Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 12

= November 12 =

Death of community - references please
I am interested in community psychology and theories of community. I am looking for papers discussing the dissolution of communities for reasons of social psychology. I am trying to understand the psychological reasons why a community might cease to exist. I am not interested in discussion of how Government X built a dam and flooded community Z or similar events. "Community" need not refer to a place-based community such as a town or neighborhood. In fact, virtual communities may be better example of what I am looking for.

Thank you for your comments and assistance.98.169.37.214 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in Bowling Alone, and its detractors. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Try the first two links here. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The concept to which Finlay refers is social capital. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * fiction books based on real events refer to british warship's crews being dispersed among a fleet because of near-mutiny. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

S. S. Hill
Who was the S. S. Hill, the author, Travels in the Sandwich and Society Islands and many other travel books?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A quick Google search tells us that he was Samuel S. Hill, "an English gentleman-traveler". . The book is available online at archive.org here: . Further works by Hill can be found at the same location: . AS for more on Hill himself, I'm sure it can be found, though maybe through old-fashioned library research... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that there probably isn't too much more to be found online; I remember when Kavebear asked about the date of his arrival in Maui a couple of months back, I was a bit curious about him as well. Apart from speculation that he was a businessman on account of his interest in trade fairs here, I couldn't dig up anything substantial. I do remember that he managed to spin a couple of books out of his around-the-world trip; his Travels in Siberia ended with him setting sail for the South Seas and I seem to remember that Travels in the Sandwich and Society Islands ended with him heading for South America, so I must download his Travels on the shores of the Baltic and Travels in Peru and Mexico to confirm that it was all the same trip. Unfortunately he didn't include much detail about himself in his books. Anyway, long story short, I don't think there is much more online, which seems a pity.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 07:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick check of the opening and closing sections confirm Travels in Mexico and Peru is a continuation (and conclusion) of his round-the-world trip, while Travels on the shores of the Baltic was a different venture.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 07:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Celebrities quoting from the Bible
Besides people in religious occupations, which celebrities have publicly quoted from the Bible? —Wavelength (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Define 'celebrities'. And are you asking for an exhaustive list? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * By "celebrities", I mean "famous people". I am not asking for an exhaustive list.  I am interested in knowing of some notable examples.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In what context? In movie roles?  Song lyrics?  Speaking extemporaneously?  In bible study groups?  -- Jayron  32  03:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * By "publicly", I mean "in any mass-media context where their quotations were heard or read by many people". I do not mean "in movie roles" or "in song lyrics"; I mean "as themselves".  They may have been communicating "extemporaneously" or from preparation.  I do not mean "in Bible study groups", unless the groups were in public spaces where people not in those groups were able to see or hear the quotations.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hard telling if you can find this anywhere, but LBJ once had the audacity to say about his Republican opponents in 1964, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition to defining "celebrities" and context, you also have to define what counts as "quoting from the bible". There are a large number of idioms and stock phrases in English that are biblically derived. "Turn swords to ploughshares" comes from the bible, but is frequently used in non-biblical contexts, as is "live by the sword, die by the sword", "pearls before swine", "Alpha and Omega", and "apple of my eye" (see Category:Biblical_phrases for more). Whatever you may think of its theological influence, the bible has had a great literary influence on the English language. I'm guessing you probably don't mean this bible-as-literary-metaphor usage, but it's something to be aware of when evaluating quotes. -- 67.40.212.42 (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't remember if it was written by a celebrity, but I remember reading at least one obituary of Christopher Hitchens that said he "fought the good fight". I assume no one realized that was from the Bible (or what the rest of the phrase is). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the writer deliberately chose those words to underline the irony (as the writer saw it) of "the good fight" now not being for Christianity but against it. --NellieBly (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * By "quoting from the Bible", I mean quoting directly from the Bible, regardless of the interpretation or application of the passage quoted. I do not mean "using any of the idioms and stock phrases derived from the Bible", regardless of the interpretation or application of the passage used.  (http://mlbible.com/2_timothy/4-7.htm; http://mlbible.com/matthew/6-3.htm)  Also, I do not mean re-quoting from a source that had previously quoted from the Bible or had adopted a phrase from the Bible.  (http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/macbeth/bibimagery.html)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, football player Tebow may be the most obvious recent example. Apart from that, poking through the google news archive turns up mostly criminals and politicians. Senator Russell Long in 1967, Senator Alan Trask in 1982, Oliver North in 1987, Bill Clinton in 1992. You may find different results with different search strings. Jay Leno once asked his audience for Bible quotes and no one could come up with one. And Donald Rumsfeld used to insert Bible quotes in military briefing papers for George W. Bush. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you only referring to living people? If not, beyond what people have said about needing to better define 'celebrity' or 'famous people' (for example there are a fair few priests and bishops and other Christian religious leaders who can be said to be famous and most must have quoted the bible but I'm not sure you want to include them, but what about the various Catholic popes?), you also may want to set a time frame. I expect many famous historic figures have quoted from the bible. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Practically everyone who was born in any Western country until about 50 years ago, and still an awful lot of people since. The Bible was such an essential part of the cultural landscape that it's harder to find a public speech or a book that doesn't quote the Bible.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not specify "living people"; I am referring to "both living and non-living people". In my original post, I said "Besides people in religious occupations"; I do not mean "priests and bishops and other Christian religious leaders" and I do not mean "Catholic popes".  I have not set "a time frame"; the quoting can have occurred at any time after a quoted passage was in the Bible.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missted the religious occupations bit. The rest of my statement stands however. Famous people excluding religious occupations could theoretically include anyone from a one hit wonder singer from 1968 to Paris Hilton to George W. Bush. And since you've included non living people and no time fram it could anyone from Constantine the Great to Æthelstan to a 10 year old. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The first words ever sent by telegraph, by Samuel Morse, were What hath God wrought, a quote from the Book of Numbers (23:23).
 * Here’s someone who often quotes the Bible.
 * The difficulty with this question is that we can find any number of quotations from the Bible, or from any other authors we care to think of, but finding examples of people actually quoting those books is another thing entirely.
 * An analogy would be the difference between the existence of a certain cookbook, which is well-attested; and knowledge of all or even some of the notable people who've ever used that cookbook in their own kitchens, which knowledge would not even exist. We might happen across very occasional mentions of particular people using the cookbook, but as for a full list, forget it.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Can philosophy be done and understood with only informal logic?
Philosophy discourses tend to focus on the substance than the so called "logical symbolic structure". When the writer asserts that there is an objective moral values for example, he focuses mostly on why is it so. Thus we cannot see the the formal symbolic structure of logic here. And if so can philosophy be done and understood without formal logic? I am not saying that all philosophers does it. Some cannot argue without symbolic aspects of logic. What i'm trying to point out is that, Is it possible to do philosophy with informal logic alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.97.213 (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You've asked this kind of question before. I'm not sure what sort of answer you're looking for. Not all philosophy uses formal logic; but not all philosophy can be understood without it, either. 'Doing philosophy' is an almost impossibly broad range of intellectual activity, and it's not easy or sensible to make sweeping statements about it. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Can a philosophical branch be independent?
It is agreed that philosophy like science is a method not a body of knowldge. Thus philosophy is only a term for a method some subject adheres upon. If so can a philosophical branch be independent from the other, for example can ethics be independent from philosophy of the mind? Can there be the subject of ethics even if there is no other branches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.97.213 (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep trying to get us to agree with your assertions about philosophy? "It is agreed that philosophy like science is a method not a body of knowldge. Thus philosophy is only a term for a method some subject adheres upon." Aside from being rather poor English, this is not necessarily a true declaration. There are philosophies of various areas of endeavour (eg Philosophy of science), but there are also philosophers whose studies are more abstract, and whose philosophy is an end in itself. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What book is September reading?
I'm reading Catherynne Valente's new book, The Girl Who Fell Beneath Fairyland and Led the Revels There. In the opening chapters, September's father sends her a book from France. It seems like a reference to something... does anyone here know what book September got from her father? Here's the relevant quote: "It had illustrations, too, of a girl not older than September sitting on the moon and reaching out to catch stars in her hands, or standing on a high lunar mountain conversing with a strange red hat with two long feathers sticking out of it that floated right next to her as pert as you please." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like, except the wrong gender, The Little Prince, which often has illustrations on the cover or elsewhere of the main character standing on the moon or reaching for stars. Perhaps September confused the Prince with a girl like herself.  If she didn't read at all, or didn't read French, it would be an easy mistake to make.  -- Jayron  32  22:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But I don't remember a red hat in The Little Prince. —Tamfang (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Does increasing female Infidelity mean that men are getting less gay?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/the-new-face-of-infidelit_b_2109881.html

So what exactly were men having affairs with all those years ago, farm animals, altar boys? What? Hcobb (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The question in the title has a simple answer - No. In fact, the question in the title is pretty nonsensical. People don't "get" more or less gay. And the question below the source seems to be based on a poor reading of it. HiLo48 (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are making the flawed assumption that the rate of male infidelity has remained constant. Perhaps, historically, there was a correspondingly small percentage of men who are unfaithful. We also have to ask whether there has been a change in the number of women who are willing to have multiple affairs. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in the article that suggests anything like what the OP is saying. But it's pretty clear the OP is being sarcastic. To be mathematically technical, if a given married man and woman each only had at most one fling, then the percentages should necessarily have to be similar. If the past percentages were true, then it should mean there were fewer women having affairs, but they were having them with multiple men. Forgetting the marriage vs. affair issue, well known personalities such as Zsa Zsa Gabor and Elizabeth Taylor had multiple men. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way is it "clear the OP is being sarcastic"? And where does "getting less gay" fit in? Maybe there's some sort of cultural communication gap happening here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you missed the comment about farm animals and altar boys. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the fact that it is possible to have more than one affair is one explanation for the odd statistic indicating that more men have affairs than women. Another possibility is that, because of the cultural double standard regarding sexual morality, women are more likely than men to lie when a pollster asks whether they have had an affair.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheeses Murray has Chosen! Will no one hat this trollscat? (I would say "What a gay question!" if it weren't impeecee to do so.) μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The article describes the percentages of married men or married women having affairs. To account for the difference in percentages, the obvious answer would be that some of them are having their affairs with unmarried partners, who don't contribute to the statistics on how many married people are having affairs. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  05:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Are Canada and the U.S. on the same side on the Iranian issue?
Would Canada send troops if a war broke out? Thank you! Watterwalk (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Would the USA send troops? If so, to do what? Who exactly would be in any position to occupy Iran? Canada would no doubt deploy their "worn out" fighters to help defend those states on the south side of Iran's Gulf. Hcobb (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This question requires a little explanation and perspective. Exactly what IS "the Iranian issue". How many "sides" does it have? The questions are somewhat independent too. It would be possible for Canada to "send troops" no matter what "side" it was on. Then again, it might not, no matter what "side" it is on. HiLo48 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Iranian issue would be "how close are they to getting nukes?" An attack on Iran is certainly a possibility somewhere down the road, but that doesn't mean troops would be involved. To answer the OP's question factually, it would be useful for the OP to see what he can find about Canada's own opinion of the Iran situation, and whether it has any sort of treaty with the US that would somehow obliged it to send troops somewhere if we do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * They might not have to "send troops" in the case of infantry, but certainly some nations would need to deploy some troops to the general area. There would be a large naval presence, and likely an air force, as well, flying from area bases.  There likely would be some ground troops in neighboring nations, too, to man anti-aircraft and anti-missile defenses, and to protect against Iranian car bombs and such.  Those troops might be marines.  Also, commando teams might be used to destroy nuclear sites. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My question comes about after the severance of relations between Canada and Iran. Watterwalk (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's entirely possible that Canada would prefer to never see or hear of Iran again. But if they felt their own interests were threatened by Iran having The Bomb, they might be willing to participate in a war against Iran. Has the Canadian government said anything about this subject? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Canada and the US are on the same side, in that they are both opposed to Iran developing the capability to build nuclear weapons. That does not, however, automatically mean Canada would participate in any military action.  They might not have anything to contribute, unless they have a division trained for desert warfare.  Of course, having Canadians there would lend moral support, so perhaps they might send a token force just for that purpose. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Iran is not entirely desert, and fighting a war against countries in the Middle East does not require troops that are specially trained for desert warfare. The invasion of Iraq certainly didn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It did, at least in part. Jungle camo won't do you much good in a desert, for example. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not "a division trained for desert warfare", that's breaking out the stocks of desert camouflage for your existing troops. Bravo Two Zero in the first Gulf War found that, in Iraq, snow and ice and temperatures well below freezing were a problem exacerbated by their desert gear, not solved by it. Canada doesn't have much jungle anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that shows a lack of experience with desert warfare. Specifically, not knowing that deserts can get very cold at night.  Proper desert equipment would include cold-weather gear.  Forest camo and arctic camo would also be of little use in Iran.  StuRat (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but such lack of experience does not in any way discourage the exporters of democracy from committing their forces when they feel the need to do so. There might be particular circumstances where a country didn't have the type of forces needed for particular requirements, but "part of the country concerned contains some desert" would not be such a circumstance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You can also compare Canada–Iran relations and Iran–United States relations and check out Foreign relations of Iran. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the following news article/poll, only 12% of Canadians would strongly support an attack on Iran, with a majority opposed to such an attack. The article goes on to state that opposition to attacking Iran is correlated with being educated, and well Canadians do have a high rate of education attainment. 50.101.137.171 (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which does not tell us anything about how the Canadian government would or would not react should things get to the point of a shooting war between the US and Iran... I am sure Canada would "support" the US, but how it would do so is a very open question. Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the military beavior (or lack of same) of nations had any predictability at all, then there wouldn't be any wars, and one side or the other would just be classy and resign, as in chess. It's as likely as not Canada's actions regarding Iran in some hypothetical future would depend on how close the next election is, the current political state of the Keystone pipeline project, and what the prime minister had for breakfast. Gzuckier (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sir Peter Hayman (MI6)
Sir Peter Hayman (MI6 and "diplomat") has no entry, although he is mentioned extensively in your entry on Paedophile Information Exchange, Section 3, and backed up by several "notes & references". Neither is there a cross-reference to this article in your search tool. The least you could do is cross-refer people looking up "Sir Peter Hayman" to the "Paedophile Information Exchange", page, Section 3. Apologies - I am sure there is a way I could have done this myself, but I couldn't work out how, unless...you have made it difficult because Wikipedia been "got at" by MI6 and/or Messrs Carter-Ruck or other expensive lawyers to the rich or powerful? Would be VERY interested to know whether there ever was a page on him, or other more interesting references to him, and when, and by whom they may have been expunged. (Hayman was acknowleged to have worked under the pseudonym "Mr Henderson".)

In a similar vein: Johann Hari:  You have a page devoted to this writer/journalist - I suggest you change this to writer/journalist/PLAGIARIST. In this page, a large proportion - at least 4 sections, including WIKIPEDIA EDITING, deals with his (or her!) dirty tricks including one line at the end of WIKIPEDIA EDITING, which reveals that he also uses the name David Rose (not the composer). You should have a reference to this Johann Hari page in the Disambiguation list for other people named David Rose, and a redirect to the Johann Hari page.

I strongly suggest you also tell people using that page that Hari also writes under the name "David Rose" - I have attempted to amend myself the profile box containing his picture, but I don't know if I have done so successfully. It seems likely that "Hari" may somehow thwart attempts to amend his own versions of the truth.

Thank you for your patience. gabad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabad (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC) GB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabad (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the Reference Desk, where people ask factual questions, which other people try to answer. If you have ideas about how our article on Paedophile Information Exchange could be improved, you can discuss them at Talk:Paedophile Information Exchange.  If there's consensus that your ideas are truly the best thing to do to make the article better and more reliable, you and others can work together to make the changes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Already asked at Help desk.--ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and Help desk. (If "asked" is the right word.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Some elements of the OP's question do appear to be relevant on this desk. For example, he seems to be asking for references about whether Wikipedia articles are regularly censored by their subjects using behind the scenes methods. I'll make a few brief comments on that.


 * First, Wikipedia considers itself bound by its policy on the biographies of living persons to a greater extent than it is bound by the various laws on defamation. In other words, before something on Wikipedia would be potentially defamatory and thus subject to removal through legal threats issued from "expensive lawyers to the rich or powerful", it should already have been removed due to breaking Wikipedia policy. To put that another way, things that appear in trashy tabloids or in rumours on twitter, usually do not appear on Wikipedia at all. And this is as it should be.


 * Without mentioning any specific names, I would also make the point that, quite the opposite of being ruthlessly successful at manipulating Wikipedia without being discovered, all these supposedly well-connected people seem to make laughable blunders that make their attempts obvious to anyone who cares to check up on them. If you have a look round on Google you'll find many pieces about biased or just plain foolish edits made from IP addresses traceable to the offices of departments of various different governments and companies; and about the software that exists to automatically identify when an IP address traceable to a company makes edits relating to that company.


 * Incompetence is far, far more widespread than malice. Or at least, far more widespread than competence (I see lots of incompetent malice on Wikipedia all the time.) Also, you need to realise that Wikipedia is quite resilient to even the most determined and competent of censorship; if someone publishes a biography of a Tory politician, and you buy that biography and discover that somehow magically Wikipedia doesn't mention anything in the slightly embarrassing ninth chapter of the biography, then you will very easily be able to either fix this yourself, or demand an explanation for it.


 * Real debates about Wikipedia "censorship" manage to be even sillier and simultaneously much more prosaic; one that I was involved with involved lawyers for Sony insisting that Wikipedia not host some small colour image that could be interpreted to provide some completely useless information about a Sony product. To cut a long story short, Wikipedia removed the information at Sony's request, that decision was then challenged (because hiding the fact it had been removed, like hiding anything else here, is very tricky), and the decision was overturned. Sony's lawyers then presumably went away and asked themselves why it was they were trying to suppress the information in the first place. That's about as exciting as it gets. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Military culture
Why do some countries developed a kind of military culture and others not? It's clear that the Swiss, Pakistanis and Israelis have reasons to fear their neighbors, but what about the Polish? And why is Canada relationship to the army different from the US? Comploose (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Swiss have reason to fear their neighbors ? I think that theory is full of holes. :-)


 * I suspect that Canada has a weak military because they can. If they were invaded, say by Russia, they could count on the US to protect them.  So, why spend money on a strong military when you don't need one ? StuRat (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Swiss had reason in the past to fear their neighbors, but nowadays no. That might have impacted them historically, and lead them to keep their determination to have a well-training popular army.


 * I do not believe Canada has such a weak army. Its population is just much smaller than the US and it doesn't have borders with rough countries. Philoknow (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Compare the US Navy with 318,406 active duty personnel versus the Royal Canadian Navy with 8,500 regular personnel. That's a ratio of over 37 to one.  The ratio is over 27 for the Canadian Army versus US Army and over 22 between active US Air Force members and the Canadian Air Force.  Does Canada even have marines ?  That's a lot more lopsided than just the population difference, where the United States population of 314,750,000 is about 9 times the population of Canada, at 34,976,000.  Also note that the US lacks borders with enemies who are likely to attack it.  StuRat (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't illegal immigration a form of attack? Isn't Cuba an almost bordering rough country? Historically, it was considered an advanced enemy base. Comploose (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Poor people looking for jobs is hardly an invasion. I think you need to check your rhetoric before you say something silly.  -- Jayron  32  22:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Invasion: n. 3. An intrusion or encroachment. Comploose (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comploose -- Cuban immigration to the U.S. is the other side of the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba, and the U.S. government has traditionally recognized this (nuanced recently by the "wet foot"/"dry foot" policy). If the U.S. government allowed people to take boats from Florida to Cuba and return with refugees, then it can hardly complain about Cuban immigration (though it did complain loud and long that Castro had emptied the jails of non-political prisoners and placed them on the same boats). AnonMoos (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The US doesn't use the military to stop illegal immigrants, they have other agencies for that. As for Cuba, it hasn't posed a threat for half a century.  And, despite the absurd plot in Red Dawn, the US is quite safe from invasion. StuRat (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Poland has been invaded by the Russians twice in the last 75 years, and has only recently got rid of them. They probably don't want them back again. Alansplodge (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In the case of Poland, it may be a source of pride to have a strong military, to erase memories of their military weakness in the previous century. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The relationship of the United States to its military is different from that of Canada because the US has sought to extend hegemony over large areas of the globe, and Canada has not. The United States has also committed itself to overseas military interventions when "its interests" (arguably often corporate interests) are at stake, whereas the Canadian state has not made the same kind of commitment to national "interests" far from Canadian shores.  In terms of political rhetoric, since World War I, the United States has also justified its strong military on account of its role as "defender of the free world".  Canadian politicians have never made such a grand claim for Canada's global role. Marco polo (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Poland not fear its neighbors? Poland might be the most-invaded country in the world. Even if there is another nation which might make that claim more strongly, are you familiar with the Partitions of Poland? Between 1772 and 1795 Germany, Austria, and Russia nibbled away at Poland in 3 gulps which in 1795 caused Poland to cease to exist as a sovereign country for 123 years and then after regaining its independence at the end of WWI, was re-invaded by the Nazis and the Soviets during WWII and then was occupied as a Soviet client state from 1945 until 1989. And that doesn't take into account the invasions of Swedes and Tatars in the 15th-17th centuries. It's national anthem translates to "Poland Is Not Yet Lost" or, more colloquially, "Poland Still Exists" for gosh sakes. While since the end of WWII the power of Germany and Austria has been, shall we say, diminished, I think the Poles have more than enough reason to be a tad paranoid. (And to show that Poland could do a lot with just a little bit of military might, see Battle of Wizna, where "720 Poles defended a fortified line for three days against more than 40,000 Germans".) Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You mean the most-invaded country in the world which has not seen an invasion for 70 years, and whose last invasion by the Soviets also affected every other country east of West Germany? Since when does any rational person make military decisions based on 15th century conflicts?  --140.180.252.244 (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- Poland has a somewhat special status as a country which has been invaded out of existence twice in modern history, and been heavily screwed over by both its traditional eastern and western neighbors within living memory. AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed; while the US is currently using the military to maintain access to required resources overseas, Canada is still trying to gain access to resources anywhere north of Saskatoon. Gzuckier (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The US is a poor choice for comparison. It's not that Canada has an unusually small military, it's that the US has an usually large one. If you look at List of countries by military expenditures, you'll see Canada is pretty near the middle in terms of military expenditure as a percentage of GDP. --Tango (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

In what sense does Poland have a "military culture"? I'm not saying this observation is necessarily incorrect, but I'd like to know what it means and, preferably, get to see some examples. — Kpalion(talk) 20:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Attending some courses at prestigious colleges
How common is for the top 1% colleges around the world to offer programs that almost everyone can join? I see that many of them have further education programs, summer courses, online education programs and the like. It seems that almost anyone would be able to obtain a little bit of prestige. In your CV you could put Educated at college such and such (even if it was just a couple of months). Philoknow (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For your first question, very common. Many prestigious institutions are giving their names to online programs. It certainly wouldn't be dishonest to list classes or workshops taken through extension programs like these.  The issue here is that most of these programs do not offer degrees.  A good CV will, of course, list degrees obtained, but it would not be appropriate to list these institutions if you did not achieve a degree. -- Daniel  18:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be dishonest to say you earned a degree from them if you did not, but not to say you attended classes or earned a certificate, if you did. In particular, this type of thing can perk up a resume for somebody who otherwise finished school decades ago. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Degrees are more valuable than certificates, independent from where. But a degree + certificates is better than just a degree for sure. In your CV you'll have to explain things like they are: degree from college X and certificate from college Y. I don't know how acceptable would be to put in your short bio thing s like: "Philo Know attended College X and College Y." It's not a plain lie, but misleading. Comploose (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see what's misleading about saying you attended two colleges you attended. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But if you attended college X for 4 years and obtained a degree there and did a a weekend introductory course at college Y, then you shouldn't try to give the impression that you both were the same experience. For many people to attend college = to earn accredited credit. Comploose (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One way to list non-degree work on a CV is under a heading: "Additional education"... you could say something like "Attended classes at Kumquat State College, and XYZ Workshop sponsored by University of FooBar." or "Earned certificate of completion in Star Gazing, Online Continuing Education Program (Astrophysics Dept.), BoxTop University".  The key is to be honest in presenting your achievements.  Caveat... potential employers will know the difference between legitimate programs in continuing education and those that offer puffed up "faux-credentialism".  If you are taking classes to build your professional credentials, find out which institutions have a good reputation and which do not. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your CV will generally need to say "AWARD TITLE in SUBJECT from INSTITUTION NAME", and lying about the award name would be just as bad as lying about the institution name. Some "top 1% colleges" do award honorary degrees, but I doubt they would award something with a title that sounded like something for a 1-year course, after only 6 weeks' study or whatever. (So for example I think Oxford still do a "Post Graduate Certificate in Education" as a 1-year course, but it's certainly not open to "almost everyone", and I very much doubt they have similarly-named qualifications that you can obtain from a single summer school course.)


 * It is of course true that some institutions will want to milk the value of their name as much as they can, but equally if it really is a top 1% college then it can make just as much money by hosting "conferences" and the like as it can hosting courses whose reward is a certificate of attendance. At least to the extent that they wouldn't want to water down the value of the real qualifications they award.


 * My CV has a section towards the end that lists a brief selection of more significant "certification and courses attended". A piece of paper that says "certificate of attendance" is worthless for anything beyond graduates seeking their first job. But, if a former employer paid for two one-week courses on a particularly important technical topic, I may mention it on my CV, but will also expect I may be asked about it, in detail, at interview. Exaggeration is unnecessary; if a particular relevant "certificate" was gained by sitting eight short tests after eight one-week courses, I briefly say so, and the potential employer probably realises that I'm neither making it more nor less than it is.


 * Anything that is "top 1%" enough to increase your chances significantly just on a brief mention, is also sufficiently notable that you will be asked about it at some stage of the interview process. At which point, the extent to which your CV does or does not exaggerate its significance, will become clear. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In the UK there is a standard system for awarding points for courses offered by Higher Education institutions. If the course you are on is of a suitable standard, you will receive a Certificate of Higher Education saying you have achieved "xx credit points at HE Level 1" (or 2 or 3 if appropriate). --TammyMoet (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether this is available depends on what the OP means by "prestigious colleges". Oxford and Cambridge, for example, do not use a credits system and never award CertHEs. They have 'visiting students', but they receive no award and are usually admitted through an overseas institution of similar quality. There are also several companies that specialize in hiring rooms in Oxbridge colleges so that non-matriculated visitors can get a taste of the experience (or boast they studied there, if you're cynical). I would also suspect that it would be difficult/impossible to get a CertHE from e.g. Imperial, UCL, KCL and Durham without meeting the usual standards. Matt's talk 12:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Anderson Cooper's coming out a hindrance to his career?
I mean, he used to travel to the Middle East and cover stories from there. Now that he's come out, can he keep doing what he used to do? What do you think? Watterwalk (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is really asking for our opinions and speculations on what might or might not happen. We are not a crystal ball.  There is no objective reference we could possibly provide that would answer this question definitively.  There are many fora where this could be discussed ad nauseam.  Just not here.  Sorry.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right, my question should be, can CNN now send him to places such as the Middle East? Watterwalk (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that would depend on where they're sending him. Any journalist is in some peril in a war zone, and some have been killed or seriously maimed in the line of duty. The fact he's American is probably the greater mark on him, from the terrorists' viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Watterwalk -- It might possibly affect him as a war-zone correspondent, but doesn't seem to have done anything to him as a talk-show host, which seems to be the main part of the next phase of his career... AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh! with a capital em. μηδείς (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Any journalist, like any traveler, needs to obey the laws of the jurisdiction they are in. In much of the Middle East this would mean that he would have to refrain from various sorts of sexual activities while there, lest he come under very harsh penalties. But that isn't a result of his having come out — that would have been the case even if he was still in the closet. Other than that, I doubt it really adds much more of a security threat than is already assumed by members of the foreign press. If, for example, a fatwa were to be issued against him on account of his coming out, that would be a different story. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Normally not the being homosexual, but the performing a homosexual act is the trigger of the punishment. I wouldn't infer any risk for him just for coming out of the closet, maybe just less respect, for being a "lessen man." OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

berenger sauniere
My question centres around the information you offer on the Parish priest at Rennes le Chateau, Berenger Sauniere. I find current information to be fairly reflected, save for one (I think) very important point. There appears to be a tendency to eliminate the more controversial aspects of Sauniere's residence as priest, and one striking anomaly is missed out entirely. As someone who has taken the time to visit the church at Rennes le Chateau, and witness for myself the astonishing and controversial iconography within, without question the most noteable (and notorious) symbol is that of the XIV Stage of the Cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.117.124 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for alerting us to this, not 100% sure on what your suggesting though, for something this article specific you may want to raise this point on the articles talk page and if no response after a decent amount of time you can also be WP:BOLD and edit the article itself reflective of both views, but please list any notable sources with tags on anything making a claim or extremely factual. Thanks for visiting wikipedia! Marketdiamond (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The church at Rennes-le-Château has been the focus of a lot of writing, much of it controversial and fringe theory, and you will need to be very careful to maintain a neutral tone and provide reliable sources for any edits you make. You might find it helpful, as Marketdiamond suggests, to discuss your proposed changes at Talk:Rennes-le-Château or Talk:Bérenger Saunière first, depending on which article you are proposing to edit. -  Ka renjc 17:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Conquering British Canada in the War of 1812
Did the United States of America ever have a realistic chance of conquering Canada (or at least parts of Canada) in the War of 1812? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if we did, the Southerners would not have let us, just as the Northerners prevented the annexation of Mexico and Cuba. Either would have led to an imbalance of slave and free states. See manifest destiny and The Missouri Compromise among other articles. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first meaningful political confrontation over slavery in U.S. territories was 5 years after the war, in 1819. Before the war, politicians from both North and South had worked fairly smoothly together to abolish the external slave trade to the U.S. in 1808 (the earliest it could be abolished under the U.S. constitution).  The two sides in the War of 1812 were fairly evenly-matched; the U.S. could have conceivably conquered Canada with some extra luck and skill, but it's not too surprising that it didn't (and even if it had, then it would have had to face the full force of the British navy after the wars in Europe were over). AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. The word "Canada" did not include the Maritimes in 1812. AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By Canada, I mean Canada using present-day (2012) borders. Futurist110 (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, some Southerners like John C. Calhoun opposed the annexation of Mexico due to the large number of non-whites (Latinos and Native Americans) living in Mexico. Futurist110 (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That wasn't a goal of the United States during the War of 1812. There are a few historians that have proposed that the U.S. may have had that as a goal, but they do not represent the preponderance of historical thought, and even if the U.S. had that as an ambition, it was a "secret" ambition insofar as it was never an overtly stated goal of the U.S. in declaring war.  The List of War of 1812 Battles has the results of conflicts that did occur in Canada during said war.  Insofar as the American capital was captured and set ablaze by the British, I don't think there was a realistic chance that the Americans were going to secure a whole lot of territory in Canada.  Even if they had, it isn't a forgone conclusion that it would have been a part of the peace negotiations for the resolution of the war.  Strictly speaking, the U.S. wouldn't have had to had any military involvement in Canada to request a transfer of said territory, and winning battles in Canada would not have required the British to offer it in negotiations.  Transfers of territory are common during peace negotations, but it isn't a usual condition that transfer of territory been contingent on winning battles within that territory, in either direction: winning battles doesn't mean you automatically get that land, and getting land doesn't require that you win battles there.  -- Jayron  32  23:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Post EC comment: on the post EC comment, this comment response to Medeis's answer: I don't think the free-state/slave state problem really became a national issue until the Missouri Compromise issue, which was 5 years after the resolution of the War of 1812.  The Mexican Cession issues are even later than that.  Had the War of 1812 been fought ten years later, that may have been a serious issue; but I don't think that particular hornets nest had been a problem in 1815.  Historically, the Oregon boundary dispute was the major post-1815 issue between Britain and the U.S., and I am not aware of any free/slave state issues in that dispute either: In the election of 1844, Southern Democrats supported full annexation of Oregon up to the famous 54o 40' line, while northern Whigs actually supported acceding to the British position of the 42nd parallel.  The modern boundary was eventually settled by Polk (a southerner) on the compromise middle 49th parallel.  -- Jayron  32  23:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * However, in 1846 there were some Northerners who felt disgruntled that Polk had given away claims in a presumed future non-slaveholding area ("Oregon" / Columbia) to aggressively pursue claims in a presumed future slaveholding area (Texas)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but Polk's own party had initially been for aggressively pursuing Northern Oregon/BC, though their reasoning for doing so was to preserve slave/free balance as they sought to carve up Texas into a half dozen slave states: Oregon would have provided them political capital to do so in providing land for a similar number of Free states. Population was also an issue: The Texas states would have had greater representation in the House than the ligher populated (and harder to settle!) Oregon states.  So yes, there was some free-slave issues in the Oregon dispute, but it was NOT as simple as "Southerners oppose annexing land to the North".  In this case, southerners supported annexing land to the North.  Complex politics is, unsurprisingly, complex.  -- Jayron  32  00:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In regards to Texas being split up into several states, Oregon wasn't the only Northern/free state that could have been split up. Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and Illinois (and maybe some other states) had the potential to be split up as well to add more free states to the United States. Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Possible but unlikely. The advantage in the 1840s to having Texas and Oregon in the union was that neither were already states.  The Constitution doesn't allow an existing state to be split up without the state's own permission (the Missouri Compromise required Massachusetts to agree to lose over 2/3rds of its land to form a new state; the Feds couldn't just create Maine without Massachusetts agreeing to it).  Existing states could be split to form a new state, but that requires an additional level of politics.  Prior to joining the union as states, both the Oregon Territory (which was ultimately formed 3 whole states and parts of others: Idaho, Washington and Oregon) and the lands of Texas could have been formed into as many states as the union needed, without having to deal with the need to Constitutional issue of dividing an existing state.  -- Jayron  32  14:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have some good points there. How much did Laura Secord's actions affect the outcome of the war, though? Couldn't the U.S. have tried getting parts of Canada if it felt that it was more successful in the war, though, since if the U.S. would have done better than expected its war aims might increase. Futurist110 (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly. There were overtures made during the Revolutionary War to invite some additional colonies in both Canada and the Caribbean to join the United States (Quebec and Nova Scotia, IIRC, were serious contenders to join the Union) but ultimately that ship had sailed by the 1810s.  The Quebec Act made Quebec (despite it's Catholic French background) a natural enemy of the U.S. in terms of having overlapping territorial claims, and ultimately the Constitutional Act of 1791, the successor to the Quebec Act, provided the initial move towards responsible government in Canada, and Canada in the 1810s was filled with a population of loyalists who had fled the U.S. after the Revolution; the difference in populations means that there would have been even less of a motivation to annex any part of Canada in 1815 than there had been in the 1770s.  I'm not sure the U.S. was interested in annexing a population of people which actively didn't want to be part of it (at least, a white European population: the attitudes towards American Indian nations notwithstanding).  It would have created a political headache.  It should be noted that, eventually, the U.S. did annex some small parts of Canada (see the Aroostook War and the Webster–Ashburton Treaty).  -- Jayron  32  14:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not accurate that the United States annexed parts of Canada. Rather, the United States annexed an area claimed as part of British North America. The United States had disputed that British claim all along.  The treaty defining boundaries in that area before 1842 had competing interpretations.  Read Article 2nd here, which seems to indicate a boundary running due north from the source of the St. Croix and then southwest along the divide between rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence estuary and those flowing into the Gulf of Maine.  That line would have put parts of present-day Quebec and New Brunswick in Maine.  The British used a less plausible interpretation of the treaty to draw a line much farther south.  According to the more obvious U.S. interpretation, the 1842 Webster-Ashburton Treaty represents a US cession of land to Britain (and to Quebec and New Brunswick). In fact, it was a compromise.  Marco polo (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)