Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 10

= January 10 =

Why not wall off Pakistan to stem the flow of Taliban?
The Taliban are a constant threat because they keep operating in Pakistan and recruiting from there, a place where the NATO coalition can't touch (unless to get exceptionally high-value targets.) The Afghan-Pakistani border is about as porous as a sponge. Newly-minted insurgents would keep coming over like a river.

The Israeli strategy worked against the Palestinians when they walled off the Palestinian-held areas; the attacks against Israel dwindled quite a bit.

So can't there be a wall between Pakistan and Afghanistan? How much would it cost per mile / per kilometer? How effective would it be? What "tweaks" would the wall need to be as effective as needed? Thanks. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Who would build it? Pakistan? Not bloody likely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're confused about what an insurgent is. They don't cross borders to become insurgents. They are rebels within their own country. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Along much of the sparsely defended space between Afghanistan and Pakistan, there is no meaningful border. Yeah, there's a line on the maps, but it doesn't have much functional meaning.  -- Jayron  32  06:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the Israelis have paid too much attention to precise "official" borders when building their walls. HiLo48 (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a border insofar as there is control to decide who gets to move across it. There is no such control in the areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan.  That's why the analogy between the Israeli-Palestinian border and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is a bad analogy: the people who have functional control over the Is-Pal border is the Israeli government.  The people with functional control over many parts of Af-Pak border is the Taliban.  Plus, it's patently ridiculous to consider building a wall along the entire Durand Line.  It's 2,640 kilometers long, and crosses some of the most inhospitable terrain on earth.  The Green Line is nowhere near that long; something like 320 kilometers.  To defend that 320 kilometers, Israel is building a the Israeli West Bank barrier which is over 700 kilometers in length .  That would mean that someone would have to build and defend some 6000 kilometers of wall along the Durand Line to create a similar barrier; and that's in an area where no Karzai government or U.S. forces have been able to establish any realistic control.  It just isn't happening.  -- Jayron  32  07:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, it's apples and oranges. Israel built the wall to try to keep terrorists out. Pakistan has no corresponding reason to build such a wall, or dig a trench, or whatever it might be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I never bloody suggested that Pakistan would build the wall. I would hope for a joint effort between the ISAF and Afghan indigenous forces to put up a barrier that would stem the tide of incoming fighters to replenish the numbers of Taliban fighting our forces. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the wall would have to totally encircle Afghanistan. That could run into money. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The only part of this question we can get involved in without breaking our own rules is "How much would it cost per mile / per kilometer?". The rest invites opinion and speculation.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the working conditions, it's reasonable to suppose that it would cost at least as much per given distance as the Israel wall did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the cost of the Israeli wall in 2005 was cited as US$2,000,000 per kilometer.  Even assuming that a Durand Line Wall could follow the actual border close enough to match its length exactly, that would cost over US$5,000,000,000, and if the wall followed a similar pattern as the Israeli wall did, it would cost something like US$10,000,000,000.  And that's just to build the thing.  You also have to have the people to patrol it and maintain it.  That costs money to.  -- Jayron  32  07:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would cost a darned sight more per kilometre to wall off the mountainous Pakistan/Afghanistan border than the Israeli wall cost, too. And it would be rather pointless in most places - anyone capable of scaling the mountains to reach the wall would presumably be well capable of climbing another few metres over it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So, a nice fantasy, but not practical. The experience of Israel and East Germany vs. China and Scotland suggest that a short wall could be sustainable, but a long wall would not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How about that Berlin wall. Shadowjams (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I alluded to that above: East Germany. They built the Berlin Wall. As I recall, they also strung barbed wire around their border with West Germany, but that was to keep people in rather than out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They had some disgusting anti personnel mines too. Fortifications of the inner German border is the relevant article. Editorial aside: you know your economic system isn't working when importing bananas is cause for celebration in the 21st century, and you need minefields to keep your people in. For good times about east germany, see SM-70. Stellar system they had going there. In contrast, all these imperialist countries have to deal with illegal imigration... interesting. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure the mines were there just to prevent someone from accidentally leaving the country. Surely no one would want to leave a Communist country. >:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically, it was the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall, so was actually to stop those sneaky fascists from getting in. Exactly why they would want to wasn't explained. Alansplodge (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought about this idea, too. Rather than a wall, I suggest putting razor wire down on both sides of a "kill zone", with soldiers posted on the Afghan side with night vision goggles who shoot at anything which moves within the zone.  Aerial drones could also patrol the area.  Yes, it would still be somewhat expensive, but not prohibitively so, and may well be the only way to win the war.   StuRat (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How so, which soldiers, and which locations along the kill zone? You're taking foreign soldiers, with no experience or background in the terrain, placing them in the mountains to patrol some razor wire and asking them to defend the land against people who have lived there for generations, and which outnumber them.  "Oh look, the Americans are defending that valley over there.  Lets cross over here instead, come up behind them and kill them all".  It should be noted we're essentially doing everything you're saying already, and it isn't working.  Look,  we've got more border patrol agents patrolling the southern U.S. border with Mexico than there are troops in Afghanistan; that's a shorter border, through a less rugged terrain, and it's not in enemy territory.  And people cross that border all the time.  Now, give a longer border, worse terrain, less soldiers and supplies, and the people crossing are trying to kill you.  Good luck with that.  Your solution only works if the U.S. had infinite resources in terms of personnel and materiel and supplies.  The deal is, with infinite resources, all strategies work all the time.  With what is available, it simply isn't possible to kill every living thing along the Afghan-Pakistan border.  -- Jayron  32  21:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The US has always made a half-hearted effort to close the border with Mexico, since having illegal immigrants in the US is in the business interest of many, as they provide virtual slave labor. I don't think the entire length of the border is protected.  Also, just shooting anyone you see is a lot cheaper than trying to humanely detain them and return them to their home country.  And, I suspect a much larger number of people attempt to illegally cross the border from Mexico and all points south (millions), than attempt to cross the Afghan-Pakistan border (thousands). StuRat (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Walls won't work. Maybe we need a completely new approach to the OP's concern that "The Taliban are a constant threat". What is this "war" really about? HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In addition to the cost and manpower, wall guards spread out over that distance would be very vulnerable to targeted attacks (from both sides of the wall). This is fighters looking to kill enemies and not just illegal immigrants (or emigrants like East Germany) who want to sneak across a border without confrontation. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You build fire-bases on the tops of mountains overlooking the border, or the "line of control", which may not correspond exactly with the border (you want to draw the line where it's easiest to defend). Rapid air response is also essential to deal with any attacks. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You do realize that, presumably, there are generals and such who have far more military strategy training and experience than you, and you're not really contributing anything here to the corpus of military strategy, right? You don't suppose there's actually a general reading this message board, and saying "Holy shit!  Fire bases on mountaintops?  Why the fuck didn't I think of that!  Someone get a war council together, we need to try this StuRat's plan out right away!  You there!  Bring me a mountain to put a fire base on!"  Besides which, as I said above, but it bears highlighting, with infinite resources all strategies work all the time.  The U.S. does not have access to infinite resources.  How many troops is necessary to control a 2700 kilometer border?  How many bases?  How far apart?  What will it take to keep them supplied?  What losses would you call tolerable in accomplishing your objective?  What air support is sufficient?  What level of collateral damage to allied Afghans is tolerable before you start to lose their allegiance?  What is the troops strength of those you're trying to stop anyways?  What materiel and personnel do they have?  How are they organized?  It's not as simple as building fire bases on mountaintops and flying a few drones over head and viola!  Problem solved!  How am I certain of that?  Because the problem isn't solved already, because if it was easy enough for Randy in Boise to fix it in his spare time on a Wikipedia message board, then the entire military leadership of the U.S. would have already worked it out and done it by now.  -- Jayron  32  00:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If we do as you suggest, and accept that whatever generals do must always be the right thing, then we will be in real trouble. They have specifically built bases in valleys, overlooked by the Taliban on higher ground, which is a recipe for disaster: .  As for how many troops it would take, maybe 10 per km, or 27000 total, with half in front line bases and half in rapid response aerial forces, and bringing in supplies and providing other support.  To make the supply runs less frequent, bring in larger quantities of supplies that last (so dried or canned fruit instead of fresh fruit, etc.).  And positioning troops on the border keeps them from interacting much with noncombatants, versus putting bases in cities, where there are sure to be incidents.   StuRat (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, because the strategic planning would go much better with you in charge. -- Jayron  32  00:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Couldn't go much worse than it is. Looks like the current plan is for us to leave, and Taliban to take over again. StuRat (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So say you. On what do you base your conclusions and analysis of the results of the U.S. plan?  -- Jayron  32  13:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "It [full withdrawal] will pave the way for the Taliban to take over militarily" . StuRat (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The NATO coalition is not even in complete control of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Something that surely must be a prerequisite to such a suggestion as the OP. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * They are fully capable of taking control of each spot along the border. However, current strategy is to then withdraw from most positions after periodically pushing insurgents out, which just lets them come right back in again. StuRat (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Article request
i would like to talk about my mother. she was an important explorer in the 60th. wrote many books and was one of the founders of the "club des explorateurs français". i would like to know if it is possible that she could be included in "wikipedia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laetitia yalon (talk • contribs) 12:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Consult Notability, especially Notability (people)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think that your mother IS notable according to these guidelines, then see Requested articles. Alansplodge (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Could Piers Morgan be deported because of the petition of one person?
I hope you understand to what I am referring. Kyxx (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not 20 Questions. If you expect a reply to your question, it's your responsibility to provide us with some context.  I'm not sure why you didn't do that.  Anyway, the matter he is referring to is this . --Viennese Waltz 13:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians need sex, it takes away the bad mood. Kyxx (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a prospective partner in mind to have sex with me? If so, please provide more info. Futurist110 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Get your Kyxx on Route Syxxty-Syxx. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Any foreigner could be deported if they were deemed to be some kind of security threat. This particular case is just a publicity stunt staged by a few gun lovers, and I would be shocked if any action was taken on it. This Alex Jones character is so far out there he makes Rush Limbaugh look like a liberal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't easily believe that the U.S.A. which belives so heavily in freedom of speech and thought would deport someone just because some of them don't agree with his opinions. Gurumaister (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless the person is a criminal or a national security threat, as long as they have their papers in order it's very unlikely they would be deported. Ironically, if Jones were a foreigner, he'd be on the next ship out of the country. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently this is an opportunity to rant about personal feelings, rather than provide objective, correct answers. No, it seems quite unlikely he'll be deported . And Bug's understanding of deportation law is not to be relied on. Shadowjams (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor are your personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, I've striken it. My apologies. Shadowjams (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. No problem. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As other people have already said, No, Piers Morgan will not get deported. Futurist110 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And it was the right to free speech that allowed some rednecks to suggest it in the first place. No harm done to anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, I saw a clip in which Alan Dershowitz pointed out to Piers Morgan, the value of having a character like Jones on his show, as an "exhibit". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "'Tis better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"; the best value in free speech is it emboldens fools to speak, so that they may be easily identified and then properly ridiculed. -- Jayron  32  01:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The media and internet commentators seem strangely confused about what the White House petition website is. It's not a way to short cut the legislative process or to overturn the Constitution. The only guarantee you have is that if your petition gets enough signatures, someone from the President's staff will respond to it. Not make it into law, not overturn a law, not let a state secede and definitely not deport someone for what they said. Personally I disagree with almost everything that Piers Morgan said, but you have to be an idiot to try to claim that you deserve 2nd Amendment protections while trying to strip someone of their 1st Amendment rights.Tobyc75 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The matter is already moot, as the White House has already politely rejected the petition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Crazy... the constitution doesn't allow website petitions to overturn Congress or the Constitution... shocking. Shadowjams (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm? Your sentence is ambiguous.  If you mean that website petitions are not empowered by the constitution to overturn congress or the constitution, then you're right of course, but who ever said they were?  If you mean the constitution doesn't allow petitions aimed at overturning congress or the constitution, well, yes, it does; that's the right to petition for redress of grievances.  It would be unconstitutional for the president to act beyond his authority just because of some petition, but there's nothing shocking about people petitioning, even for things that are obviously impossible under the law. --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was being sardonic. Tobyc75 has the best statement in this entire thread really. Shadowjams (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems they're not willing to embrace serious job creation and important defence proposals either petitions.whitehouse .gov/petition/secure-resources-and-funding-and-begin-construction-death-star-2016/wlfKzFkN . Incidentally the whitehouse petition site appears to be on the blacklist, I guess because people were posting whatever random petition they started everywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no chance the White House would take the petition seriously (I'm not sure if anyone ever really did), but the law is not clear if the government could deport Morgan if it wanted to. —Kevin Myers 02:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Presumably most of the people who "signed" the petition took it seriously. Whether we should take them seriously is another matter. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See my point above timestamped 01:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC). This is the utility of the White House Petition website.  -- Jayron  32  02:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Münster Rebellion
why did the guild craft supported the polygamy in Münster Rebellion?--84.110.1.114 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This article, The Anabaptist Commune of Münster 1534 -1535 offers some thoughts. Firstly, any moderates or opponents of the Anabaptists had either left the city or been expelled. Those who remained were sympathetic to the teachings of the leaders of the rebellion. Secondly, it points out that accounts of the rebellion were written by its opponents, however; "There is indeed no doubt that the Anabaptists instituted polygamy for which Kautsky and similar writers offer a simple explanation. By late summer 1534, Münster had about 9,000 citizens, 2,000 men and 7,000 women, most of them left inside the city by their husbands and fathers who had flown. Kautsky argues, that the Anabaptists emphatically attempted to prevent moral disintegration and to protect the large number of single women from sexual assault by the male population, and specially the number of mercenaries inside the walls. By marrying them to respected Anabaptist men, the women's honours could be protected, and the vast majority of such “pro-forma” marriages were never to be consummated. Instead of being the scene of libertine orgies, Münster had set an example for sexual morality. The truth is difficult to establish, but in view of the strict moral codex that most Anabaptist groups practiced, Kautsky's explanation seems the more plausible." Alansplodge (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There doesn't appear to be any indication that modern Anabaptists or the related groups (Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish) practice polygamy as a matter of doctrine. The leader of that particular Anabaptist group, John of Leiden, appeared to encourage polygamy as a matter of personal doctrine.  He wouldn't be the only charismatic leader of a radical religious movement to espouse polygamy.  I daresay, it's a common theme among many such groups.  However, it is also somewhat relevent that Polygamy in Christianity notes that in the early years of the Reformation, Luther himself claimed there was no biblical basis in a ban on Polygamy, and notes other notable Protestant polygamists, including John of Leiden and other notable Anabaptist leaders such as Bernhard Rothmann.  So, there appears to have been some support for polygamy among Protestants and specifically Anabaptists during that time period anyways. -- Jayron  32  20:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would just point out here that referring to Anabaptists as "Protestant" is, at least, controversial. They were persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants. --Trovatore (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)