Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 4

= September 4 =

Recycling cans and bottles in California
In California, a deposit called the California Redemption Value of at least 5 cents is paid by the consumer for each bottled or canned beverage that is purchased. Last time I was in California and paying attention, it seemed that every supermarket had a big machine out in the parking lot, about the size of two outhouses, that would let consumers insert bottles and cans into a receptacle, where their UPC codes would be scanned and after depositing 1 or 50 or 200 cans or bottles, the machine would give the consumer a ticket, which he would bring to the supermarket to get paid the CRV refund. Now, here in Orange County, California, I don't see any of these machines. What happened? Stingray Xray (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't understand the question exactly. I'm familiar with the process since we have a similar redemption program here in Vermont.  What I'm confused by is your use of "Last time I was in California..." and then "Now, here in Orange County, California..."  Did you mean to say that you saw the machines in some parts of California but not others?  That aside, you can find centers that will take the bottles at this link which is linked off our California Redemption Value article.  That page lists 148 locations for Orange County alone.  Dismas |(talk) 01:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * All the recycling places I've seen in CA all redeem cans by weight and the amount they give you is tied to the price of aluminum (or glass or plastic). I've never seen a place that actually gave back the same amount paid for CRV.  RudolfRed (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I see from the link given above that the per-container redemption is required if (A) you ask for it up front (before you give up your cans) and (B) if you have less than 50 items to turn in. RudolfRed (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * When was the last time you were in California? One of the companies that maintains those automated recycling machines at supermarkets, rePlanet, had to shut down several hundred of them last year because they were losing money. The other issue is that there is now a state law that says that only one such recycling location can be within a half-mile radius (what they call a "convenience zone"), thus not every supermarket can have them. My (limited) understanding is that the purpose of this law is to help protect these recycling locations. The last thing that the state wants is a recycling location going out of business just because it had to compete with another just around the corner. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't market economics solve this problem, with other companies following rePlanet's lead, and simply removing machines that are non-viable? 58.111.175.223 (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Have there ever been a killer in history with down syndrome?
Have there ever been a killer in history with down syndrome? Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, one has been charged in December 2011 with killing battery in the death of his father. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Did Kevin Mitnick made an internet-accessing device from a radio receiver when he was in jail?
I saw such sayings from some internet sources--124.172.170.234 (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Been checking this question for a few days, I am very interested in this. Do you have the internet sources link?  If some editors could read those we may have a better idea of cross references or other resources for it.  Thanks.  Marketdiamond (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources all I can find about this are in Chinese so far. I am not sure if there is any English source as an origin of this saying.--124.172.170.234 (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In general there are many articles with exactly same wordings say that Kevin Mitnick managed to get an AM/FM receiver and modified it to listen at wardens' talking (some other variants say he attempted to access internet by this). And he was put in solitary confine after this. I can find nothing about this in the Wikipedia article; still, is there ever any source about Mitnick’s life in jail?--113.105.70.226 (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Does sound amazingly similar to what one of the characters in Jefferey Deaver's cult hacker novel The Blue Nowhere did. Wyatt Gillette built a modem out using a radio whilst in jail and passed it to his girlfriend. Nanonic (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion and the U.S. Census
I read, several years ago, that U.S. Federal law prohibits the U.S. census from asking any questions about respondents religion.

1. What is the logic behind this law? I presume forcing people to declare their religious affiliation may raise constitutional questions. But why can't they include an "optional" religion question, as they do here in Australia (and, I believe, in various other countries)?

Our article on Race, ethnicity, and religion in various censuses states "The U.S. census have never counted Americans by religion out of fear that this will undermine the separation of church and state and make it easier for various politicians to implement agendas based on their religious beliefs". I'm puzzled - how would this be the case?

2. Has there ever been any serious attempts to modify or revoke this law? 58.111.175.223 (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 2. separation of church and state is part of the U.S. constitution. It doesn't get changed often. Rmhermen (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that an "optional" religion question would, in fact, be unconstitutional as a matter of law? 58.111.175.223 (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This site says "The Bureau of the Census collected information in the Census of Religious Bodies from 1906-1936. This information was obtained from religious organizations. Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census is not the source for information on religion." so it sounds like we are talking about an ordinary law, not a constitutional matter. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The collection of Religious data would likely be OK under the constitution, as such an act would violate neither the Establishment clause nor the Free Exercise Clause directly. However, philosophically the U.S. tends to err on the side of caution with regards to any connection between religiousness and the Federal Government (the matter is more cloudy with State and Local governments).  The "wall of separation" doctrine is something that dates to Thomas Jefferson, and because of that philosophy, it explains situations like the aforementioned PL 94-521 and the reason that religious data is not officially collected by the census or any other federal agency.  There are private surveys of religion by various organizations, but the feds take no part of that.  -- Jayron  32  13:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (from the OP) Question: Public Law 94-521, it seems, only prohibits asking questions about religious affiliation on a mandatory basis. So, is there anything in current U.S. Federal law which would prohibit the Bureau of the Census from including voluntary questions about religious affiliation in the Census? Or is it merely the philosophical squeamishness to which Jayron32 refers which stops such questions from being included? 58.111.175.223 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't rule out the possibility that a "voluntary" question might be considered statistically meaningless. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One awkwardness about asking questions about religion but not applicable to topics that the Census currently tracks is that there are tons of non-numerical possible answers to a religion question. Most things on the Census are either numerical (e.g. your income, the number of people in your household), non-numerical but picked from a short list with definitions that most people will understand (e.g. race and ethnicity), or not meant to be tabulated statistically (e.g. the names of people in your household).  How are you going to put together a list that will allow virtually everyone to self-classify without forcing the self-classifier to go through a massive list?  Nobody's going to appreciate being a member of an "Other Religion", and for every small group such as Eckankar that you include, you're probably going to omit several others, thereby making its adherents unhappy.  Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. They get into enough trouble hair-splitting over racial and ethnic groups. Maybe the closest they could come would be a vague general religious question, like "Do you believe in a religion?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While the inclusion/exclusion issue would be resolved by letting people write in their religion, doing that would make it statistically complicated to a horrible degree. What if a town of 100 residents has one person who answers Presbyterian, one who answers Protestant, ten who answer Christian, and eighty-eight who answer Catholic.  How many Christians and how many Protestants are there in this town?  Another town with 100 residents has 97 Catholics, 1 "Presbyterian", 1 "Presbyterianism", and 1 "Orthodox Presbyterian"; do you put all of the Presbyterians together or keep them separate, and if the latter, in what ways?  Plus, by avoiding a religion question, the US Census avoids religious mockeries as well.  Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Census of Religious Bodies from 1906-1936 Data
Does anyone know where I can get full data (certain religions as a % of the total U.S. population) from the census in my title above? Also, have any other surveys or polls asking Americans about their religion/religious beliefs been conducted before the end of World War II? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The U.S. census doesn't ask religious questions and is conducted in years ending in zero, not six. Rmhermen (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about the U.S. Census, but about this census--http://www.census.gov/prod/www/religion.htm
 * From my source--"The Bureau of the Census collected information in the Census of Religious Bodies from 1906-1936. This information was obtained from religious organizations." Futurist110 (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Try here. Zoonoses (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you--I'll definitely look at your link. Are there any other places that I can look? Futurist110 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You may find this document useful. It has references.  Zoonoses (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Legality of the Awlaki Killings
I have a friend who is an expert in U.S. Constitutional law and a staunch Ron Paul supporter who said that the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki and his teenage son by the U.S. military/govt. was illegal, partially due to the Supreme Court ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio and partially because Awlaki never got a trial in the United States. Does my friend's position hold any validity, or not? For the record, this is a serious question. Futurist110 (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, the court has ruled on this very question. See https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31 where Al-Awlaki's father brought a case asking for the "kill order" against his son to be revoked. To quote from the judge's ruling:
 * Stark, and perplexing, questions readily come to mind, including the following: How is it that judicial approval is required when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for electronic surveillance, but that, according to defendants, judicial scrutiny is prohibited when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for death? Can a U.S. citizen -- himself or through another -- use the U.S. judicial system to vindicate his constitutional rights while simultaneously evading U.S. law enforcement authorities, calling for "jihad against the West," and engaging in operational planning for an organization that has already carried out numerous terrorist attacks against the United States?  Can the Executive order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization?  How can the courts, as plaintiff proposes, make real-time assessments of the nature and severity of alleged threats to national security, determine the imminence of those threats, weigh the benefits and costs of possible diplomatic and military responses, and ultimately decide whether, and under what circumstances, the use of military force against such threats is justified?  When would it ever make sense for the United States to disclose in advance to the "target" of contemplated military action the precise  standards under which it will take that military action?  And how does the evolving AQAP relate to core al Qaeda for purposes of assessing the legality of targeting AQAP (or its principals) under the September 18, 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force? Read the ruling yourself - I suspect you'll find it fascinating. 58.111.175.223 (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll look over the ruling when I'll have some more time. Futurist110 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I understand it, the court explicitly declined to rule on the issue, but only declared that it has no jurisdiction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your friend is of course correct, there are many sources arguing for the illegality of these killings. It appears necessary nowadays to argue that 2+2=4 and that black is not white. I think it fair to say that anyone who said that the president has the legal authority to do such things would have been thought insane a few decades ago, so much has the US legal system and the common understanding upon which it rests changed. It is the current US government position that nobody would have thought to hold any validity, not your friend's. For instance, take Lincoln's famous statement about the barbarity of assassination and its disappearance among civilized nations; don't have the time to search for it, as googling is not so easy for obvious reasons.  Of course, one can always make a "legal" argument for anything.John Z (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Synchronization of calendars between civilizations throughout history
Different civilizations had been in contact from early on in history, but only in modern times has this contact become virtually continuous. In such historical times, each of these different civilizations would have kept their own records, and counted their own years. It also seems most likely that throughout history, certain events would have resulted in the disruption of year reckoning in some localities (whether it be reform, unrest or disasters resulting in loss of earlier records, etc.) The year of the passing of Gautama Buddha, for example, varies up to centuries when compared between different schools' chronologies. This suggests that not much effort was put into keeping records in sync with each other. However, such an issue never seems to be mentioned in discussions involving dates in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Do we know, as a fact, that the reckoning of the Julian and Gregorian calendars was never broken? (Perhaps there is astronomical evidence?) How did Western nations avoid discrepancies between each other's records, especially during the Middle Ages? (Perhaps through the central position of Constantinople, and then the Vatican?) Are there discrepancies when compared with other systems, such as the Chinese, Islamic or Hebrew calendar? And how did these major calendar systems remain united, while the Hindu calendar, for example, has devolved into dozens of regional variants?

Also, the seven-day week has been used throughout the Old World for millennia. With no correspondence to either the Sun or Moon cycles, it seems even more amazing that its reckoning would never have been broken. (The linked article says, "The seven-day weekly cycle is reputed&#91;citation needed&#93; to have remained unbroken in Europe for almost two millennia...") I would have thought it very likely for Marco Polo to find that Monday in one place had drifted to Tuesday in another. Have any "updates" been required in order for Sunday to fall on the same day throughout the world? --115.67.34.198 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Days of the week (like Monday) don't drift in the way days of the year (like January 1st) do. That is, if you don't account for leap days and such, January 1st will eventually end up in the middle of summer, and need correction, but nothing like this happens with days of the week.  The daily day/night cycle basically resets any drift every 24 hours, with a possible exception at the poles, where 6 months of night and 6 months of day could make keeping track of the day of the week tricky, before modern timekeeping techniques.  Some type of natural disasters, like a volcano, might also make it impossible to distinguish night from day, for a while.  StuRat (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Who says the seven-day week has no correspondence to either the Sun or Moon cycles? The Moon has a 29.5-day cycle that is commonly divided into four phases (new, first quarter, full, last quarter). 29.5 ÷ 4 = 7.375, but it would be weird to have a week with 7⅜ days, so it gets rounded down to 7 full days. (Maybe someone could have introduced the idea of 3 "leap weeks" of 8 days within every period of 8 weeks, but they didn't.) Pais (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no mathematical reason to choose a 7-day week as opposed to any other number based on a lunar cycle. It would be much more accurate to use 5, 6 or 10 days: 29.5 ÷ 6 = 4.92; 29.5 ÷ 5 = 5.9; 29.5 ÷ 3 = 9.83. All of these are closer to whole numbers than 7.38 is to 7. More importantly however, there is no way to use a lunar or solar cycle to synchronize the weeks, so if a day was skipped or added, it would not have been noticed in that way (which is I think what the OP was referring to). - Lindert (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But there is an astronomical reason to divide the lunar cycle into four, as I mentioned. Pais (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can give you some examples from the Middle Ages. Sometimes the Julian and Islamic calendars were synchronized, more or less accurately. For example wherever Muslims and Christians lived together, a date might be recorded in both systems...I thought I had a perfect example of this from 15th century Spain, but I can't find it at the moment (it was a business contract though, and the date was given in both calendars). Sometimes in chronicles you'd also find both dates mentioned. The Julian/Gregorian and Islamic years didn't match up then and they still don't now, so the same problems of synchronizing them still exist.


 * More often they would just use a regnal date, "in the third year of the reign of King so-and-so", which was also the most common way of dating things even where the Julian calendar was used exclusively. But even when western Europe used the Julian calendar exclusively, some countries started the year on a different date; if your year started on January 1, then for three or four months you would be in a different year than a neighbouring country that started their year on March 25. The Papacy (not "the Vatican" back then) always used regnal dates, but that had no effect on when the year started for anyone else. The Byzantine calendar, on the other hand, was also Julian, but started on September 1, and was dated "anno mundi", from the creation of the world, which was something like 5509 BC.


 * I don't know much about the Hebrew calendar but I know there were sophisticated calculations to match up that calendar with the Julian one. Actually I work with someone who can calculate the Hebrew date given any random medieval Julian date, which is pretty amazing. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, once the Hebrew calendar became "regularized" (that is, months had a specific length and you didn't have to go peering at the sky to see if a given month would have 29 or 30 days, you could easily calculate against the civic calendar in use locally. So for the past 1800 years or so.  Note that the calendar is flawed and is very slowly moving later in the year.  Rosh Hashanah (the first day, not the evening before) will not occur again on September 4, and the last September 5 is coming up in a few decades.  I call it Judaism's Y10K problem, that is about when it will swing out of September permanently (or at least until the calendar comes around again).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The adoption of the Gregorian calendar wasn't done all at the same time. Different countries around the world adopted the calendar at different between the years 1582 and 1923.  Depending on the date of the changes, countries needed to skip 10, 11, 12 or 13 days.  However, I don't think any of them skipped any days of the week.  So for example, in Spain and Portugal Thursday, 4 October 1582 was followed by Friday, 15 October 1582, while the in the British Empire Wednesday, 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday, 14 September 1752.  One exception was Alaska: when sold to the USA, the state moved across the international date line as well as switching to the Gregorian calendar, so Friday, 6 October 1867 was followed by Friday, 18 October 1867.  Astronaut (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As an aside: The various era mentioned in the articla concerning the Buddhist calendar, don't all count the years from the passing of the Buddha, but they all use the Buddhist calendar for calculating how long the year is. For example, the Chula Sakarat is alleged to start with the conquest of Burma by Buppasoranhan, and the Saka era is counted from the beginning of the Western Satraps kingdom. Why the Buddhists of Thailand would count their years starting from those events, though, I can't say. I have also heard that the current 'Buddhist era' used in Thailand doesn't count from when the Buddha died, but when his teachings reached Thailand.
 * This is not so surprising, I could use the Gregorian calendar, and put its starting date at a completely different point in time from both the birth or death of Christ. V85 (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It could only have started at either one of those events, not both of them. But the fact is that the Gregorian calendar started at neither of them.  It started on 15 October 1582, and was not retrospective.  Don't confuse the era we happen to be in with the calendar we happen to be using.  Eras are about sequences of year numbers; calendars are about months and days.  The world could theoretically have decided that 1 January 2001 marked the beginning of a new era, the Me Era (ME).  This year would be Year 12 ME, not 2012 CE (or AD, if you prefer).  But today would still be 4 September.  (This post comes to you from someone who is not here.) --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That was exactly what I meant: there is not necessarily any inherent link between the figure Christ and the Gregorian calendar. We could have a Gregorian calendar, but a 'non-Christian era'. V85 (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're still qualifying your remark with "not necessarily". It needs no qualification. There has never been any connection between the Gregorian calendar and the figure Christ (other than the indirect connection that it was promulgated by a Vicar of Christ = pope).  When it was decided to start a new sequence of years (= era) starting from the presumed birth year of Christ, the "heathen" Julian calendar, which predated Christ by more than a century, was retained.  Almost 600 years later, the errors that had built up were corrected, and a new calendar, the Gregorian, was established, which minimised future errors by taking the existing "heathen" Julian calendar and tweaking it a little.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  07:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OP here. I meant to refer both to the calendar systems themselves and to their respective calendar era systems, i.e. AD or CE for Julian/Gregorian, Hijri for Islam, etc. Regarding V85's initial comments, I was actually referring to the discussion under the subsection Chronology of the Buddhist Era, to which I probably should have linked instead. Sorry for the confusion. --115.67.2.112 (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS Why do we have to whisper? --115.67.2.112 (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't, and you don't. Me? I am the ghost of a former refdesk regular, here on my lunch break from my important job at the submerged log factory. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  11:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Indian or Indian-influenced calendars often use the "Saka era" (78 A.D.) because very little solid absolute chronological information from before that time survives in traditional Indic literature... AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The best evidence we have that the Julian and Gregorian calendars are unbroken are that many people were keeping track of dates, and, except for the occasional local anomaly, they all agree on the identification of a given day.


 * The reason why many calendars have discontinuities is because of how they identify years. The "count of years since time T=0" that the Gregorian calendar uses is rather unusual: most chronologies identify years with names such as "the 17th year of the reign of King Alfred", or "the year that Julius and Marcus were consuls", and if, for example, someone gets dropped from a list of rulers, you can get an inconsistency in the count of years between two events. --Carnildo (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

How Come France Was Extremely Angry at Germany for Taking Alsace-Lorraine in 1871
to the extent that it was unwilling to establish good relations with Germany? The France attitude towards Germany between 1871 and 1914/1918 always seemed a bit excessive to me over a small amount of land. Are there any sources explaining why France was pissed to that extent over losing Alsace-Lorraine to Germany? Or was it more than that, such as angry at Germany for making France lose its dominant strategic position in Europe? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to underestimate how upset a nation can get over losing a small amount of territory. Is Syria OK with having lost the Golan Heights ?  Is Jordan OK with having lost the West Bank ?  StuRat (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jordan is okay with losing the West Bank (considering that it gave up its claim to it and signed a peace deal with Israel). Syria is angry at Israel, but it hated Israel and Israel's existence way before Israel took the Golan Heights from it. Futurist110 (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are countless examples of serious disputes over relatively small or unimportant pieces of territory: Northern Ireland, Timor Leste, Kashmir, Taiwan, Tibet, the Falkland Islands, Kosovo, Karelia, Schleswig-Holstein, the Preah Vihear Temple... 130.88.73.65 (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Kosovo is very important to the Serbs from a cultural and nationalistic perspective. Futurist110 (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The population of Schleswig-Holstein actually contained one-third of the population of the Kingdom of Denmark, so relatively speaking it was not either small or unimportant. And of course regarding Tibet it is a matter of an entire country being seized by a foreign nation, which naturally would cause a serious dispute. So generally speaking it is not that difficult to see why serious disputes could arise over what to outsiders may look like "small and unimportant pieces of territory". --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this; it may be helpful. - Ka renjc 08:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Will do. Futurist110 (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Who wouldn't hold a grudge after being humiliated by losing a war (badly) and having somewhat more than a "small amount of territory" (more than two Delawares) taken away? Now if the South had won the Civil War and decided to annex New Jersey, well that would have been another story. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To added, this was the latest episode in a long series of Franco-"German" (Prussian) rivalries that went back to the time of Napoleon. Also, you forget that the actions of the war itself contributed to the anger, not just the peace settlement. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 10:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Alsace and Lorraine were important territories for France - they gave it considerable mineral and industrial assets, vineyards, and farmland. They also gave it control of the whole west bank of the Rhine from Strasbourg up to the Swiss frontier. This was seen as being of considerable strategic value, and also relates to the historical French expansionist argument that France should expand to its 'natural frontiers' - the Pyrenees, Mediterranean, Alps, and Rhine. I've no idea what, if anything, was the northern 'natural frontier', mind you. Moreover, Lorraine had come to France after being granted to Louis XV's father-in-law Stanislaw Lechynski as part of the negotiations for the marriage of Maria Theresa - this was a complex diplomatic feat, and seeing it undone by crude force was galling. The other reason that the war of 1870-1 was so aggravating for the French was the fact that Louis Napoleon was tricked into being the aggressor in the affair of the Ems telegram - 'Honest' Otto von Bismarck's political judo had cost France dearly. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We do have an article about Stanisław Leszczyński; you just have to spell it right, so it doesn't appear as a red link. — Kpalion(talk) 12:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * French foreign policy from at least as far back as the seventeenth century ideally wanted the Rhine to be the natural border between France and Germany. If Germany held Alsace-Lorraine, this was strategically very bad for France and very good for Germany, since Germany then held both sides of the Rhine, and had access to all the resources and fortifications there. Also, conceding land, any land no matter how small, in a place as ethnically diverse as Europe sets a bad precedent for future land claims. Of course, as it turned out, it didn't really matter who held Alsace-Lorraine, since it's just as easy for the Germans to get into France if they pretend Belgium doesn't exist... Adam Bishop (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that, ethnically and linguisticly, the population of Alsace and Lorraine is mixed German and French, often in neighboring households. It is quite impossible, on that regard alone, to decide if the territories are strictly French or German.  The territories also passed between French and German (or Germany's antecedant states) many times through history.  The area had been contested for literally over 1000 years, going back to when it was the "Middle Kingdom" established by the Treaty of Verdun which divided the Carolingian Empire into 3 states.  The northern part of that kingdom was generally known as Lotharingia, after Lothair I, from whence we get the name Lorraine.  The western Kingdom of that division became France, and the Eastern kingdom became the Holy Roman Empire or at least the Kingdom of Germany portion thereof.  Alsace shows how long Alsace (Elsass) had been part of the German HRE, from the Treaty of Meerssen which divied up the remains of Lothairingia in 870 until France incorporated it in 1648 as part of the Treaty of Westphalia.  So, it had been a German territory for almost 800 years before it passed to France.  The German speaking people didn't wake up the next morning and start to consider themselves French.  The region of Lorraine is a bit more complex, but the part that the Germans took after the Franco-Prussian war had, like Alsace, been part of German lands for a long time.  The Three Bishoprics had been part of the HRE until the 1550s, the Duchy of Bar until the mid 1400s (though it was still officially part of the HRE, it was inherrited by the French Anjou family), and the Duchy of Upper Lorraine until around the same time.  So, we have a situation that, from the 800s until the about the 1600s, the region had been closer associated with the Holy Roman Empire than France.  It is worth noting that the Congress of Vienna considered the region to be an integral part of France.  If you want to look at the modern situation, Languages_of_France shows that, in Alsace there are still some 660,000 native German speakers.  The entire discussion is not to justify the attachement of the region to either Germany or France at any point in history, but to explain that it isn't so clear, historically, who had the "right" to the region.  It was a historically ambiguous thing, and had been, since the creation of France and Germany (or their predecessor states) been at various times part of neither, or both, of them.  To answer the original question as to why France was so mad; well it was French territory, it had all been since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and had been confirmed so by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, which it should be noted was a body that was created basically to take stuff away from France.  If they found it an integral French territory, then France certainly had claim to it.  -- Jayron  32  13:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Category for the President of Pakistan
The President of my country, President Asif Ali Zardari has survived a series of plot to assassinate him. Shouldn't the category on attempted assassination survivors be added?. Thank you. He's a hero and the father of the Nation right now. Pakistanihat (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add it if you think it belongs. However if someone removes it or otherwise objects, don't put it right back, and instead discuss the matter with them and come to an agreement.  -- Jayron  32  16:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've added it. One of the plots were to blow up the medical center where his father was ill and where finally died. But the wisdom of the Prophet (peace be upon him) saved him in time and the plotters were arrested. Pakistanihat (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Surviving some particular incident does not necessarily have anything to do with divine intervention. Hitler escaped a bomb attempt, and he claimed divine intervention too, though I doubt he credited Muhammed with saving him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I was going to remove that edit, but I see another editor has beaten me to it. The problem is that putting Zardari in that category makes a claim, which is itself controversial. The article appropriately mentions both sides of the controversy: "In May 1999, he was hospitalised after an alleged attempted suicide. He claimed it was a murder attempt by the police". But by adding that category the article is then taking sides in the argument. See the second paragraph of WP:CAT.
 * The information you have mentioned above does not appear in the article, and so cannot be the basis for the categorisation either. --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with ColinFine, you're putting the cart before the horse. I don't see any mention of any clear cut attempted assassination of him in the article. Only the unfortunately successful assassination of his wife and the 1999 event which he claims was a murder attempted but others apparently claim was a suicide attempt. Until and unless the article mentions a clear cut attempted assassination of him, it is simply confusing to readers to have it in the category of attempted assassinations. I would add a description of any of these alleged incidents is going to be much more important to the readers then simply him being in the category. Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ganesh Chaturthi
Unfortunately I have no control over our travel planning process for work, but I've been scheduled to be in Mumbai for Ganesh Chaturthi, which is listed as September 19th this year. Is the 19th the start of the festival? The end where they have all of the environmentally unfriendly dunking our article talks about? I'm guessing that it won't be a productive working day, but probably worth confirming. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ganesh Chaturthi is first day of the festival. It is a state holiday and many public and private offices are closed. The environmentally unfriendly dunking that article talks about starts next day but is minimum on this day. It is more on 5th and 7th day, and maximum on last i.e. 11th day. 61.16.182.2 (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Calculus
Who invented the name? When was it invented? How did the person decided to name the math we called "calculus" today? I couldn't find any of this info on the internet.65.128.133.237 (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In the Latin language, the word calculus meant "little pebble", and sometimes could refer to abacus-type calculations conducted with little pebbles as counters. Don't know when it was applied to differentiation and integration... AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Does your internet not include our articles Calculus and History of calculus? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude I have read those two articles and they don't mention about the origin of name. Plus I already know what "calculus" means in Latin and that's not what I'm looking for.65.128.133.237 (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But to answer your questions: the name is Latin for 'pebble', and was originally used to refer to counting-stones. It came to be applied to mathematical methods generally, and then (after Newton and Leibniz's work) to the differential and integral systems especially. No one person invented or adapted the name; the changes were gradual.
 * Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz worked in parallel on what we now call calculus during the late 17th century. We have an article on the Leibniz-Newton calculus controversy, too. They didn't name their methods 'calculus', though; Newton called his 'the method of fluxions', and Leibniz mostly used a symbolic system to deal with what he regarded as a problem of infinitesimals. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Calculus" is just short for "differential and integral calculus". As Alex says, lots of different mathematical methods were (and occasionally still are) called calculuses. Differential and integral calculus was just the most used, I guess, so it ended up getting the shortened name. --Tango (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's some word-origin info: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok "Calculus" is just short for "differential and integral calculus" but why did we name that kind of math "differential and integral calculus" in the first place? "differential and integral calculus" has the word calculus in it, obviously the math has nothing to do with pebble. Let me get thing straight, I'm not asking for what its original means since I already know it. I'm asking for who was the first person who called the math we call today "calculus". Who was the first one that named that math calculus? It must started somewhere, like someone must be the first to use the word "calculus" to describe something in math. I'm surprised nobody in history ever records that. Last question: why did that person (the person that was the first one who used Calculus as a math term) name that kind of math calculus? I mean it could have many other names beside calculus but why choose "calculus" to describe that math? Not sure if my questions make sense to everyone.65.128.133.237 (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See Calculus (dental). It does have something to do with pebbles. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "calculus" means "accounting or reckoning". Keep in mind those guys loved Latin and Greek words. "Differential" and "Integral" also come from Latin. Another article possibly worth looking at is Infinitesimal calculus. And in reading about Leibniz I noticed the frequent use of "the" in front of "calculus". That's a clue. Substitute the word "reckoning" for "calculus" and it makes total sense. Newton and Liebniz were both working on trying to figure out the math of "reckoning infinitesimals". There are any number of reckonings, but to these guys, it was THE reckoning, hence "the calculus". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding to "Differential" and "Integral", again I don't understand how people just stole word from Latin or Greek and make them become Math terms. They did that just for fun? Or was there a reason why?65.128.133.237 (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Differentiation is all to do with differences between things and integration is all to do with integrating (combining, summing) things. They aren't particularly imaginiative names. As has been mentioned below, most of this work was originally written in Latin, so Latin names were used. When people started writing about it in English, they kept the Latin words (with some slight Anglicisation). --Tango (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * History of calculus states that prior to Newton and Liebniz, "calculus" was a more general term, and it gives a citation for that statement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To clarify the stuff above, the person who is responsible for using the word in this way is Leibniz. He used the word "calculus" frequently, to mean a systematic way of manipulating information.  He created several different "calculi" before the differential calculus and integral calculus. Looie496 (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Was there a reason that Leibniz choose to use the word "calculus" instead of reckoning? In other word, what was the reason for him to invent a term in math such as "calculus"? Did he just coin a new term just for fun or what?65.128.133.237 (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you not reading what people, including the articles you were directed to, have already wrote? The word calculus was used for all sorts of mathematics (consider the form "calculation" which we still use today).  It was basically a synonym for mathematics, the definition has become restricted over time to apply only to two specific sets of mathematical systems: differentiation and integration.  But no one invented the term specifically: it is an old term that had been used for centuries that just meant "mathematics".  -- Jayron  32  03:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you not reading my question? I have received many answers that are different. Ok you said it was a synonym for math but when it became a synonym in math? When? Who was the first one use it as synonym for math? And last question, why was it eventually become restricted just to apply to "differentiation and intergration"? People didn't just do things randomly for fun, there must have been a reason.65.128.133.237 (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets simplify it. The word "calculus" comes from an Ancient Greek word "Calcis" meaning stone or pebble.  The same Greek root shows up in both "Calcium" and "Calculus"; Calcium from its source, being limestone, and "calculus" from the practice of using small stones as a means of accounting, a practice so old as to be lost to time, both the abacus in its various forms and the English practice of the exchequer used small stones as counters when keeping track of stuff.  The concept thus of using stones to do math is ancient, and thus the name "calculus" meaning "mathematics" connects very likely through the use of actual stones to do math.  Long after people stopped using stones to do mathematics, they still used the word associated with the practice (calculus), from where we get the modern English word "calculate".  Leibniz wasn't doing anything particularly unusual when he set up his system of mathematics, he was using a word well known to mean mathematics, and which he did not select arbitrarily nor invent out of whole cloth.  It was a word that had been used for that purpose for well over 1000 years by the time he used it.  He didn't invent a new word to describe his new system of mathematics, he just used the word everyone had been using.  Over time, the word calculus has been restricted to refer to just his mathematical system.  -- Jayron  32  02:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See also [this page at Etymonline] which shows "Calculus" dating to 1660, but related terms dating to much earlier. -- Jayron  32  02:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's also not forget that Leibniz wrote in Latin. "Calculus" is a Latin word.  "Reckoning" is not a Latin word. Looie496 (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 65.128.133.237 - Leibniz used a Latin term because he wrote in Latin, which was the lingua franca of scholars in Europe at the time; all educated people could read and write Latin, and most scholarly works were written in Latin to ensure maximum readership. Although the differential and integral calculus is the most widely known calculus, there are many other calculuses (calculi ??) in mathematics, logic and computer science - see Calculus (disambiguation). Gandalf61 (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So it's clear why Leibniz used a Latin word when writing in Latin. The next question is, why did later English-speaking scholars use the Latin word when writing in English rather than finding an English equivalent for it? Note that many other languages did just that; Polish scholars, for instance, substituted the Latin calculus with Polish rachunek (a word that by itself may mean "calculation", "account", "score" or "receipt"), as in rachunek całkowy ("integral calculus", from cały, "whole") or rachunek różniczkowy ("differential calculus", from różny, "different"). — Kpalion(talk) 11:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are talking about specifically English, things get complicated, because of the aforementioned Leibniz-Newton calculus controversy, which was all the rage at the time the names were getting squared away. It was likely to specifically associate it with Leibniz, and to keep it from looking like some kind of generic method — most of the English scholars at the time were on the side of Newton, not Leibniz. But this is just speculation on my point.--Mr.98 (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The English language has a long tradition of adopting foreign words, a path which other languages often make a point of avoiding. You might find some more informed comment on this over at the Language Desk. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)