Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 February 20

= February 20 =

How much capabilites does Israel need to attack Iran?
Is the army of Israel ready for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPPaul (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Israel Defense Forces are quite large and, while it's never admitted it, Israel is generally believed to have nuclear weapons (although if it tried to use them against Iran as anything but a retaliation for a nuclear strike by Iran, it would get in rather a lot of trouble with the rest of the world). So, it could give Iran a good fight. What would actually happen depends a lot on how the rest of the world views the conflict - there is a good chance that other countries would get involved (particularly the US), which would make a very big difference. There, we're into the realms of trying to predict the future course of international relations in the Middle East, and I doubt even a crystal ball would help us there! --Tango (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's see, first off, it probably wouldn't involve the army at all, but rather the Israeli Air Force. Here are some things they would likely need to attack Iran successfully:


 * 1) The right to overfly some Arab nations. Different flight paths are possible, which would travel over different nations.  While many of those nations don't want to see Iran get nuclear weapons, and would love to see Israel disrupt their program, they can't politically allow such overflights.  So, more likely, Israel would fly over without public support from those nations.  They might either get private guarantees of safe conduct or might just take their chances and bet that any half-hearted response from those nations will be ineffective.


 * 2) Mid-air refueling capability. It's a long way to Iran and back to Israel, so they would need to refuel.  Again, landing in an Arab nation to refuel is probably not politically possible.  Of course, both the need for overflight and refueling would be eliminated by the use of US aircraft carriers, but that's also politically impossible in the current climate, and any situation where it would be possible, such as if Iran engages in full-scale attacks on ships in Persian Gulf, would result in US planes flown from US aircraft carriers.


 * 3) Bunker-buster bombs, made to penetrate to underground labs.


 * 4) Commando teams would be even more effective, but delivering them and extracting them without use of a land base adjacent to Iran is likely impossible.


 * 5) Unmanned aircraft or long-range missiles might eliminate many of the problems, as they could be used one-way to attack, which removes the requirement to refuel, and having their pilots shot down, captured and put on trial would no longer be a concern. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a long article on this very topic in this morning's New York Times. I will just point out that what they are "ready for" depends on what one thinks their goals are. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Another possibility is that Israel could use something like their Delilah UAV and cruise missile system to deliver bombs on target with minimal risk. Those 30 kg warheads wouldn't do much damage, but could evoke a response from Iran that brings in the US.  As such, that might be the way for Israel to ultimately take out Iranian nuclear capability with minimal risk to themselves.  And, if Iran prudently refused to escalate, Israel could still try a more conventional air strike. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

XPPaul -- Israel can do a 5- or 10-plane raid against one narrowly-specific non-hardened target extending over a relatively small area (such as Osirak or Deir ez-Zor) with relatively little problem -- and in fact the Israelis spend a lot of time and effort planning and training to keep up their capability to commit such raids. However, the problem is that an attack on Iran would have to target fairly widely dispersed (and in many cases partially hardened) infrastructure in order to have a good chance of delaying Iran's ability to assemble nuclear weapons by at least five years. (Any attack which set Iran back by less than five years probably wouldn't be worth it for Israel.) This means that it would have to go well beyond a stealth squadron raid, and be more of a full-scale attack, committing a significant fraction of Israel's air forces, leading to some of the logistical/political complications mentioned by others above. AnonMoos (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a fantasy. Israel lacks the airstrike assets to eliminate Iran's nuclear program, since the program is likely widely dispersed, hidden in the basements of hospitals, schools and orphanages, and in hardened sites under mountains. "Bunker busters" were notably unsuccessful in getting rid of Saddam when the US used them in Iraq. A raid by a few planes with a few conventional bombs? Be real. Edison (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A nuclear weapons program doesn't fit in a spider-hole. According to the New York Times article linked to previously by Mr. 98, Iran has 4 main facilities, and their locations are known: "Iran’s four major nuclear sites — the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo, the heavy-water reactor at Arak and the yellowcake-conversion plant at Isfahan".  There's no evidence they are using civilian shields.  The smaller Israeli bunker busters might not be up to the task, but the huge US bombs are. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is an article that discusses the NYT piece. According to German security expert Hans Rühle, Israel's most powerful bunker buster bomb GBU-28 has the capability to destroy the roof of the hardened nuclear facilities. If the first GBU-28 strike does not eliminate the entire facility, it will be completed by a second GBU-28. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  04:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This may be old, but interesting. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  14:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sturat: Obviously, in war, there is no "zbang and we're finished", as Israelis used to say. An enemy can always rebuild what has been destroyed over the long term, if given the opportunity. (Another way one Israeli commander put it is "there can be no Knockout, only a victory on points"). The question, as others have said, is about causing a significant setback to the Iranian nuclear program. 1) As to overflying rights, I doubt the countries in the way (Jordan, Syria, and Iraq) have a practical anti-air capacity of the sort which Israel cannot overcome with some clever routing and stealth technology. I'd assume a very limited use for any ground-to-air systems in denying airspace for overflights. You simply fly round them, if you can figure out where they are. And as to engaging air-to-air... the Syrian air force, for one, probably wouldn't even bother trying. Nor would the Iraqi air force, to the degree which it even exists. Jordan may be a more difficult problem, as Israel wouldn't want to damage its' relationship with them if it can help it. Plausible deniability may be enough for the Jordanians to turn a blind eye, though. 2) Israel already has mid-air refueling capability. I doubt Israel has planes designed to land on Aircraft Carriers. Besides, if they use U.S. aircraft carriers, the U.S. might as well do the attacking themselves, as you imply. 3) Does Israel have "Tactical" Nuclear weapons, of the sort which would be useful for localized Bunker-busting, rather than city-razing? Any expert guesses on this question? 4) Israel has likely used commandos, and we may likely yet see more such operations. Extraction is always risky, and your cover can be blown. That's just the nature of such operations. But Israel got pretty much its' entire team out of Dubai intact after killing Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Such operations make excellent Psychological warfare, as they force Iran to ramp up internal security and counter-infiltration resources. Militarily, though, they likely do rather limited damage. So commandos are presumably an option being used. The target set they can hit is quite limited, though. Each strike is very resource intensive, so they are pretty much drip-drip "spot" operations, not wide-scale ones.

The target set depends on intelligence gathering and overcoming hardened targets. Israel seems to have a surprisingly well-developed human-intelligence network in Iran, as evidenced by the successful killings of Nuclear Scientists. But big challenges likely remain in this area. 58.111.178.170 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 2) Yes, they have refueling capability, but it's rather limited, and may not be sufficient for this task, as the articles linked to previously explain. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Question 3 is impossible to answer because Israel will never publicly disclose facts about its nuclear arsenal, if it has any. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  15:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not impossible to make reasonable speculations based on what is known about the Israeli program (which includes, you might remember, rather specific photographs of Israel nuclear cores that Mordechai Vanunu leaked out). Anyway, "tactical" describes less the technical aspects than it does the usage of them. Both this bomb and this bomb are about the same explosive yield; the first is "strategic" because it couldn't be aimed well and was dropped in the middle of a city, the second is "tactical" because you can aim it a little better and ideally you'd just be shooting it at soldiers. If the question is, "does Israel have the ability to manufacture nukes that can penetrate deeply into the ground before detonation?," the answer is probably "no" — given that they had to buy conventional bunker-busters from the United States, they probably can't natively manufacture that technology on their own. Applying bunker-busting technology to nukes is probably not that easy without doing more nuclear testing than Israel has likely done. Anyway, I think they'd be pretty dumb to use nuclear weapons of any sort. Israel may be many things, but stupid is not one of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would assume that the less collateral damage you cause, and the less civilians you kill, the less political backlash you're likely to suffer on the international scene? Tactical nukes, even if Israel has them, would be a last resort - but so would an attack on Iran in the first place. If you can avoid razing cities and killing thousands, you can reduce the shock and outcry somewhat, I'd assume. 58.111.178.170 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not just about collateral damage. If Israel used any nuclear weapon in Iran, no matter how small, there would be a huge backlash, even if it didn't hit anything. StuRat (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It would highly alienate the relationship between Israel and the US, Asia, and Europe. It's not the best relationship as it is. Forget about peace in the Middle East, ever. I don't see them doing it. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why Israel?
couldn't the jews have chosen another place to create a jewish state? Something like a part of Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPPaul (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Vaguely speaking, Israel is the birthplace of Judaism. Most of the significant events described in the Jewish scriptures happened in the region which now makes up the nation of Israel. See Origins of Judaism. Staecker (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * they/we have a bunch of very holy stuff (jewish religious law/its interpretation says jews were 'given' this land) you can't move easily or would lose its holy significance. otherwise i have heard some very good ideas that would be win/win/win/win/win/WIN all around, with israel the biggest winner of all.  but you cant rewrite this religious stuff (well you can't, its just outside my personal level of persuation as (not) a religious scholar). 84.2.147.177 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * do note that it should be possible (to reinterpret in the win/win/win/win/win/WIN way): just read the torah and compare it with what is followed literally if you want to know how much leeway is possible. 84.2.147.177 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See British Uganda Programme, Jewish Autonomous Oblast, and other things mentioned in Proposals for a Jewish state. Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also see Slattery Report, and the alternate historical fiction, The Yiddish Policemen's Union. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 84.2.147.177 -- See Kamal Salibi for someone who "rewrote this religious stuff" (but it didn't resolve anything). -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And we should also ask "Why Palestine ?". That is, Palestine being such a tiny portion of the Muslim world, the Palestinians could easily be absorbed into neighboring nations, if those nations would allow it.  Instead, they prefer to keep the Palestinians on their soil confined to refugee camps permanently.  The only thing they seem willing to give the Palestinians is weapons. StuRat (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The alternative to Palestine for Palestinians who want to remain there is ethnic cleansing, which is considered a crime against humanity. Marco polo (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Marco Polo -- there have been a lot of population exchanges during the 20th century (between Turkey and Greece, between Pakistan and India, etc. etc.). Some Israelis consider the decade roughly 1947-1958 to be a de facto population exchange, since slightly more than a million Arabs left territories which became Israel, while slightly less than a million Jews left Arab countries and arrived in Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a rather vague term, meaning everything from genocide down to forced relocation and "no right of return", in this case. And, of course, forced relocation (at the very least) is exactly what the Palestinian goal is for Israeli Jews.  Also consider that Jerusalem was Jewish first, and is the holiest city for Jews, while, at best, it's third for Muslims, after Mecca and Medina (perhaps lower for Shia Muslims, who also have holy cities for their own sect, such as Najaf). StuRat (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we please end the soapboxing right here? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To respond directly to the original question, Zionists chose Palestine as a place to encourage Jewish settlement because, as others have said, Jewish sacred texts said that their god had granted much of that region to Jews. I would point out, though, that archaeology and texts from Egypt and Mesopotamia (as well as the Hebrew Bible itself) demonstrate that Canaan had a long history of occupation by a variety of cultural and religious groups before any group identifiably Israelite (i.e., culturally and perhaps genetically ancestral to Jews) appeared in the region. Even Jerusalem existed as a city long before Israelites or Jews lived there. So it isn't right that Jews were in the region first.  Jews were one of a series of cultural groups that lived in the region.  They were probably the predominant group in the region from about 1000 BCE until about 300 CE, when Greek and/or Aramaic-speaking Christians (many probably descended from Jews and their pre-Jewish ancestors) began to predominate in the region, though a small group of (Greek and/or Aramaic-speaking) Jews remained in the region.  From about 900 CE, until about 1950, several decades after the emergence of Zionism, the region was overwhelmingly Arabic speaking, with a Muslim majority (very likely largely likewise descended from Jews), a large Christian minority and (until the late 1800s) a much smaller, also Arabic-speaking Jewish minority.  So it is not as simple as "Jews were there first". Jews and their descendants (among whom are many Palestinians) were not first, but have been there since the emergence of Judaism some way into the region's history. The relatively recent development of a Hebrew-speaking Jewish majority is a consequence of Zionism.  Marco polo (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * By "first" I meant "before Muslims", as the presence of ethnic groups there prior to that, which no longer exist, is irrelevant. StuRat (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But as Marco has said, before the Muslims were there the whole area was Christian. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To be exact, in 600 AD the majority of the population would have been somewhat-Hellenized Aramaic-speaking Monophysite "Syrians"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, but how is that relevant ? StuRat (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if you think that Israel should belong to the people who had it "before the Muslims", then that's the Greek/Syrian Christians. Oh but they don't count, so the people before them...but that's the pagan Greeks/Romans. But before them! Well then you get the Jews, but why stop there? Why not give it back to the descendents of the Phoenicians? If we're not allowed to go back past the Jews, why are we allowed to skip past the groups that lived there immediately before the Muslims? And are modern Jews really the same ethnic group as the Jews who used to live there? (I'm not saying Israel doesn't deserve to exist as a "Jewish state", I'm just saying "they were there before the Muslims" is not a particularly useful argument.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The current conflict is between Muslims and Jews, so only the relative weights of their claims matter. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Arab Christians in the area would object to that formulation... AnonMoos (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And are they trying to create their own nation there ? StuRat (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good question actually. Where do Palestinian Christians fit into all this? It's always portrayed as a Jewish-Muslim struggle, when it's obviously much more complicated than that. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * StuRat -- through most of the period from the 1960s to the 1990s, the quasi-"official" Palestinian leadership avoided identifying Palestinian nationalism with Islamism, and Christians like George Habash were some of the biggest terrorists; and after the establishment of the Palestinian authority, Arafat made a point of showing up in in Bethlehem every Christmas, etc. etc. Some of that separation between nationalism and Islamism has now faded somewhat with the rise of Hamas etc., the way that Muslim gunmen used a Christian neighborhood to fire on Gilo, so that it would be the Christians who suffered the brunt of Israeli retaliation, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Marco Polo -- What you've said isn't wrong exactly, but you left out the fact that the reason why Jews lost population predominance in Judea-Galilee was due to the First Jewish Revolt and Second Jewish Revolt, and discriminatory or oppressive Roman and Byzantine policies in the aftermath... AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In summary:
 * Judaism, as an originally tribal religion, is to a great extent associated with the "Holy Land," and it had been a dream of the Jews to reclaim it ever since they lost it to the Romans.
 * There was already a Jewish population there (the Yishuv).
 * The territory is a neutral ground of sorts between the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe and the Mizrahi Jews of the Middle East and North Africa.
 * The territory was thought in some sense to be "up for grabs" as it was part of the crumbling Ottoman Empire not generally inhabited by Turks. There was a sense during World War I that there would be all this terra nullius in the formerly Ottoman Middle East for the Allies to carve up how they wished after the war was over. This led the British to issue the Balfour Declaration of 1917 in the hope of getting Jewish support for the war. In fact, the Allies were promising a lot of things to a lot of people while secretly planning to keep everything themselves. Nonetheless, it's easy to see how a Jewish state in the former Ottoman Empire was a lot more practical than putting one in defeated Germany, for instance.
 * Ottoman Palestine was thought, rightly or wrongly, to be A land without a people for a people without a land. It was considered (not without reason) underpopulated, and, at the time, there was no real "Palestinian" Arab identity that was separate from Arab identity as a whole. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mwalcoff -- The "land without a people for a people without a land" slogan was loosely thrown around by 19th-century theoretical Zionists in Europe, but was not very prominently used by Jews actually living in British Mandate Palestine during the 1920s and 1930s. It stemmed more from the fact that many Europeans who visited Ottoman Palestine in the mid 19th century (and were not blinded by Biblical goggles) perceived it to be a pathetic crumbling misgoverned semi-wasteland (see The Innocents Abroad) rather than from any militantly dispossessionist characteristics of Zionist ideology.  P.S.  The standard accepted word for "pan-Arab nationalism" in the modern Arabic language -- قومية qawmiyya -- most literally means "tribalism"! AnonMoos (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Suppose that the Bretons — some of whose ancestors were displaced from Somerset, others of whose ancestors merged with Anglo-Saxon invaders to form the present population of Somerset — faced persecution in France. Suppose further that, according to Breton sacred texts, their god granted them the land of Somerset.  Now, the English-speaking people of Somerset do not have an identity distinct from that of other English people.  Would that justify forcing the people of Somerset off their land to make way for the Bretons?  I don't deny that the Bretons would deserve justice or that they would deserve a place where they could practice their culture without facing persecution. Still, why should the people of Somerset have to suffer to end the suffering of the Bretons, particularly when the people of Somerset were themselves not at fault for the suffering that prompted the migration of the Bretons?  Marco polo (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, can we please stop the arguing? If someone has something else to help answer the question, please add it, but if people are just going to argue about this, I think we should mark this question closed. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How did Rastafaris come to believe in Haile Selassie I?
There's a germ of an explanation in Rastafari movement, but it still boggles my mind. How did so many people in Jamaica come to think of a seemingly unassuming Ethiopian emperor as a Messiah? The article points out that he was at one point a famous black man in a European-dominated world, received by kings and queens as an equal, the inheritor of the one country in Africa which defied colonization. That I can understand. Still, he was merely succeeding Zewditu I of Ethiopia; so far as I see here he had no written testament that people follow, and he took a decidedly hands-off approach to the religion, which doesn't seem to have penetrated Ethiopia itself, and followed Christianity himself. He was criticized by Marcus Garvey for leaving Ethiopia during Axis occupation, and seems like he should have gotten criticized a lot more for allowing the List of massacres committed during the Eritrean War of Independence. Though I understand his power was waning in favor of Marxist elements in the government, wouldn't a Messiah have done something about that? I mean, by comparison, Emperor Norton I reportedly stopped an anti-Chinese pogrom with the power of a prayer. I just can't see how a few street preachers managed to talk so many people into holding and maintaining a belief in Selassie's divinity. Wnt (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There was some kind of quasi-Garveyite prophecy that a king would be crowned in Aftrica, and Haile Selassie received extremely prominent international news coverage for the incident in 1936, when addressed the League of Nations and warned the democracies that if they didn't effectively act against the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, then sooner or later their own time would come. That was the one moment between the legends of Prester John and "We are the World" when a large number of people in far distant places really concerned themselves with Ethiopia... AnonMoos (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * An article by Garvey about the coronation in 1930 is here. Garvey wrote that: "The Psalmist prophesied that "Princes would come out of Egypt and Ethiopia would stretch forth her hands unto God" (Psalm 68:31). We have no doubt that the time is now come.  Ethiopia is now really stretching forth her hands. This great kingdom of the East has been hidden for many centuries, but gradually she is rising to take a leading place in the world and it is for us of the Negro race to assist in every way to hold up the hand of Emperor Ras Tafari."    Another key initiator of Rastafarianism was Leonard Howell (Gong Guru Maragh), whose pamphlet The Promise Key - here - says: "Upon His Majesty Ras Tafari’s head are many diadems and on His garments a name written “King of Kings and Lord of Lords", Oh come let us adore him for he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, The Conquering Lion of Judah, The Elect of God and the Light of the World. His Majesty Ras Tafari is the head over all man for he is the Supreme God. His body is the fullness of him that filleth all in all. Now my dear people let this be our goal, forward to the King of Kings must be the cry of our social hope...."  See also Grounation Day.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that article on The Promise Key makes a brief reference to "repatriation" to Ethiopia. I suppose that today, it is hard to picture how utterly appalling and oppressive the race prejudice against black people was back then, and so perhaps the notion of repatriation under a native Ethiopian king, with some degree of scriptural prophecy invoked surrounding it, fell on fertile ground?  Yet it still seems hard to understand how it retained its pull as the world changed. Wnt (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On consideration, I wonder whether a better comparison is to Joan of Arc and Charles VII of France? Perhaps when a nation, or a continent, is invaded and brought to ruin and humiliation, there comes a time when the people will perceive divinity in its remaining authority. Wnt (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want a historical example of a king elevated into the god of a new religion established outside of the territories of his kingdom, then the so-called "mad caliph" Hakim more or less qualifies. In any case, the basic patterns of Rastafarianism seem to have been established long before the Eritrean War of Independence etc... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Though I understand his power was waning in favor of Marxist elements in the government" is not correct. There were not Marxists within his gov't, but in the opposition. Haile Selassie was deposed in 1974 by a group of militaries, that gradually would come to embrace Marxism. --Soman (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The list of massacres article credits the Derg as being in control of the Army - does this mean that the first five massacres were all directed by the Messiah? How do the Rastafarians deal with that? Wnt (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Map confusion
Okay, this map is really confusing me. It's of the Eastern Front of World War I. I'm focusing on the blue and red lines with arrows that I assume are troop movements (I could be wrong, the map doesn't verify), and I'm confused as to which lines belong to which sides (allies or central powers). On the Galician theater, it seems as if they're both Russian offences, but as I said I'm not sure. Any help? 64.229.204.143 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Russian troops are marked in blue. Austro-German troops are marked in red.  Austro-German start lines are marked in thick dashed red (1 September).  Austro-German offensives are marked with small red arrows, following a dashed-small red path, to their stop lines in thick red (20 September).  In the South, Austrian forces attacked, and were repulsed in a strong Russian counter-offensive.  Russian forces largely deployed without being in contact, ie, without clear "start lines".  We can also see the "lightning" movement indicator for the deployment in Eastern Germany / Western Poland of German troops. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. There are a few confusing things about this map:


 * 1) Russia being represented by blue. Of course, this was before they were communist, but still isn't what you'd expect.


 * 2) Like any map showing differences over several dates, this results in one area sometimes being in German hands, and sometimes in Russian. I find a series of maps, one for each date, to be far clearer.  Traditionally, they did it all on one map to save space in a book, but, with modern technology, we can have forward and back buttons to allow you to step through frames, or let it run as a movie, without taking up much more space on the page.


 * 3) A clear key/legend would help. StuRat (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @3 - a lot of these military maps conform, to some extent, to the NATO Military Symbols for Land Based Systems (or to the US MIL STD that preceded it). That's not much help for this image, other than showing unit sizes. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's best not to go by surnames, since Paul von Rennenkampf was a Russian! -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The red/blue system is a conventional way of showing attacking/defending or enemy/friendly forces in exercises and so on. The Military Dictionary says: "Blue forces - Those forces used in a friendly role in NATO exercises" although I'm certain that the convention predates NATO by many decades. Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

US Restraurant Reviews
Which website do I go to to find reviews of restraurants in the United States? I'm not a US citizen and I'm visiting the US soon. 202.177.218.59 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge number of review sites out there but one of the biggest is TripAdvisor. It has a section on restaurants (http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurants). ny156uk (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yelp.com, Google Reviews, take your pick. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 00:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Zagat's Guide is always reliable if you will be in a particular city or region. Shadowjams (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And there's the Michelin Guide, which, despite the sound, doesn't rate food by how much it resembles car tires in flavor and texture. Here's their guide online, for New York City: . StuRat (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Urban Spoon ( no article?! redirected...) also has ratings and reviews. Many of these have smart phone apps as well if you're wondering.  Dismas |(talk) 04:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Another possible source is Wikitravel, which discusses restaurants in its coverage of some places. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're visiting the US you will need a good general guidebook. Don't just rely on websites.  The best is the Rough Guide, which includes short but useful reviews of restaurants in every major city. --Viennese Waltz 06:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that a general guide is useful, but its selection of restaurants is limited by the amount of space available on the page and the time available to its reviewer to visit restaurants in that city. (Having edited a travel guide, I know that reviewers face a very hectic schedule, sometimes with only a couple of days per city.) Living in the United States, I tend to rely most on Yelp.com and Tripadvisor.com.  Zagat's is also very good but requires a subscription.  Google Reviews are new and often rather insubstantial, so I wouldn't rely on them too much. Marco polo (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A bit of advice I will give you based on OR. Whenever you go to a town or a city, eat where the local people eat. Avoid chain restaurants or places that cater to tourists. Search for an out-of-the-way place that is packed with local residents and you can't go wrong.   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It rather depends on your tastes. If you have kids with you who are picky eaters, you might want to find a place that caters to tourists, rather than risking food that would be at home in an Indiana Jones movie or in the Klingon galley . StuRat (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)