Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 21

= July 21 =

How long can you live in an embassy?
I obviously ask in relation to Julian Assange. I know that during the cold war someone spent 15 years in a US embassy in Easter Europe, but that were other times. And if Assange gets asylum in Ecuador, would he be able to travel there? Unless diplomatic cars and planes are also protected, I don't see how he would manage to escape. 88.9.110.244 (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * They could grant him diplomatic credentials. However, as a practical matter, the nation in which the embassy is located will often grant safe conduct to the people in question, just to resolve the situation, once it becomes apparent that the person is willing to remain at the embassy as long as it takes.  I believe some North Koreans in China who sought refuge in the South Korean embassy a few years ago were eventually granted safe passage to South Korea.  If you think about it, what other options does the nation in which the embassy is located have ?  Do they post round-the-clock guards outside the embassy, and search everyone and everything going out of the embassy, for decades ?  That would cost millions and create a diplomatic incident between the two nations. StuRat (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For anyone unfamiliar with the issue, see Julian_Assange. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * They can't grant him diplomatic credentials without the consent of the UK as I understand it, unless they appoint him to a position at the United Nations. Egg   Centri  c  01:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * People in such circumstances are almost always successfully smuggled with the use of cars with tinted windows or, if necessary, disguises such as wigs and misdirection. Ecuador shares their London embassy building with the Columbian embassy and several other occupants, and the building has a vast number of exits and a secured underground parking garage so the police at the front are just a pointless formality to try to make Sweden (and the US) slightly happier. From there, a pleasure craft docked on the Thames can easily reach a chartered diplomatic flight laying over at any one of dozens of European coastal airports, or even an oil tanker bound for Ecuador. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not just taking him out of the building. You'll have to take it out of the country, which happens to be an island. 88.9.110.244 (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Port of London Authority does not require notification upon departures. http://www.boatingonthethames.co.uk/ 75.166.200.250 (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Being an island doesn't make it more difficult to be smuggled out of the country. The difficult part is finding a country willing to accept and protect him, since apparently even his native Australia is not secure enough (from his point of view). OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If Ecuador is willing to accept him into its embassy, surely it would be willing to grant him asylum in the country itself? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, Ecuador, like many other countries, has an obligation to process any asylum application. However, I suppose that cases without any imaginable merit just get processed faster. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The case from the 1950s that you had in mind was Cardinal Mindszenty... AnonMoos (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Smuggling someone out of an Embassy, if his presence is known to the host country or likely to become known, is a very serious breach of diplomatic protocol. When found out, it will normally result in the Embassy's diplomats being expelled and diplomatic relations being suspended or broken. Thus it's not something that can be done except in extreme circumstances (see Canadian Caper) In other words, not for someone like Julian Assange. This is why an embassy that wants to extract a person who has sought refuge in its facilities will usually negociate a safe-conduct with the host country. This can be protracted. Also, it is a particularity of Latin American embassies that they recognize a "right of asylum" in their diplomatic missions (an inheritance of the days when their were coups every other week in certain South American countries); most western countries do not recognize such a general right, and will expel persons seeking refuge from their diplomatic premises if they do not consider that their fundamental human rights are at risk. In Assange's case, most western countries would consider that British guarantees that Assange wouldd be treated fairly are sufficient. --Xuxl (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Archived talkpage discussion
When a bot has archived a talkpage discussion that is still useful and germane, what is the procedure to "un-archive" it and return it to the current talkpage? I'm not sure that at this point I can revert the archiving, but would not want to in any case, because the bot archived several older discussions together, and only the one should be restored. Thanks for any suggestions. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You might try taking this to the Village Pump. I'm not sure this is really the right place for it. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 03:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - sorry. You're right. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhere in WP:TALK it says (or used to say) to copy (not move) the archived section out of the archives for further discussion. That is so permalinks still work. You almost always want to edit it down to remove extraneous parts when you do that. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia and Shiite Repression
Why does the Saudi govt. discriminate against Saudi Shiites and essentially relegate them to second-class citizens (from what I've heard)? It seems rather stupid to alienate 20% or so of your population (as well as neighboring Shiite-led countries), especially considering that Shiites are also Muslims. Futurist110 (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not unique to Saudi Arabia; in the Muslim world, repression of minorities (and often even non-ruling majorities) is rather widespread. It seems to be the result of non-democratic governments all composed of a single sect and/or ethnic group, as in the Alawites in Syria. StuRat (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also not unique to the Muslim world, though it has become less common in the Westernised world over the last century or so. The reasons for it are complex and variable, but at root it happens when a government knows or expects that it will be popular among the majority group to discriminate against minorities. See ingroups and outgroups. And why should the fact that both groups are Islamic make any difference? Think about the members of two Christian sects in Northern Ireland--ColinFine (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's really quite predictable when you consider that Wahhabism was founded for the specific purpose of purging Islam from alleged excrescences and "corruptions" which did not exist in Muhammad's time. Wahhabism was anti-Shi`ite from the beginning, and in the early 19th century tried to destroy Shi`ite holy places in cities of southern Iraq (see Wahhabi etc.). There's also the sensitive issue that the oil in Saudi Arabia is in or near the areas traditionally inhabited by Shi`i... AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For historical comparison, also consider Catholics ("also Christians") in England from Elisabeth Ist to the 19th century, Huguenots ("also Christian") in France from the reformation to the French revolution, or, for a quite recent non-religious example, African-Americans ("also Americans") in the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Those examples are so generalized as to not be very specifically comparable with Saudi persecution of Shi`ites. Elizabeth always treated Catholicism as a matter of political allegiance (and the Catholic hierarchy gave her plenty of reason to with Regnans in Excelsis and Cardinal Allen issuing forth a torrent of bloodthirsty threats and abuse and cheering on the Spanish Armada) -- not as a matter of religious heresy.  If the more iconoclastic factions of Puritans had permanently triumphed in the English Civil War, then that would have been more comparable... AnonMoos (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not unique to Saudi Arabia. Consider Jordan, where a Bedouin minority rules over the Palestinian majority and refuses them basic rights. This needs to be stopped everywhere it occurs. -- Activism  1234  01:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Some would say that the Palestinians in Jordan have it better than almost anywhere else where the Palestinians form a significant segment of the population -- can you name any other country where 100% of them get automatic host country citizenship? Certainly it's far and away better than the treatment in Lebanon! -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No doubt they have it better than in Lebanon, or Syria (where Assad has been shelling them), or even Egypt, or Kuwait where they were kicked out. I mentioned Jordan because unlike these other countries, the population is divided primarily into two categories - a minority Bedouin elite who rules, and a majority Palestinian population who do not get many rights.  Also, Jordan began revoking many Palestinians' citizenship in recent months. -- Activism  1234  02:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want another example, look at Syria, where the Alawite minority ruled over the rest of the population and denied them basic rights. Look where it wound up. -- Activism  1234  02:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The memory of Black September means that Palestinians are not allowed to attain political predominance (and the Jordanian political system is not claimed to be 100% democratic in any case), but otherwise I'm not too sure what special repression or tyranny Palestinians are subject to which native Transjordanians or "East Bankers" do not also suffer in a roughly similar degree. I'm sure there are a number of subtle "red lines" or "glass ceilings" in the Jordanian system, but I don't think that it's remotely close to being the clearest example  of inter-group oppression in the Middle East. AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many examples of oppression in the Middle East. Don't view my example as me claiming this was the only one or the worst one. There's also oppression of the Copts in Egypt, although not on the scale of the Palestinians in Jordan, since they're allowed to vote and are granted political rights, but often suffer from harrasment and abuse.  If you're interested in learning more about opression of Palestinians in Jordan, this article is very useful.  Feel free to ask any questions. -- Activism  1234  02:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And that article informs us that "The Palestinian majority in Jordan is highly educated, Westernized, and passionately engaged in business and modernization" and that there have only been a "handful" of Palestinian prime ministers of Jordan! I'm sure that there have been and will be some heavy-handed political manipulations within a consultative political system which is not fully democratic (and is not really claimed to be fully democratic).  However, that's not the same thing as Palestinians groaning under a horrendously-repressive tyranny.  As I said, I'm sure the Palestinians in Lebanon would be overjoyed to swap the problems of the Palestinians in Jordan for their own problems... AnonMoos (talk)
 * Palestinians are mistreated across the Arab world. I mentioned Jordan because Palestinians are the majority population, while the Bedouin minority rule over them, and deny them many rights and have begun revoking their citizenship. That was all. I think you're looking too deep into my comment... -- Activism  1234  14:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I get that historically other countries did the same thing as Saudi Arabia does now, but those countries eventually figured out that what they were doing was wrong and stopped doing it. It seems rather stupid to discriminate against your Shi'ites and then be scared that an Iranian nuke will embolden your Shi'ites to rebel, when you (Saudi Arabia) are the one that is making your Shi'ites angry at you in the first place by treating them as second-class citizens. In regards to Bahrain, Syria, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, at least those dictators had an incentive to discriminate (obviously it was still an extremely bad thing, but at least I see where their mentality comes from) since giving the majority group rights would have meant their overthrowing, whereas Shi'ites are not the majority or anywhere close to a majority in Saudi Arabia as a whole. As for Jordan, do you have a source for Jordan revoking its Palestinians' citizenship in recent months? Also, in regards to the Palestinians, it has been rather stupid how other countries treat their Palestinian refugees so that those refugees would want to return to Israel and eliminate its Jewish majority (even though they know that Israel will never allow all the Palestinian refugees to return to their pre-1948 homes). Futurist110 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Are spree shootings as common in other countries as they are in America?
I use the word "common" in a relative sense. ScienceApe (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect the difficulty will be in the use of the word 'spree'. The US authorities describe Spree killing as ""killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders", but I'm not sure how widely this is used in the rest of the world. You might like to start at this page, which gives various comparative graphs on all sorts of national statistics, including murders with firearms and gun killings per head of population. Unfortunately there's nothing on multiple killings. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems we have both a list of rampage killers and a list of spree killers which can be arranged by country.--Shantavira|feed me 12:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Spree killer has a table, in which United States features more than any other country. Not sure how comprehensive it is. &mdash; Kieff | Talk 12:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * By population, Finland (with a population of 5.4m) may have the most per capita, considerably more than the US (if you go by that table, which isn't comprehensive). Finland has a lot of guns and a high suicide rate, amongst other factors. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * These are shocking, politics-stopping, world-attention-getting events. It doesn't matter how big or small the country is, and it almost doesn't matter what the numbers of dead and injured are - it's the events themselves that we remember (who outside those directly affected could tell you how many people were injured or died at Columbine, or Beslan, or Kent State Uni, or Port Arthur?).  One shooting in the USA, or India or China for that matter, is no less momentous than one in Finland, Monaco or Nauru.  If you're getting a handle on the prevalence of such events by country, you count the number of events in each country and leave their populations out of it.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Depends how you want to arrange the question. But if you're asking about 1 person massacres outside of war, the 2011 Norway attacks are towards the top of the list, followed by Woo Bum-kon shooting in South Korea. Michigan is next with the 1927 bombing by Andrew Kehoe of a school. You'll have to look at the list and decide for yourself, but at a glance it doesn't appear that rampage killings are concentrated in the U.S., despite what popular perception may be. Shadowjams (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * However the Norway example was a unique event for that country; in the US they seem to happen with depressing regularity. But as Colapeninsula points out above, the US has about 50 times the population of Norway or Finland making comparison difficult. Alansplodge (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The UK had several famous spree killing incidents from the 1980's until they basically outlawed private ownership of handguns and made it harder to own long guns. Edison (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please. There are far more violent attacks on ex-Beatles per capita in Britain than in the US. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What? Are you trying to be funny. Or offensive? Or just here to display your ignorance? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Trying to be funny. One violent attack in a bigger country, one in a smaller country. —Tamfang (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edison summarises it well here, at least as far as comparisons with the USA and similar countries with different gun laws are concerned. In the UK, the Hungerford massacre in 1987 will always be remembered, and led to strict legal limits on sale of semi-automatic rifles and some shotguns. The gunman killed 16 people with semi-automatic rifles and other weapons. There was subsequently the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, where a gunman killed 17 people using handguns. The UK duly banned handguns as well.

There was later a UK school attack with a machete, which either proves that gun bans are ineffective because people will move to other weapons, or proves that gun bans are very effective because they saved many children's lives by forcing the killer to resort to a less effective weapon. No-one died - adults were able to grapple with, delay, and inconvenience the machete-wielding nutter. Had he been able to buy a firearm at his local supermarket, presumably that would not have been the case, and the nutter would have killed dozens of children.

In the UK there was also Raoul Moat, who killed only one person because the only weapon he could obtain easily was a shotgun. If this man (or his friends) had access to semi-automatic handguns, or semi-automatic rifles with bullets designed to pierce body armour, then he may have killed many more than just one person.

One thing that does strike me is that the major UK examples tend to be about ten years apart (1987 Hungerford, 1996 Dunblane, this century none?), and are followed by crackdowns on whatever type of firearm is involved. The major USA examples seem to come at the rate of at least one per year, perhaps more than one per year. So yes, subjectively, Finland and the USA have a problem with spree shootings. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you hear about the Cumbria shootings of 2010? 12 killed (plus the shooter) and 11 injured, in England, Selective amnesia? Why should they not be considered here? If police in the US had to drive to the police station and get their guns out of the safe (with only a select few authorized to use weapons) like in England, spree shooters here might have an easier time of it,Edison (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Now, now, Edison! Using facts and reason is hardly fair. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That still makes about 1 case/decade in the UK. Demiurge expressed his doubt about his information. And nobody is saying the police should not carry firearms in a country where civilians do carry them. Note: I suppose commenting Medeis' trolling is not necessary. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we please not have this degrade into yet another gun control debate and stick strictly to the original question (which asks nothing about why)? Shadowjams (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If we're going to stick to answering the original question, the answer appears to be "No".


 * BBC News had a recent article on the impasse over gun control in the USA, and the strong emotions the topic raises there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Original question doesn't necessitate meandering into this debate. Shadowjams (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

William Bowen, 1920's-1930's children's author
I'm trying to start an article on 1922 Newbery Honor winning children's author William Bowen, who wrote The Old Tobacco Shop. I've looked online for days and found info on five books I'm petty sure are his, (The Old Tobacco Shop, The Enchanted Forest, Solario, Merrimeg, and Philip the Faun), but nothing about him, except that his middle name might be Alvin. Can someone find anything about his personal life -- even a birth date or place would help. (There's a lawyer in CA around that time named William Alvin Bowen, but I've found nothing to say they are the same person.) Thanks so much. Tlqk56 (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Project Guttenberg website says he was born in 1877 and died in 1937. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed title, as presumably he didn't do much writing in the 1030's. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Original research but this agrees with the entry William Alvin Bowen 1877-1937 on http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=7920940 MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If he was the William Alvin Bowen who was drafted in Los Angles in WWI then he was born in Baltimore on 15 May 1877, although these details refer to the Bowen who later became a lawyer. Bit of a jump to link the lawyer and the author but Guttenberg does give then the same year of Birth. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This link suggests that the lawyer was an author but no mention of childrens books. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/author/bowen-william-alvin/ MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the rambling, we will get there in the end William Alvin Bowen, lawyer and writer of fairy tales for children, died at his home here today at the age of 60. Associated with the law firm of Flint McKay for twenty-five years, Mr. Bowen achieved major recognition most recently for his work as special master in hearing the claims in the Richfield reorganization suit. from http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F5091FF9395A157A93CBA81782D85F438385F9 MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * His LOC entry lists an additional book: Gossip from the sixteenth century, Part I, published by the Zamorano Club in 1938 (posthumously). Their publication list confirms the author and lawyer were the same person.  Google books also turned up a 12-page booklet or pamphlet entitled: On the Extermination of Bookworms, published by the Zamorano club in 1935 (not listed on their website).  Zoonoses (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, great work putting all these pieces together! I really appreciate it. My computer gets cranky and won't always open files, (like the NYT obit, so thanks for reproducing it for me); I wouldn't have found any of this stuff. Can I ask where you found the Army record? Did it give dates or any other details? Thanks so much, I really appreciate this. You people are my "Hail Mary" when things look bleak, and you always come through. Tlqk56 (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

loch Ness of Africa
Is this true that there is a Loch Ness monster-like in Africa particularly in D Zaire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.228.225 (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No. The Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, so there cannot be anything like it in Africa. On the other hand, see Mokele-mbembe, Lukwata and Nyaminyami for African mythical creatures which might be said to resemble Nessie. (Personally, I think Nessie more usually resembles an otter, a floating log, a wind-generated ripple, the wake of a boat, or a scam for extracting money from tourists) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That doesn’t sound like very scientific reasoning to me. Argument from ignorance.--Aspro (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Argument from ignorance' is a (supposed) logical fallacy. The scientific method is based on experiment and observation, not on dubious linguistic gymnastics. I suggest you read Argument from ignorance a little more carefully. The supposed monster has been carefully and repeatedly searched for. It has not been found. In science, under the appropriate conditions, absence of evidence can reasonably be taken as evidence of absence. Indeed, it must be - because otherwise science is a waste of time. And so is writing online encyclopaedias - unless we follow every assertion of a fact with "(but then, it might not be, who knows for sure?)" or similar. Our article on Wildebeeste tells us that they "inhabit the plains and open woodlands of Africa" - should I add that they might also live on Wimbledon Common, on the basis that, although they've never been seen there, they might be very good at hiding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Gosh Andy, that's a lot of clever verbiage -wish I could write like that! When I get the time, I'll try and sort though it all -for a suitable reply ( if you had been around in the 1930s, you could have saved Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer all that time she wasted looking for the mythical Coelacanth off the African coast – which of courses - couldn't possible exist in our present era)... :¬).--Aspro (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless our article is wildly wrong, not only was Courtenay-Latimer not looking for Coelacanths (mythical or otherwise) when she acquired one, but she didn't know what it was until it was identified by someone else. This is all rather beside the point though. I stand by my argument that since there is no verifiable evidence to support the existence of the Loch Ness monster, it would be illogical to assert that similar creatures can be found elsewhere. On the other hand, if one treats Nessie as the mythical beast that all the evidence points to, it is easy enough to find such myths throughout much of the world - hence the links I provided for Africa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right to stand by your point (have no augment about that). Yet, during the search for Cœlacanthus she had only anecdotal reports to go on... Much like the eye witness reports of Nessie. You say: “Unless our article is wildly wrong” Yes, if you read her own accounts, then  the WP article is trying to separate itself from  Cryptozoology – something that some WP editors think is pseudo-science and not something that serious scientist get involved in. Of course, once the the real existence of the platypus, snow leopard etc., was  ascertained,  the pseudo- sceptics said “Ah, but we really knew it all along”.   One difference, I will grant you, is that she spoke to people, that had not only seen the  Coelacanth but had eat it . Multiple “third encounters” of this type  provide stronger evidence. However, science concentrates on the provable  ---kept in check by Karl_Popper.
 * However, to state categorically that something does not exist; is an ideology based on faith -  an individual or collective belief.  These  beliefs have no place  in science. --Aspro (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As soon as someone uses the phrase "pseudo-sceptics", I pass their details on to the local snake-oil salesmen: they are most appreciative of links to potential customers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's like saying: there is no such thing as an American elephant, therefore nothing similar can exist in Africa. —Tamfang (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A priori, it would make a lot more sense to find an archaic reptile in a warm African lake than in the bitterly cold waters of a Scottish loch. Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Particularly one that has repeatedly been covered in hundreds of metres of ice at frequent intervals since the time that this Crypto-whatever's relatives would have been around. Or is it a relative of Godzilla, and hibernates underground for millennia, until woken by atom-bomb tests, or possibly in this case a clash between Celtic and Rangers supporters, which quite likely sound much the same to an somnolent archaic subterranean reptilian? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahh.. resorting to literature gymnastics to cloud what our wonderful (yet, only human) scientists can't settle? The fact that they have to change their "facts" so often after finding more evidence is contrary to their own idea that without the evidence, it doesn't exist. The lowly germ, and heck, even the gorilla was thought to be a myth before finally succumbing to what many people had been trying to say. Face it, "science", though still what I use daily for my job and many everyday activities, is only a process that flawed creatures use to find information, not to establish god-like unshakeable fact. It's a tool. Unfortunately it is often used as a religion of the academic snobs, and they have edited it so that if THEY haven't found the evidence, it doesn't exist. That's what always causes that problem... selfish animalistic pride. If there is no evidence proving some thing's existence, that lack of evidence does not prove it doesn't exist! That's as bad as any belief either way! It's high hypocrisy on the part of science. The proof is in the eventual discovery of things they said did not exist. They were wrong, period. Nobody knew the thing existed, but nobody knew it didn't. Both sides made claims, one side because they saw something, the other side because they didn't see it. It's clear the side claiming non-existence should have only claimed they "don't know". That doesn't tend to set well with the nature of those education snobs. They have to have an "answer"... even if it's from not having evidence, which proves nothing! If they want answers no matter what, I suggest they stick to mathematics. Humans love to avoid saying they "don't know", and that starts most of the trouble.Movierealist (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

USA 1895 visa stamp
Transfered from french Oracle by Dhatier : Je cherche une photo du modèle de tampon qui servait aux visas d'entrée aux Etats-Unis, aux alentours de 1895. Je suis artiste peintre et travaille actuellement sur l'émigration européenne en partance pour les Etats-Unis. Merci d'avance.

I'm trying to find a photo of the stamp used for the immigration visa in the USA around 1895. I am a painter working presently on european immigration to the USA. Thank you. (unsigned) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhatier (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like immigration visas weren't issued as rubber stamps in that era, but on separate sheets of paper, e.g. (but that one is for a passport application, but it references a naturalization form which I suspect was similar based on http://www.archives.gov/research/naturalization/naturalization.html )  Here's a citizenship application from 1892 signed by a District Court Judge, from . Here is a Certificate of Residence issued in 1894 to a Chinese laborer in San Francisco, with a raised "Internal Revenue Collector" seal over a photograph, which was very high tech at the time, and probably unheard of on the Atlantic coast where immigration abuses were somewhat less prevalent. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Book of Revelation
In the "Events of Revelation" you don't have chapter 22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.180.77 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please raise this matter at Talk:Events of Revelation. -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look to me like there are any events in chapter 22; it's more or less a coda to the book. Looie496 (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

why does this sound so horrific
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpwRPlvTuyw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.160.86 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * just so it's not mean, i thought the same woman was really good in this duet - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynSVbO_vZr4 - (right at the beginning) which was really well-done and a lot better than most two people singing together I thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.160.86 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Horrific" is a value judgement, and one that I'm not sure I'd agree with. I would agree, though, that she is clearly a classically-trained singer who's singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" as if it were a German lied from 1843.  That's highly inappropriate, which is why it sounds weird, or whatever adjective you prefer. It's as inappropriate as Sting (musician) singing madrigals by John Dowland  and using the same voice production methods he uses for rock songs written almost 400 years later; or any one of zillions of tin-pot nonentities who wouldn't know the first thing about opera, or don't have the slightest interest in the genre, deciding it's appropriate to scream their way through "Nessun dorma" to win some singing contest or at least get their mandatory standing ovation.


 * Back to the female singer: The voice she uses in the duet would have been far more suited to the first song, so it's not as if she can't do it. Why she could possibly think her approach might work artistically, you'd have to ask her. I guess if you've spent virtually all your life singing in a certain way, and hearing songs being sung in that certain way, you're conditioned to thinking that that way is "right" for any song at all.  Clearly, it's not, and these people (on both sides of the divide) need someone to give them that feedback ... but preferably before they embark on these ill-considered atrocities.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Incidentally, do you know anyone who really does excel in both sides of the aisle? (and not by committing to one, but 'being two') that you like listening to in both?  I can't think of any opera singers (for example) who also have a famous rock persona that doesn't sound like opera...or vice versa.  (Rock is just one example, what I'm getting at is that most performers really only end up with one major voice, don't they?) 84.3.160.86 (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Freddie Mercury sounded pretty good whenever he did opera. Admittedly it wasn't very often. --  role player 00:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's pretty bad. I think it's the tremolo that makes it so.  This is a technique developed before electronic amplification so a singer could hold a note loud and long so the entire audience could hear it.  In my opinion, this practice should have died out with thick make-up and exaggerated gestures which were also used at the time, since, with close-ups, we can see normal gestures and expressions now, and, with microphones, we can hear a normal voice, too. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * An interesting perspective, though I think if you heard any of the famous opera arias sung well (search youtube) 50 years ago, you wouldn't want to hear them sung "normally". 84.3.160.86 (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I, and most other people on the planet, don't like opera, precisely because they still use outdated techniques like that. (I love good singing, but not opera style.)  And even those who love opera must admit that not every song should be sung in an opera style.  StuRat (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That was pretty much the point I made above, and I don't think you'd find any serious argument against your position. What you call "tremolo" is more often called vibrato in vocal contexts, and for more detail about that, see Vibrato. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  02:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried to find the right term, and looked at both our articles, but found them confusing. I thought they said tremolo is a variation in volume, while vibrato is a variation in pitch, but it was hard to tell. StuRat (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation is correct. Widespread confusion exists because the device used on electric guitars to vary pitch/create vibrato is generally misnamed a "tremelo arm". {The poster formerly known as 97.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And usually misspelt as "tremelo". :)  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  00:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The OP does us a disservice by not giving a timepoint for what he/she is complaining about in this v-e-r-y long video. The first segment lady had a fine voice and was pretty much on pitch, with too much vibrato. Give a point in the time line and I will listen to it. Edison (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think they want us to focus on the very first song she sings, which was "Somewehere Over the Rainbow" sung in a classical style. Even so, 8 minutes is not a "v-e-r-y long video".  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  02:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I question that a popular song with excessive vibrato amounts to "a classical style." It is just "Singing with too much vibrato." Not all classical songs or singers have that much vibrato. When someone sings something with that much vibrato it reminds me of a flooded car engine that is just not going to start, no matter how long the starter grinds. Edison (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See my first post above: ...she is clearly a classically-trained singer who's singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" as if it were a German lied from 1843 .... I made no mention of her vibrato; I didn't even mention opera as such; it's the whole manner of delivery that marks the classical style.  People often tend to focus narrowly on things like vibrato when they're parodying opera singers (and it's always sopranos they parody, when half the opera singers in the world are tenors, baritones or bass-baritones), but to isolate that one factor as if it is the hallmark of how to sing operatically is wrong-headed and ignorant in the extreme.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  01:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it seems very long, when listening to singing like that. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OP here - right, first song. I thought it would go without saying that you wouldn't listen to very much of it.   thanks for the responses. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Logical fallacy
Is there a logical fallacy that says that "A lot of people say X is true. Therefore X must be true."? Dismas |(talk) 22:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad populum --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Named logical fallacies are not magic. Such an argument would be fallacious, whether or not it had a name. And you can call it an 'appeal to popularity', or 'appeal to the people' if you like. Latin names aren't magic either. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * True. Insistence on Latin terminology is often an argumentum verbosium. ' Ankh '. Morpork  00:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, but Latin is magical; see hocus pocus and abracadabra. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Abracadabra - "the word is thought to have its origin in the Aramaic language..." ' Ankh '. Morpork  00:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * AH GOTCHA!!! YEE HAW!!!!  (and it comes to us through....?)  (BTW, no one thinks Jesus celebrated the Last Supper in Latin either.) μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Point taken about the name but that is what I was looking for, a name. Thanks for the info! Dismas |(talk) 02:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, argumentum ad populum is the correct answer to this question. Also, argumentum ad populum isn't always used to say that something is true in a factual sense--it can also be used to assert that someone's position/views/opinions/beliefs are superior or more valid to other positions or beliefs. Futurist110 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)