Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 10

= October 10 =

French Guiana
What is French Guiana's status relative to the rest of France? Is it like a colony, or is it more analogous to Hawaii? --168.7.237.39 (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See Politics of French Guiana. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To be more explicit, French Guina is both an Overseas_department and a Regions of France. They are not analagous to a U.S. state like Hawaii, in that they cannot pass statutory laws (they can levy taxes and have discretionary power over a lot of spending in the region, just like all regions of France).  They are like Hawaii in that they are governed pretty much identically to regions and departments in Metropolitan France.  They have proportional representation in the National Assembly (France) and French Senate.  The phrase "An Integral Part of France" is often used with the overseas departments and regions.  Contrast this to French Polynesia, an "Overseas country of France", or Saint Pierre and Miquelon, an "Overseas collectivity". Buddy431 (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To expand and clarify on Buddy's excellent answer, France is not organized like the United States. It has nothing like U.S. states.  France does have "Regions" and "Departments" and "Municipalities", but these are more like "counties" and "civil townships" in the United States: they are administrative divisions which have highly limited powers on their own; the actual power to govern France and to pass laws lies solely with the French government in Paris, France is a unitary state, where as the U.S. is a federation, so comparisons to U.S. States aren't entirely useful in trying to understand France.  That being said, French Guiana is a Department.  It is often called an "overseas department", but that qualification is one of description and not of quality: French Guiana is no less part of France than any other Department.  In that way it is like Hawaii.  -- Jayron  32  06:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Most people think of France as being a European country. It is that, but it's also a North American country, a South American country, and an African country.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  06:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Very true; but as a percentage of population, by culture, by hegemony, and by the general social and economic spheres, it is basically a European country. It's not inaccurate to call it a European country except in the most pedantic, technical manner.  -- Jayron  32  06:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. I would never describe France as other than a European country, unless the context demanded it, as it did above.  It is overwhelmingly European in all the ways that matter to most people.  But geographers are people too.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  21:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Jayron  32  13:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried in vain to convince other editors that French Guiana technically speaking is an integral part of France at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_20, but somehow the supposition/misconception that any place in the tropics has to be a colony is quite strong. If anyone is up for reopening a CfD again, I'm up for it. --Soman (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just remind them that Alaska, Hawaii and Texas are all part of the same country. --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  10:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Reopening a CFD from 2.5 years ago about an issue that was later resolved by other means Yeah, you have fun with that.  -- Jayron  32  12:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How was it resolved? --Soman (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson's views on government
When Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence, what did he believe an ideal government should provide for its citizens? -- Jethro  B  04:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See Thomas_Jefferson -- Jayron  32  04:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen that. I was wondering when he was writing the Dec of Indep himself, and how it's reflected in the Dec. -- Jethro  B  04:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually a bit tough to understand Jefferson's political philosophy because, paradoxically, he didn't write much aside from that. Much of what we know about his political philosophy comes from copies of his speeches, what others have written about him, etc.  Unlike many of his contemporaries, like John Adams or James Madison or Alexander Hamilton, all of whom wrote extensive and detailed works on the nature and organization of government, Jefferson's only proper "book" written in his lifetime for publication was Notes on the State of Virginia, which does contain some of his political philsophy, but meanders into lots of other issues and isn't really a focused work of political thought like the Federalist Papers (Madison/Hamilton/Jay) or Adams's Thoughts on Government.  Jefferson wrote a handful of other pamphlets, tracts, and short articles but wasn't a big writer.  If you want to get to know him best, then Notes on the State of Virginia is going to be your best shot; but you're going to have to slog through some rather boring and unrelated stuff on navigability of rivers and descriptions of native animals.  Also rather inconsistently, Jefferson's practice of politics ran rather counter to his professed philosophy: For example, he claimed that he favored a republic founded on the agrarian life of the simple gentlemen farmer as the ideal citizen, yet he spent most of his political life criticizing Adams as a "monarchist" and elitist, Adams the gentleman farmer and Jefferson the Aristocrat.  He's a complex fellow.  -- Jayron  32  05:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify something I said which may be taken the wrong way: Jefferson was an extensive writer. He wrote constantly, but most of his writings are personal letters and were not works intended for publication.  He didn't write works of political philosophy specifically; he wrote lots of stuff from which one can extract his political philosophy.  But I don't know that he had as many concrete ideas on the minutia of government the way that Madison or Adams did; he was more of a "big idea" guy, from my impressions of reading his works and from reading analyses of his works.  -- Jayron  32  05:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he states "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." See here page 285.  So that may, perhaps be a statement of his opinion as to the legitimate ends of government.  Its a pithy quote, but it doesn't amount to a whole lot.  -- Jayron  32  05:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32 is mostly correct, unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court never got that memo. . . ala Separation of church and state, as Jayron32 puts it "personal letters and were not works intended for publication", but that is a whole other discussion on how some will force themselves to see a unified political theory in what may have simply been the daydream musing spitballing of a founding father. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has Other official documents written by people who aren't Thomas Jefferson to help them resolve the issue of Church and State. -- Jayron  32  12:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Jefferson wrote most of his more political letters with the expectation and understanding that they were not really "private", but that they would be read and repeated by many people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your question depends on who you ask. People have usually characterized Jefferson's view of government as expressed in the Declaration as what we would today call "libertarianism" or "classical liberalism", that is, a limited government with emphasis on individual rights. In the 1970s, Garry Wills controversially challenged this view. Start with this essay to learn more. —Kevin Myers 16:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Occurrence of Demonic Possession
After watching a television show about demonic possession, I was curious to know, have their been any cases of possession where the victim was a non-believer? It seems to me that possession seems to occur amongst people that believe it's possible in the first place.70.171.18.234 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Even more significantly: diagnosis is often performed by people predisposed to belief in its possibility. So is treatment, which can be lethally dangerous to the subject. Some of the victims are too young to have informed beliefs on the subject. (I went to a school where we were taught that illness was a physical manifestation of evil - not quite the same thing, but closely related. I am a Christian, but I didn't believe the claim then and I don't believe it now.) I am unaware of any cases of demonic possession occurring where the people responsible for diagnosis (whether including the victim or not) did not already believe that such a thing can happen. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no sympathy for claims of demonic possession or any other religious nonsense, but your first sentence is a tautology. How can diagnosis be performed by people who don't believe in its possibility?  If you don't believe demonic possession is possible, why would you ever diagnose it?  The same goes for treatment: if you don't believe in demonic possession, why would you treat it?  What could "treatment" possibly mean you don't think the thing you're treating exists?  --140.180.242.9 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a truism rather than a tautology, and that was rather my point, as well as (I suspect) the point of the original question. The (fallacious) diagnosis is only made by people who believe in it. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's unlikely, largely because of selection bias. When someone displays unusual behaviour and/or an apparent personality change, the people around them are the first to notice the problem. If the sufferer believes in demonic possession, they are likely to be part of a network (family, friends, church) that believes in demonic possession.  Possession is therefore one possible diagnosis. If the sufferer does not believe in possession then they are less likely to surround themselves in their personal life by people who accept it as an article of faith.  Possession is therefore unlikely to be considered as a possibility by those who are concerned for them, who are more likely to seek a medical or psychological diagnosis, which will not (in most countries) include demonic possession.  It is perfectly possible that believers could diagnose possession in a nonbeliever, with potentially dangerous consequences if the sufferer is prevented from, or incapable of, getting a second opinion or access to mainstream medical care.  Googling "learning difficulties demonic possession", for example, while writing this answer, was quite a disturbing experience. -  Ka renjc 12:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Demonic possession article has something to say about this in general. In the UK there has been some concern about alleged cases of possession leading to serious crime including child abuse and murder (see this report from the BBC) and it seems to involve people "from Africa, South Asia and Europe".  For a particular example see the rather distressing case of Victoria Climbié.  In that particular case, I am unsure whether an 8 year old child is capable of understanding or actually believing in demonic possession, although she might believe whatever an adult tells her.  Astronaut (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Domestic Twinning
I notice in List of twin towns and sister cities in Italy that some places are linked to others also in Italy. For example, Busto Arsizio is twinned with Domodossola, and Cagliari has three Italian twins (quadruplets?). As promotion of international relationships was, I thought, pretty central to the whole twinning idea, what's the point of this, and do any other countries do likewise? I've checked a few of the other entries in Category:Lists of twin towns and sister cities and can't see any. Rojomoke (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily a promotion of international relationships. Germany still has a number of cities which are twinned with other German cities. This, of course, is because Germany was virtually cut in half for a while. Italy has historically been a nation with a number of states for most of its history. This is possibly why. In Italian, it is called 'comune gemellato' or 'gemellaggio'. As for whether other countries do this, I cannot answer that. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In China, there are some more affluent cities or towns on the eastern seaboard who are twinned with poorer cities or towns in the west, via a central government program designed to help boost development in the interior. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how does Rebecca Black get to maintain composure better than Jason Russell?
As you know, Jason suffered an epic breakdown on the streets of San Diego after a mix of success and acerbic criticism of his Kony 2012 campaign, and was hospitalized for about 6 1/2 months.

However, Rebecca Black received more acerbic criticism in her Friday music video and was more of a one-hit wonder (though her hit was due to the derideable qualities of her song(s)), and yet, over 18 months later, she remained sane, calm and composed. Not to mention that Rebecca Black is 19 years Jason's junior.

So how is it that when Rebecca is so much younger, hence presumably quite a bit more delicate, she never broke down amidst and in reaction to the negative responses to her songs? What's her secret? What did she have that Jason didn't? What did she not have that Jason had, that (may have) directly caused Jason's breakdown? --70.179.167.78 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, differences in handling stress have been noted in people, and must have both genetic and environmental causes, but I don't believe we know the details of exactly what makes one person handle stress better than another. This would be valuable info, though, so we could know who can handle high stress jobs, and who will cave under the pressure. StuRat (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the highly serious intent of Kony 2012 may be relevant. Other factors certainly come into play, but I wouldn't wish to speculate on them in a way which might breach our policy on biographies of living people. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You're talking about n=2. Two people are not trends. Whether Black or Russell are more "indicative" of trends of stress is unestablished. They are individuals with different pasts, and their situations are not comparable, either. I'm not sure any reasonable comparison can be made on this front. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, much (all, IMO) of the flak Rebecca Black got was bullying by young men butthurt that she got attention that should have been theirs by right of birth. The Kony 2011 flak, on the other hand, was based on substantive criticism of the issues at hand. What's easier to shrug off: the wholly irrational, wildly overblown hatred of random spoiled, entitled strangers, or thoughtful criticism and plausible allegations of fraud? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of people around the world who have been through much worse than either Rebecca or Jason, but didn't break down and run around naked in public. Think about people in criminal courts, facing death penalties or life in prison.  Remember Casey Anthony, whom half the country thought was guilty of murder?  What about Jerry Sandusky, O.J. Simpson, or Ted Bundy?  How about people who get shipwrecked, tortured, put in North Korean labor camps, or forced to fight in a trench in WWI?  How about people who live in besieged cities, go through famines, get cystic fibrosis (and slowly drown from the inside), get persecuted for religious reasons, get marched to death in a genocide, get lost in a desert, are captured as child soldiers and forced to beat their relatives to death?  Billions of humans and other animals--including both our heroes and our villains--have endured tremendous adversity and overcome it or died trying.  You only heard about Jason's breakdown on the news because it was highly abnormal--if people usually broke down in that kind of situation, you wouldn't have heard about it, because everyone would have already known that he would break down.  Similar, you never heard the news proclaim "NEWSFLASH: REBECCA BLACK DID NOT RUN AROUND ON THE STREET NAKED!!!" because we expect teenage girls to be capable of enduring that kind of humiliation without having a complete breakdown, at least not in public, so it's not newsworthy that she did exactly that.  --140.180.242.9 (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Israeli PM's red line for Iran
What did he mean with that? That if it's crossed there will be war? or what? thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In the context of a dictator who the Israelis are convinced is "close" to a nuclear weapon and giving speeches multiple times a year on how Israel must cease to exist or be pushed into the sea etc. then yes the red line would be war, the alternative to hear the Israelis tell it would be their eventual destruction. Forgetting the politics of it for a moment if someone with a weapon kept threating you, many juries would aquit if you hit back or even killed the person making those threats with the weapon, many police departments see their officers hitting back or even shooting dead a perp making threats while branishing a weapon as an acceptable use of force as well, humans are humans despite the scale.  Marketdiamond (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is both misleading about the "red line" (Netanyahu has not said it will be "war"), as well as about Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a dictator — his will is not absolute, he does not have the ability to dictate policies. He is elected, and he's just about at the end of his term, at that. Iran isn't completely free, but calling it a dictatorship is misleading . They have a complicated civil society, balances of powers, and Ahmadinejad, for all of his rhetoric and attention, is actually comparatively weak within the Iranian political ecosystem. (It also isn't the case that he has ever advocated Israel being pushed into the sea or anything that strong. Most of his famous anti-Israeli state statements have been mistranslated, but that doesn't stop people from repeating them, even after correction multiple times. He makes inflammatory comments, to be sure, but his rhetoric is not as bellicose as that.) The comparison with individuals and juries is not germane and likely not legally correct, either. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Ahmadinejad's a peace-loving democratically-elected (2009 rigged elections and Green Revolution, say what?) bunny rabbit whose vision of peace consists of transforming Israel/West Bank/Gaza into one big amusement park for everyone to have fun! The proof is one controversy regarding a speech he gave? We could just as easily cite tens of other explicit speeches he gave calling for Israel's destruction, such as these recent ones (,, , etc). No surprise that Secretary General of the United Nations Ban ki-Moon has called on Ahmadinejad explicitly to stop threatening Israel. -- Jethro   B  23:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm no lover of Ahmadinejad — don't make a straw man out of what I said. He's not a dictator, though. There were 2009 election irregularities, but typically we view things on that level as a spectrum of corruption rather than "dictatorship vs. democracy." The "wipe off the map" speech is the most famous speech of his, and is constantly brought up as proof of his allegedly genocidal intentions. His speeches, when not accidentally or purposefully mistranslated, generally call for an end of the specific Zionist regime in Israel, not Jewish people. His audience for that is obvious — his own domestic base, and like many in the Middle East he gets a lot of domestic capital by subscribing in a vague way to the Palestinian cause. He's never said anything though that would imply that he intends to nuke Israel, and there is exactly zero reason to suspect that's his goal. That doesn't mean Israel should be happy about the idea of a nuclear Iran, but there are facts and then there is just hyperbole. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said he's a dictator - just that it's likely his rule is illegitimate. At either rate, I (and most analysts will agree) view him as more of a "puppet" of the Supreme Leader. I don't know if that speech is used the most often, I do not care. If I wanted to make a case of explicit statements calling explicitly for Israel's destruction, I'd use the numerous times he has said this explicitly without dispute - even Ban ki-Moon has condemned him for this explicitly.
 * As for using the nukes on a country (be it Israel, Saudi Arabia, American bases, etc)... I don't read crystal balls, so I don't know what'd happen. The possibility certainly exists, and is not one anyone would like to live under.  You have a fanatical enough regime and fanatical enough leaders, believing in a radical interpretation of their religion, you don't know what could happen, if they're willing to make that sacrifice.  Even if not, Iran still supports terror organizations (yeah, this isn't an article so I'm going to say that) like Hamas and Hezbollah (let alone their own IRGC), so imagine if they do get nukes what could happen. It's not about using them.  If they would get it, that would be a significant deterrent to responding to any terrorist attacks by these organizations.  Or the prospects of setting off a nuclear arms race (Saudi Arabia has confirmed they'd seek nukes) in a volatile Middle East isn't too good either... All of this without actually using the nukes.  Even just attaining the capability to produce nuclear weapons is scary enough - in just a few weeks, in some underground new facility that no one knows about, with just a few top scientists, a nuke can be producd at any time.  North Korea all over.
 * But it's like what I always say - is this something we want to risk? Should we turn a blind eye to it, give the benefit of the doubt, and be naive and hope for peace?  I wish we could. I don't think it's realistic though. -- Jethro   B  02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that by dictator he means Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rather than Ahmadinejad. Futurist110 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Khamenei is a theological leader, but he's not a dictator, either. (I think of the Iranian mullahs as being roughly equivalent to the US Supreme Court — they are not democratically elected, they are not subject to very much representative power, they have certain abilities to make very big decisions, but they are not completely unlimited in their abilities, nor can they totally disregard the reality of things.) Iran's political system is more complicated than that. Abstracting it down to "one guy must be in charge, they're backwards and cruel" is just a reflection of ignorance. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ironically that metaphor applies to both sides. Israel is a nuclear power who is constantly threatening to attack Iran.A8875 (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * However, Israel doesn't refuse to acknowledge Iran's existence ("the Persian entity ?"), set it's destruction as a goal, and specifically fund groups dedicated to that goal. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and also the main reason that Israel is threatening to attack Iran is because Iran was threatening Israel first (such as by sponsoring terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and as StuRat said, to set the destruction of Israel as its goal). To be honest I think it's very stupid for Iran to alienate Israel and the West this much. Iran is close to some hostile Sunni Arab states, and if the Iranian leadership was more rational an alliance with Israel might have been much smarter than threatening to eliminate Israel. Futurist110 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Israel does directly fund groups that commit acts of terrorism and assassination in Iran — that is pretty well known. They do certainly desire to destabilize the Iranian regime; "regime change" and "regime annihilation" are fairly synonymous in this context. Iran does not set the killing of the Israeli population as its goal; it's goal is to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and its establishment as a specifically Jewish (as opposed to pluralistic) state. You can disagree with that pretty solidly; my point is that viewing this as a simple "Iran wants to kill Israel, who has never done anything to anybody" is a really naive approach to it. I don't favor Iran's intentions, but I'm pretty wary of Netayahu's intentions as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What wonderful goals! Guess there must be some Freudian slips there, with the few diffs I provided above as just recent examples of explicitly saying "destroy Israel."  And burning the American, British, and Israeli flags, while chanting "Death to Israel! Death to America! Death to England!"
 * Btw, elections are coming up in Israel in January, like they do every 3/4 years. It's called a democracy, where the people elect their own regime. No one needs to tell them who to elect or to wish for 30 years for some "regime change," regardless of whether the "regime" is left or right on the political spectrum, always that same "wish." -- Jethro   B  02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding "end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory", since all of Israel is defined by Iran as "occupied Palestinian territory", this means that Israel must cease to exist to satisfy Iran. Israel has no such goal for Iran. StuRat (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One point that should be clarified is the difference between attacking a country and fighting its people and attacking nuclear facilities of a country (or at least, having the intention of only this, who knows what would develop). Tragically, I don't think this has really been stressed by world leaders advocating this (even as a last resort, as all do), although judging by Operation Opera, Israel's miraculous raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor that helped Operation Desert Storm significantly and to liberate Kuwait, which targeted only the Osirak reactor. -- Jethro   B  23:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The main question being debated by the people who actually make decisions about this is whether attacking the nuclear facilities would lead to a wider conflict, and whether it would slow, rather than hasten, Iranian nuclear ambitions. It's a thorny problem and there are different types of examples. It is not quite the same thing as the Iraqi situation; the Iranian nuclear complex is far more robust and spread out. (Another point of comparison is the Israeli bombing of the Syrian reactor a few years back.) There have been some excellent articles on all of this in the New Yorker not too far back; it's clear that Netayahu thinks that they can bomb in a contained way, but it's also clear that most other Israeli defense analysts are dubious of this. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are definitely risks and any military option should obviously be a last final doomsday resort, something that everyone agrees on. You gotta assess the risks, assess the consequences, and compare it to the consequences of not doing such an action, and then make a choice. Luckily, I'm not the one making that choice. -- Jethro   B  02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Netayahu's invocation of the "red line" was as a threat in and of itself. ("At this late hour, there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs. That's by placing a clear red line on Iran's nuclear weapons program. Red lines don't lead to war; red lines prevent war.") In the context of his speech, he said that in the past, making firm stands against certain outcomes has led to positive diplomatic success in the past. (He specifically invoked the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of this, though it is misleading — JFK did take a hard stand, but he also bargained and compromised to get the outcome he wanted.) He didn't actually say he was drawing a red line, just that a red line should be drawn (specifically at the place in which Iran had enough HEU separated for a single bomb). It's commonly interpreted that Netayahu is supportive of conventional bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, and that he would like US commitment to supporting Israel in this endeavor. But he's been deliberately vague about this. There is also significant technical uncertainty about where the "red line" would be or how you would know if it had been crossed, as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I viewed the remark as saying an ultimatum should be set, which threatens an attack (not necessarily war) if Iran does not stop. StuRat (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly right. "Don't pass this line, lest you shall NOT pass GO, you shall NOT collect $200." If Iran is willing to compromise, that's great, but this is exactly what the IAEA has been trying to do, and each time they try and attempt to gain accessd to an underground site like Parchin, they're smiled at but turned away at the door. -- Jethro   B  23:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The IAEA has actually been able to get plenty of access to Iranian sites — Iran is probably the most inspected country in the world right now. The difficulties hinge on how much access has to be given, and how to establish exactly when the IAEA has access to any given site. The IAEA is not allowed to just inspect anything it wants, willy nilly, because it would compromise other military research. Iran is allowed to keep secrets — it just isn't allowed to violate the NPT. There are practical difficulties in enforcing such a thing, and the details are somewhat boring and esoteric aspects of international law (e.g. did Iran accede to the NPT's Additional Protocol because the Shah approved of it?). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting discussion per the response to my post you can parse it all you want but Iran is a dictatorship, technically the Soviet Union Premier was "elected" (and even Hitler was) but no one had any doubts it was an iron ruled dictatorship. Also you may parse the red line thing all you want as well, the effect of the speech was clear, submit or risk war, who's right and who's wrong, StuRat made some excellent points in that analysis but the OP's question was what was meant by the speech, not how to resolve the conflict or which nation is more guilty.  I have other thoughts on the domino effect of this if it does occur but I'll leave at that.  Marketdiamond (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The situation is Iran is nothing like the situation in the USSR. Democracy is a spectrum, it is not an all-or-nothing thing. There are actual Presidential elections in Iran, and the results of them actually matter when it comes to things like nuclear policy. That is a real difference from the USSR, Nazi Germany, or any other totalitarian regimes you want to mention. It does not mean that Iran is a free and open society. Ahmadinejad will be gone in 2013, which is more than you can say for, say, Mr. Putin. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * He'll be gone, definitely, especially after his fallout with the Supreme Leader... -- Jethro  B  02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You clearly know nothing about Iran's constitution if you think it's similar to the Soviet Union's. If Iran is a dictatorship, who's the dictator? Surely you're not under the impression that Ahmadinejad has any room to maneuver to the left on the nuclear issue, considering that both Khamenei and his electoral opponents (particularly Mousavi) are against him? The most that can be said is that Iran is an ideological dictatorship, for the reason that only candidates with a certain set of beliefs are allowed to run for public office. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to the OP question... It doesn't necessarily imply war. You'll have analysts saying, "Yeah, they're 100% prepared and ready to go to war or launch a strike if necessary, no doubt about it." Then you'll have other analysts saying, "There aren't any actual intentions to go to war, all of these are just rhetoric and threats to prevent a nuclear-Iran." The red line, in and of itself (which Netanyahu drew at 90% uranium enrichment at the United Nations), is meant to convey a message that that line would be the last straw. Go up to it, you're good. Concerned, but good. Pass it, and that's unacceptable. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro  B  23:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't see anything there I would disagree with Jethro B, only thing is I would caution anyone from paying too much attention to "analysts" especially ones that publicize their findings/conclusions. Even the best CIA ones were still advising the Berlin Wall would not fall as it was on CNN falling, and then there was that whole Yellow Cake/nuclear devices thing with Iraq but those are discussions for another topic. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm merely showing that there are 2 completely different ways of thinking - both possibilities seem like the only possibilities to me. If there are more, I am unaware of them. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro   B  00:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The most interesting stuff has been that which has come out about internal Israeli defense thinking on the matter. There's considerable dissent within the ranks, which is itself an interesting datapoint. One of the reasons we know this is because whenever there is internal dissent, both parts of that argument start leaking things to the press. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In democracies, people have opinions and that should be respected and taken into account when considering any action. Having a different opinion though isn't the same as dissent. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro   B  02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh? Dissent means "having a different opinion".  As far as I know, it usually has a positive connotation: dissenting opinion (in the Supreme Court), suppression of dissent, etc.  --140.180.242.9 (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Could I buy Greek debt?
We hear a lot in the news these days about the amount of trouble Greece is in. A major issue is that they need to borrow huge amounts, but are also seen as unstable, so that the interest rates they must pay to borrow are extremely high. Say I, a private citizen from the UK, decided that I thought the risks were worth the rewards, and I wanted to lend Greece some money at the market rate. Could I, and if so how? Also, is there a minimum amount I'd have to 'invest' in this or is it very fluid? 86.166.186.159 (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can: you buy Greek bonds. This is basically the same as saying, "I will give you some money, and I expect to get it back, with some return, after a certain amount of time." Know, of course, that doing so entails significant risk — you may not get your money back. How you go about buying actual bonds as an individual, I don't know, but a financial advisor or broker can probably set it up. My understanding is that for many bonds there are minimum investments for it to be worth a broker's time to set up — on the order of a few thousand dollars USD, in the USA. I don't know about buying Greek bonds in the UK, though. But this is a fairly standard sort of transaction. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This suggests that the vast majority of Greek debt is held by institutional buyers, including banks, insurance companies, pensions and mutual funds. You could find out which mutual funds have invested in it, and buy shares in them.  Again, you'd want to talk to a broker about it, but it may or may not be possible for an individual to buy bonds on a small scale (but it might be, I don't really know). Buddy431 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not buy National Bank of Greece (NBG NYSE) or a like institution, although bonds offer more safety, at this point with Greece's economy bonds may be as unsafe as stocks (you may be first in line to be paid with bonds but if the country goes under no one is getting paid bondholders or stockholders). I doubt Greece will actually go under this or next year but the bonds may have as much risk as the stocks.  Marketdiamond (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The National Bank of Greece is not the same as the Greek state bank; that's the Bank of Greece. Andrew Gray (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Federal Penitentiary Service (Russian prison) death rate
A lot of you probably have recieved an email asking to sign a petition to release Pussy Riot from prison and the one I got from care2 today says the Russian Prosecutor General has claimed that 2,000 people have died in or en route to Russian prisons in the last six months. I am not so interested in Pussy Riot (they do stuff like perform sex acts with dead chickens for publicity and I'd have give them two years in a mental home rather than a prison) but the Russian prison thing picqued my interest and lo and behold I searched the internet and found practically nothing that didn't say "Pussy Riot" on it or reword the email I got. So, I am thinking what a load of lies, but Russia is notoriously tough on its people so, is there anything to it? It could do with a note on the article here at least if it is true. Any references worthy enough for WP? <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 15:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a sex act with a chicken, it was stealing a chicken by shoving it up a woman's vagina. And it wasn't Pussy Riot, it was Voina. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically it was a protester that was with Voina, kind of unclear if it was actually one of the groups members, though Voina seemingly celebrated the act. I would seriously doubt the 2,000 in last 6 months statistic.  Just doing the quick math that seems to approach a Stalinst death count and the smell test would dictate we would be hearing about that tons more in the media today.  Plus from what I've read of Putin he may govern in Stalinst ways but he is not a fan of Stalins gulag or killings, there have been stories where Putin and his ilk have done some very creative things to increase population and for lack of a better term "babymaking" with some observers remarking that the vast expanse of the eastern frontier is bordered by the exploding populations of China, India and the like . . . I'd doubt that thousands are dying under Russian incarceration every 6 months but then again Putin has never been known for his unified logic.  Marketdiamond (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Russia has about 700,000 people in prison. Assuming the age distribution of prisoners reflects that of the general public (it probably doesn't), you could reasonably expect about 10,000 of them to die of old age every year. --Carnildo (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "В 2010 году в исправительных учреждениях умерли 4423 человека.... более 90 процентов из примерно 830 тысяч заключенных больны." - "In 2010, 4423 persons died in [Russia's] correctional institutions. ... Over 90% of some 830,000 prisoners are sick", according to the Federal Penitentiary Service's officials. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Who were the 2 Mass. House members who voted against Romney Care?
I have read your page on Mass. health care reform. Romney has said there were only 2 votes against it by the time they were done drafting the bill. I have been able to determine that those votes were in the house. I am curious who the nay votes belonged to, what party they were members of, and what their reasoning was for voting against the bill. I have looked for records on the Mass. house site but they don't seem to have vote records. I tried calling them but got no answer. Thanks for your help!71.54.146.92 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Did a search on the MA House site but only goes back to 2009, also did several different Google News searches around April 2006 and then Spring 2006, several sources do cite that "2" voted against never with names (NPR, Bloomberg, etc.) also searched just general google searches for "2 against Romneycare" and derivations, nothing. You may want to try Spring 2006 resources on the WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request.  Marketdiamond (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to this page, the two "Nay" votes were Jeff Perry of Barnstable and Daniel K. Webster of Plymouth. <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#b00">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠  16:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about copyright notice wordings by publishers
Hope this won't be considered legal advice, as I'm merely asking for observations. I'm also not sure if this should belong here or in the language reference desk since this is a question about wording. However, I've noticed that there are several websites which provide web content which state that "reproduction of this material in any form is prohibited". This is normal. What is not normal is that it seems that they seemed to have intentionally left out either the words "unauthorized" or "without permission". Does this literally mean that they do not allow any copying of their material with or without permission, or do they assume that the readers already know that they can copy if they first seek permission? If it is the former, what is the rationale? Are there really people or media companies that do not want their published works to be copied for any use at all with or without permission even if it would be covered by fair use or fair dealing? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is skirting the legal advice prohibition, but talking very generally when in doubt contact the source of the material directly. Each law firm has their own specially tailored way of writing notices for these clients and some states may have unique areas of law either directly about copyright or in areas that could be implicated by copyright laws or vice versa.  Also a lot of this is because of court decisions and precedence, because at the end of the day copyright law is whatever the judge and especially the appeals judge says it is (or the lower courts instructions to the jury).  Since there are 11 different precedence in U.S. Federal Courts (some even directly contradict each other) you may find copyright notices in say California very different then those in Boston because of the differences between not only CA and MA laws but the 9th and 1st U.S. District Court precedence.  Marketdiamond (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My reading of it is that such language is meant to be as strong as possible. It's stronger than the actual law allows, frankly — it doesn't say, "except as allowed by fair use," for example. But there's no disadvantage to them wording it as strongly as possible; they are not fined for it or anything like that. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And if they ever "change their mind" in a particular situation, making an absolute statement like that does not prevent them from then contracting with another person to allow them to reproduce the material. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One amusing/disturbing example of Mr.98's point that many of these notices claim prohibitions not supported by the actual law is the saga of Wendy Seltzer vs. the National Football League:, , <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#b00">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠  17:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

proportional representation
Is there a website or a document of how open-list party-list proportional representation, closed-list party-list proportional representation works and mixed-member proportional representation works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.230.254 (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia. See Category:Proportional representation electoral systems for some articles at Wikipedia that covers this topic.  -- Jayron  32  01:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

looking for japanese communities in thailand, northern thailand and southern china and throughout china
im looking for significant numbers (1000 or more?) of japanese people in thailand and china-- besides bangkok--but also info on that area -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve1mm (talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi (please remember to always sign your posts with four ~, thanks!) just browsing the old google machine brings up the wikipedia articles Japanese people in China and Japanese migration to Thailand and they seem pretty extensive articles, hope that helps! Marketdiamond (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)