears bigger than South America. Try a polar map, instead, to see the distances more clearly. StuRat (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, traveling through Canadian waters would still mean more than thousand miles extra. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's see those calculations. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stu. And you should use a globe, not a (necessarily distorted) map. See my comment below. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't believe nobody has mentioned the oil. Won't someone think about the oil? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No the Rangers are not there to deter an invasion. They provide "surveillance or sovereignty patrols". In other words they are a cheap way for the government of Canada "plant the flag". On the other hand if you are lost out on the tundra then they are the people you want looking for you. The only ports likely to be built in the near future are the Nanisivik Naval Facility and the one at the end of the railway line from the Baffinland Iron Mine. There may still be a slim chance of the Bathurst Inlet port being built but I can't see why ships passing through Canadian Internal Waters would require a port at all. They have no reason to stop in the Arctic as the passengers, and in the future, goods, materials are all bound for the east/west coast of North America. The cruise ships do stop but that is to visit Inuit communities and not for fuel, etc. The only ships to stop in the Canadian Arctic are the cruise lines and the summer resupply ships from Montreal (Northwest Passage) or Hay River (Northern Transportation Company). Cost and distance are a couple of reasons that the NWP is attractive to shipping. Oil is just one of the things we have that you want. I think most of that is further west anyway. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why stop at ports ? To resupply, refuel, perhaps to offload goods to a warehouse to be picked up by another ship, to dump off fired crew and take on new crew, for "shore leave", to make repairs, etc.  Also, if Canada gets it's way, those are Canadian waters, so they'd need to stop for a customs inspection and/or to pay taxes.  StuRat (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I know why ships stop at ports but you originally said that ports would be developed. I'm saying there is no need to do that. Earlier it slipped my mind that we also have the Canadian Coast Guard through here as well. So we have coast guard, cruise ships and community resupply ships. So to your points. Resupply and crew change can already be done with what we have in place. Every year we, Cambridge Bay Airport, handle a coast guard resupply and crew change. This year there was over 100 helicopter movements in one day for crew and supplies but it happens every year. The same happens for the cruise ships but usually in lower numbers and less of a resupply. Although we did see over 100 passengers come in and leave on the same Boeing 737 one summer. One thing to remember is that moving people and supplies in the middle of the NWP at a port will require aircraft. Air flight up here, even in the summer, can involve 2-3 days delays. A nuisance when I can't go to the store and buy fresh fruit or milk but a lot worse for a cargo ship on a deadline. Refuelling is not done currently by any ship passing through the Arctic and I see no reason why ships that cross the Pacific would need to do that in the Arctic Ocean. Not only that but you would need to resupply the port with fuel using other ships. Repairs require major facilities that may sit idle for month at a time. By the way how do ships in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific get repaired? Dropping off containers for other ships to pick up isn't necessary. As for shore leave, well we already have enough social problems caused by transient population and that would make things worse. Plus we don't have the entertainment facilities that they would be looking for, bars, theatres, etc. It would also take years to either start a new site or expand a current one. You can't just say we are going to do that here. There is consultations to be held with various Inuit groups. Environmental and land use studies will be required. You can spend millions before you even begin construction. And that's what it all comes down to, money. Who is going to spend billions to build this port(s)? Especially as at the current time it is only usable for 3-4 months of the year. No need to when all of this can be done either using the current infrastructure or before and after entering the NWP. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're stuck in the mode of thinking that however things are now, they will always be the same. As years pass, and the NWP becomes open year round, that route will become steadily more practical.  As for who would pay for the ports, well, who pays for other ports ?  Usually some combo of private industry and government, looking to get in on a cash cow.  There would be minimal need for flights in and out of the ports, as resupply would now occur by the sea, although people might want to fly in and out to save time.  The "social problems" from having sailors take shore leave at a port might be similar to those from opening a casino, but many places still do that, to cash in.  Ships in the middle of the Pacific with damage must either limp to shore or be towed in, at great expense.  The reason to refuel en route is so you can carry less fuel, and therefore more cargo.  Helicopter resupply is too expensive on the large-scale.  StuRat (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would just point out that the shortest sea route between Europe and East Asia is the Northeast Passage along the Arctic coast of Siberia. The Northwest Passage through Canada doesn't make sense as a route from Europe (unless the Northeast Passage is physically or politically impassable).  However, the Northwest Passage would serve as a shortcut from the east coast of North America to East Asia, since that sea route would be shorter than one through the Panama Canal. Also, the main reason for a military presence to protect shipping would be if there is a danger of pirate or enemy attack on that shipping.  However, it's really hard to imagine a scenario where either could happen.  Arctic populations are fairly well policed by their respective nations, so piracy is not a realistic issue.  As for enemy attacks, who would be the enemy?  If a European entity were somehow at war with Canada, the United States, or one of their Asian trade partners (in itself an implausible scenario), it would be much easier to attack that shipping in Atlantic waters rather than enter Canadian enemy territory before launching attack.  If the enemy were Asian, likewise, Pacific waters would be a much less risky point of attack. That leaves just Russia.  An attack by Russia on shipping between the Canada or the US and East Asia would antagonize at least one nation-state on each continent. Russia is not economically or militarily in a position to wage war simultaneously against both a North American and an East Asian adversary. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if there's no ice at all, the shortest path from Europe to Asia may be across the North Pole. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Marco polo says "the shortest sea route between Europe and East Asia is the Northeast Passage along the Arctic coast of Siberia." That's not what it looks like on my globe, at least not from any point on the Atlantic coast of Europe -- it looks like it's a little shorter to go by the Northwest passage. Remember that each of the Atlantic and North America is not all that wide, whereas Eurasia is extremely wide. Note also that a direct line from say Northern Ireland to the Pacific entrance from the Arctic Ocean goes just a little on the Canadian side of the North Pole. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wandering back to the original question for a moment, northern Canada is about as militarily protected or unprotected as Shetland is. As others have explained, remote places don't need military garrisons stationed around or in them, just as you don't see battalions of troops stationed in major cities to protect them. According to Wikipedia, Canada has the sixth largest airforce in the Americas, most notably including over a hundred McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet, a modern and very capable multirole supersonic jet fighter. These are adequate for providing air superiority over northern Canada if it were disputed, as well as mounting strikes on enemy shipping off the northern coast, or on forces that might have landed on it.

Canada also has around two hundred German-built modern main battle tanks (although they might not be very useful in the extreme north, nor very easy to get there in large numbers). More usefully for a putative military engagement in the far north, it has a moderately sizeable (some tens of thousands), well-trained and battle-hardened infantry force equipped with modern weapons, as well as artillery including dozens of British-built 155mm M777 howitzers and dozens of French-built 105mm GIAT LG1 howitzers. The infantry and the artillery are easily transportable by Canada's ample complement of Chinook helicopters (if the invaders have occupied or neutralised all the local airstrips) and/or fixed-wing transport aircraft (if they haven't).

All of this is more than adequate to protect Canada's northern frontier, plus as has already been said, the NATO membership is rather important. They are of course increasing their investment in patrol ships for that frontier as it becomes more interesting. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Enough. Too much, actually. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ted Bundy
Hi, I saw that the Ted Bundy article is a good article, I want to know if we should add what he talked about with his mother in their last phone call in which she told him that she loved him whatever he was? Keeeith (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please discuss that at Talk:Ted Bundy. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to raise this question, if you raise it at all, at Talk:Ted Bundy, and back your suggestion up with reliable sources. I am at a loss, however, to understand the continuing fascination with such a revolting specimen of humanity. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't admire him, I just work on good articles. And only God can judge him, not the men on Earth. Only God is the one to judge. If he truly repented, he's up there now. Whether you like it or not. With all the due respect for your feelings toward him of course. You are free to feel whatever you want about him, especially since he's a serial killer. Keeeith (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * lol Surtsicna (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest you admire him. (That would be a hell of an accusation; no such thing is implied or intended.) I'm just baffled by the fascination. But with respect, it's totally for the courts, established by law and maintained by democratic processes, to judge. If society never judged anyone, we would not have the rule of law. God (if there is a God, which I hope but cannot know) can judge our souls (if we have souls); but the state can and should judge our actions in the here and now. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, it's not Ted Bundy himself which the legal system judged, it's the acts he committed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Err, that's a meaningless technicality. He was found guilty. His acts, like a corporation, have 'no body to imprison and no soul to condemn'. People are tried, for their acts. The acts are not tried. (OK, so occasionally things are tried, but that's differently. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was found guilty of committing these acts. That judges his deeds, not his soul. Only God (if any) can do that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to suspect that you people might be American. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Where'd you get that idea? Animated-Flag-USA.gif ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)