Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 January 21

= January 21 =

What country has the biggest official residence for its head of government?
What country's head of government has the biggest official residence, in terms of interior square footage (or some other relevant measures)? --173.49.15.243 (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

India. According to the 'Trivia' section of article Rashtrapati Bhavan, it is the biggest residence of any President in the world. manya (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but he's not the head of government. The head of government of India is the Prime Minister.  If we are counting head of state, then things like Buckingham Palace get into the works. Tb (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Sultan of Brunei does pretty well for himself. Does he count? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I'd be really surprised if the Sultan isn't #1 in this regard. I once did some work for him (indirectly, through the company I worked for at the time) - and came close to being flown out to Brunai on his personal Jumbo jet (which he likes to pilot himself) to install some equipment at his palace.  Sadly, (I guess) he decided to simply ignore his contract with our company and abruptly lost interest in our product for no well-explained reason.  As our contract lawyers pointed out - suing the ruler of a foreign dictatorship rarely turns out well in the end - so we let him get away with it and were stuck with something like a million dollars of losses as a result.  The amount of money he can splash around (and the attention that gets) is nothing short of astounding.  We engineers like to abbreviate everything - but we took particular relish in shortening "The Sultan of Brunai" to "The SOB" in all subsequent internal communications relating to the project. SteveBaker (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you decided you wouldn't do well suing for breach of contract, you probably also wouldn't do too well defending yourself against a libel charge... --Tango (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually - I don't think we would have had any problems if he'd sued us. The problem with us suing him was that he's a head of state and had diplomatic immunity in the UK.  Suing him in Brunai...not so attractive a prospect. SteveBaker (talk)
 * I recommend as therapy "The Sultan of Brunai" on the album The Kaviar Sessions by Kevin Gilbert. Not all that complementary ... "I am the Sultan of Brunai / I'm just an ordinary guy / the regular rules do not apply" --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He ordered (IIRC) seven of these - one for each of his sons - to be given to the eldest son on his birthday. They had to be made in the custom signature color of each prince (we normally made them only in red) with their personal logo's on them - there were lots of custom hardware and software changes - we took out the coinbox mechanism and made them so you had to press a particular ring or pendant against a sensor to turn them on...there were custom voice prompts...you name it.  The team of 20 people who were to fly to Brunai to install them had to have a bunch of shots before we could fly to the palace...we were individually briefed by his team on protocol for talking with him and the princes and how we should behave within the palace.  Our top game tester was to stay on for months to train the kids in how to play the game well.  It was all a tremendous hoopla - then, suddenly, one day...nothing.  The Sultan's team stopped talking to us - we couldn't contact them - they stopped replying to letters - they didn't pay their next stage payments - nothing. SteveBaker (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How do Radio Station Censor Songs?
When listening to rap songs with explicit lyrics on North American radio stations, one will always hear the explicit words censored out. There are several ways of doing this: some radio stations "beep" out the word, some blank it out and other replace the explicit word with a non-explicit word. My question is, how do they replace the explicit word with a non-explicit one? Does the artist lend their voice for that single word? Or does the radio station somehow digitally emulate the artist's voice? Acceptable (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the artist records two different versions (My Name Is by Eminem, for example). When the words are bleeped or blanked out, it isn't done by individual radio stations, but by whoever they got the song from (the record label, I suppose). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is generally the case, but it's straightforward to blank or bleep out a word in a song using sound editing software, and some radio stations will do it themselves if there is something they wish to play which does not have a radio-friendly version available (for instance, something by a local act). Warofdreams talk 11:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have iTunes (this is the program I am familiar with, others may offer the same feature), you can search for Clean versions of songs. Like Adam Bishop mentioned, many record labels record clean versions of songs for air play, sometimes even altering the content of the song (Purple Pills by D12 for example). Livewireo (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In this context, does Clean mean unsoiled by the hands of censors, i.e. pure/unedited/original? Or does it mean the opposite, cleaned up/edited/censored? It's obviously a matter of opinion, but which is the established use?/85.194.44.18 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clean means the censored/edited version. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the Radio edit article. Exxolon (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any money-free psychic chat rooms online?
Well, I was wandering around the Internet searching for a chat room where I can talk to psychic people who would help me on problems and issues on friendship, because I got an online friend on Yahoo! Messenger who I try to talk to him, but he doesn't respond, so I was thinking that something must be up with him. I'm searching for a money-free chat room, meaning that I'm searching for a chat room where I don't have to pay or cost money to enter. So, are there any money-free psychic chat rooms online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.167.201 (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Psychic abilities do not exist. It would be wiser to locate a self help chatroom or a message board frequented by older people in similar walks of life who will have dealt with the same sorts of difficulties you are dealing with now. They will be able to give you just as good or better advice than any alleged psychic could. Other refdeskers can probably point you towards an online community that fits the bill. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At Wikipedia, the goal is to be impartial as explained by Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. At least that was what I was lead to believe somewhere along the line. Might have been something I read... who knows. Anyway... Distressed Wiki-Surfer, the Psychic article demonstrates some information I believe you might find helpful on your personal quest to believe or not believe in parapsychological phenomena. As for your missing friend, I do sincerely hope you hear from him soon. In the mean time, if you know his basic information, 9 times out of 10 the police department in the area he lives (at least in the US) can help you make sure he's ok. My Best Wishes to you. Operator873 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To Operator873: Wikipedia is indeed required to be impartial - but that in no way forces us to tell lies. Please read WP:FRINGE and (easier reading): Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat which make it abundantly clear that we are NOT supposed to go around saying that psychic powers are real when the abundance of peer-reviewed, respected scientific journals says they are unambiguously NOT real.  We are allowed to say things like "Psychics claim such-and-such (insert reference here)but mainstream science says this is all bullshit." - that's what "impartial" means in our terms...it most certainly DOES NOT mean that we give equal weight to the wild-assed opinions of nut-jobs as you are clearly doing.  If you cannot abide by those rules - then go take your crazy theories someplace else because they aren't welcome here.


 * To our OP: There is no such thing as psychic powers - there really, truly isn't - no matter how much you and others wish there were. Hence anyone claiming to have them is either (a) a charlatan (a liar - a con artist) or (b) self-deluded (a lunatic).  In neither case should you be going to such a person for help with personal matters.  There are plenty of OTHER chatrooms where you can get help from caring people who aren't out to mess you up even more.  So-called psychics are the worst possible people to go to because they are either crazy or out to screw you in some way - and in neither case do you want them advising you on matters like this.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As the above responses indicate the existence of psychic powers is unproven to date but there are many people who claim to have them. These people almost always require some payment for their services and you are unlikely to find a free 'psychic website'. I would advise you to seek some other way to contact or find your lost friend. Richard Avery (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One famous psychic was Uri Geller, who was able to bend spoons. It turned out that he was really able to do it, however not by means of the power of his mind, but just by his hands, as a candid camera film proved. In 100% of the cases of psychics examined, not only a natural explication has been found, but always a very trivial and stupid one. Another guy -maybe Uri himself- claimed to be able to materialize objects. He hold the object hidden in his hand, and just flung it in air from behind his back. But most people find it easier to believe miracles than their natural and trivial explications, and if you show them the trick they feel themselves deprived of a joyful experience, and may even take offense with you.--PMajer (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I prefer when the magicians reveal their tricks. I think it makes it even more fascinating. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Back to your question, here is one apparently "free". good luck, Julia Rossi (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Phychic abilities aren't proven to exist, and perhaps that means they don't exist. There is, however, some evidence that psi does exist, but that depends on what you call "evidence". But, you know, there are a lot of things that aren't proven to exist... ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ICE Conditions of Contract
In England many large construction projects are issued the terms and conditions backed up by the ICE 7th Edition Conditions of Contract, issued by the Institute of Civil Engineers. In these T&C's there is term called "Engineers" Instructions, when can this be used and what are the implications of using it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyndotcom (talk • contribs) 09:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Development of The Louvre Pyramid
Was the cavernous/underground section all developed at the time of building or were there existing underground tunnels/connections? It looks to be all modern inside (when I visited) but I couldn't find out whether this was all just excavated during the development of this, or not. Any help/input would be great. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to the Cavern specified in The Da Vinci Code at the bottom of La Pyramide Inversée, I don't think it exists - as per the La Pyramide Inversée article. -- WORM  MЯOW  10:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah sorry i'm talking about literally just the main-entrance area (that is set below ground with the giant pyramid above). It's a huge area and it just seems to have lots of tunnels pushing out from it, just wondered if that was stuff that was there before or if they dug it all out when the Pyramid was made. No mystery/conspiracy type stuff. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The nearby Palais Royal Metro station existed long before the Pyramid was built. The Louvre's new underground entrance, topped by the Louvre Pyramid, opened in 1989 and included several new passageways connecting it the the Metro station and nearby streets.  A useful tip for visitors is that the underground entrance often has a much shorter queue than the queue outside.  Astronaut (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

months of the year
From where did we get the names of the months? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.63.50 (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rome. 209.247.5.207 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Julian_calendar, Gregorian_calendar.--droptone (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

xbox 360
what games come out 2009? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.3.18 (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See 2009 in video gaming. Cycle~ (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Place Stanislas
Hello, My name is Robert bowling from the United States. I acquired a painting of the Place Stanislas wich was painted 1n 1n 1944 by L Husson. I am in the military and know Nancy was liberated by the 3rd army in 1944. I am just curious about this painting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.208.187 (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you want to know about it? Algebraist 15:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in our articles on Nancy and on Place Stanislas. The artist could possibly have been Leon Husson, though that biography only lists his birth and death dates.  This auction house is selling a Leon Husson painting which depicts another scene in Nancy from 1944 but does not list a reserve price or estimate of value.  This page (in french) has a pretty good biography of him with lots of sample artworks.  You could look through that to see if your painting matches any of the ones there, or is similar to it.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Banknotes.
Now that The Royal Bank of Scotland has been 80% taken over by the UK Treasury; and given that The Bank of Scotland is now wholly owned by Lloyds TSB; and given that The Clydesdale Bank is no longer a Scottish owned institution, what is the point of these 3 "banks" continuing to print and issue their "own" banknotes, especially so as they merely serve to confuse English and other tourists as they are so different from Bank of England banknotes; and also as they are usually unacceptable in England, and also on the continent where even though the Euro is the accepted legal tender, some currency exchange shops will accept English notes, but NOT Scottish ones? 92.21.251.196 (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your claim that Scottish notes are "usually unacceptable in England" is not sustained by my weekly commutes between Scotland and England; in five years I've never had a Scottish note declined or even questioned anywhere in England, nor even looked at twice north of Leeds. I don't think English people are nearly as easily confused are you imagine. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When I worked in a pub in West Sussex (south cost of England), I accepted Scottish banknotes. It only happened once or twice, but it wasn't a problem. I think that's pretty common throughout the country. --Tango (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am interested to learn that the previous 2 respondents have never experienced problems exchanging Scottish Banknotes in England, especially when considering that England does NOT produce a £1 note, using instead the £1 coin. So I suspect we are to accept that England accepts a "foreign" banknote the equivalent of which they do not use themselves? I don't think so - nay - I know from experience, having family in northern England that I visit regularly, that Scottish banknotes are regularly refused - indeed, I have even sometimes been offered 95 pence on the £Scottish in Supermarkets etc. But back to the main thrust of the OP's question - why do the 3 "Scottish" Banks still persist in producing "Scottish" banknotes when the "parent" banks are themselves owned outside of Scotland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.251.196 (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because there is no need to change. Anyway, Clydesdale has been owned by National Australia Group for years - if the ownership of the bank mattered, they'd have been printing Australian Dollars, as would Northern Bank. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer the OPs question, its because the banks are authorized to do so by the government. Regardless of who owns the banks ultimately, the institutions are authorized to print them and thus they do.  It is noted in our article on Legal tender that Scottish banknotes are NOT legal tender (even in Scotland), and thus it would seem to be up to the individual merhcants as to whether or not they will accept them; however this reference:  notes that in Scotland, the law would indicate that Scottish banknotes must be accepted despite not being legal tender (court cases have upheld this) and that even in England, you are being screwed if you are refused full value on Scottish banknotes.  It makes sense, since the Scottish banks will exchange their notes in full value in pounds sterling; thus if someone is taking only 95 pence on the pound for them, they are essentially getting a free 5 pence.  You are within your legal right to demand full value; the question is if you are buying a simple can of soda or something whether it is worth dickering over it.  The shopkeeper is probably counting on the fact that you won't call him on it.  This page from the Bank of England notes that officially Scottish notes are not legal tender (and that English notes are not legal tender in Scotland) but implies that the difference between the two is largely moot, and that Scottish notes should be accepatble for normal transactions.  This page notes that Scottish notes are backed pound-for-pound by the issueing bank, meaning that the value should be entirely equivalent.  this legal briefing issued under the authority of the UK Parliament indicates that the Scottish banknotes should be considered equivalent to English banknotes for all transactions within the UK.  Again, legally ALL UK merchants should accept Scottish banknotes.  Some, either out of ignorance or willful deception, may refuse to honor them; the question is whether it is worth it for you to press the issue, or not.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, in the context of a shop purchase they are free to decline anything if they so wish: legal tender only applies to the settlement of debts. A shop can freely and legally decide to only accept payment in 1p coins if they so wish, they just may find themselves short of customers. Certainly there's no legal requirement to accept Scottish banknotes, I know certain places way down here in Kent do not accept them simply because of the counterfeiting risk: staff are so unfamiliar with them that it's easy to pass off a fake. By all means any bank should happily exchange them for English notes at full face value, but it's really up to the individual seller in most retail contexts. ~ mazca  t 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between notes you are required by law to accept and legal tender? Also, as Mazca points out "required to accept" only refers to debts, you can always choose not to do business with someone if all they have are Scottish notes. --Tango (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen a Scottish £1 note for years - surely they are no longer issued? To go back to the original question, what benefit do the banks gain from issuing notes? Is it basically a form of advertising, where no bank would dare to stop unless all the others did too? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For comparison, banknotes of Northern Ireland are issued by four banks. Two are based in the Republic of Ireland, which has a different currency. A third has been foreign-owned since 1988. jnestorius(talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that merchants are primarily concerned with making money. So if a merchant refuses to accept Scottish banknotes, he does so for one of these reasons:
 * He believes it will be a hassle to accept them and cash them in for full value (demonstratably false; every bank in the UK will accept them and treat them for full face value)
 * He wants to scam you, and so will take them at less than full value, so he can pocket the difference
 * As noted above, he is unfamiliar with them and fears they may be counterfeit; and being unfamiliar with them, he has a harded time verifying they are not (possible)
 * However, reading through several guides on the internet (some cited above) most people seem to be in agreement that, while some merchants may refuse the notes, most happily accept them without much trouble. Also, most information I have found says that all banks in England will trade them in for Bank of England notes and coinage anyways; so if you are running into trouble, head to a local bank and they will change them for you at full face value  Or of course, you could just tell the guy behind the counter that his competition is taking the cash at full value, and you'd be just thrilled to spend it there.  He may grudgingly accept it then.--Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To offer a tangential example, the difference between the Canadian and U.S. dollar is far greater than that between a Scottish and an English banknote. Merchants on either side of the U.S./Canadian border can choose to accept the other country's currency, mainly as a convenience to tourists.  Often there's an in-store "exchange rate" that may or may not have anything to do with the rate you'd get at a bank.  The principles at work are those that Jayron32 cites.  --- OtherDave (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Scottish £1 notes are still issued, or legally capable of being issued. I know Bank of Scotland has ceased printing them but thats just an individual decision by them for commercial reasons. They'll still be accepted & cashed by shops & banks but they have become a lot more scarce since England switched to using £1 coins instead of notes. I think that there is a particular reason for this involving technical money/bank rules issues but I can't remember what. AllanHainey (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Late to the party but the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell has launched a private member's bill for Scottish notes to be given equal status - 'Legal' bid over Scots banknotes (BBC). Nanonic (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As a possible answer to the original question: I remember being told years ago that it was in the Scottish banks' interest to issue currency because the currency they issued could be in some way set against the sum they were required by law to have on deposit (with the Bank of England, I think). I'm hazy on the details, and I'm not sure where I might find confirmation or refutation of this suggestion. --ColinFine (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Scottish banks can only issue banknotes up to the value of Bank of England notes that they hold - thus ensuring that the BoE controlls the money supply as Scottish banks can't increase the supply of notes beyond the value issued by the BoE. AllanHainey (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

2012?
why are people so convinced the world is going to end in 2012? Buffered Input Output 17:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This idea seems to be connected with the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar used by various Mesoamerican civilisations including the Maya. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, there's the whole problem with the fact that the Maya had very little in the way of what we would recognize as "science", so how they came up with that particular date as the definative "end of the world" seems to have involved what we in the scientific world called "just making shit up". As a means of predicting future events, this method has a rather poor track record compared with methods based on observations of the world and on experimental data.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, even the Mayan calandar doesn't say the world ends in 2012. It says there will be a transition into a new era or something like that.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt the Mayan Calendar even "says" that. It runs on and on, and then just stops at a particular point. The interpretation of what that stop means is an open question. It could be as mundane (not to mention novomundane) as us having a list of the days on which Easter will fall, up to the end of the 21st century.  Just because it doesn't mention all the Easters till the year 9,832,712,945,203 doesn't mean there won't be any more Easters after the year 2100. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a similar (and hopefully simpler) example is the y10k bug. The end of the long cycle appears to me to be substantially identical to our own calendar in the year 9999: all extant digits are filled and maxed, with the solution simply being "add another digit".  "But the Maya don't have a provision for that extra digit," the various groups claim.  So?  Who among us writes "02009" on our checks? &mdash; Lomn 22:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Previous times this question has been asked: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 -- BenRG (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, people think that the word ends not later than 5 years from the current date. In old times, the end of the word used to be even 50 or 100 years later, but today no-one wants to wait so long, and they think is't their right to be there and see when the sky's doors will be opened and the big trouble starts and everybody is scared. Moreover, it is more fair because if it does not end this time, they can have another chance.--PMajer (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh-ooh, time for those who can, to invest in software security companies! Julia Rossi (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Really all That will happen is that the Mayans will need To hire a bunch of COBOL programmers. --APL (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, if the Mayans were so clever, how come they didn't sail to Spain and take all their gold? /ducks!  --Sean 14:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's because Sarah Palin decided to run for president in 2012... :-P jk, it's really because people are just as superstitious as they were way back when... Ilikefood (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'ending' of the Mayan calendar is a bit more fundamental than just "adding another digit" because it doesn't work like that. To take an analogy with our time system...It's kinda like there are only 60 seconds in a minute and only 60 minutes in an hour and only 24 hours...but no days.  What if there was no 'unit' bigger than an hour?  In their system, there can no more be a "25th hour" than there can be a "61st second".  With no way to represent that actual date - some people assume that time must therefore come to an end.  The only problem with that is that there is no particular reason to assume the Mayans were right...after all, there is an AWFUL lot of science they didn't know - so whatever it is that lead them to this bizarre calendar, I don't see why we have any reason to believe in it. SteveBaker (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought they just didn't bother creating something to measure far more time than they'd ever need. I mean, why would they need to measure dates after 2012? They didn't even need as much as they had. 130.88.64.205 (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, this question must have been asked 100 times by now. Try ExitMundi (warning: popups). ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

President Obama Pledge and the FOIA
Does this mean that people will use this to ask about UFOs and the like? I have just seen this as his people were being sworn in on CNN, Fox News, other news outlets. He just indicated that "there will be transparency in government." 75.88.20.12 (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Got logged OUT. Server trouble on my end. Powerzilla (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Will people use the FOIA to ask about UFOs? Absolutely.  However, that's a rather trivial question.  Whether Obama's administration will impact the manner in which UFO-related FOIA requests are answered is harder to say (the best answer is likely "wait and see", though for my money, "no" is a safe bet).  I doubt that Obama (or indeed, most of his constituents) have UFO theories at the forefront when they talk about improving transparency. &mdash; Lomn 18:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let them ask about UFOs. They're only going to be dissappointed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it'll only add to conspiracy theory - people who believe that stuff will NEVER be convinced otherwise. If there are no documents describing UFO's - they'll claim that this is PROOF that the documents were destroyed.  If there are documents that explain completely and clearly what happened in utterly non-UFO terms - then those will be proof that the government is still covering things up.  Every typo, every missing comma and every coffee stain will be the subject of endless new websites containing the usual pseudo-scientific babble.  But can't you already ask about UFO's under the existing FOIA?  The problem is that you need to know precisely what you're asking FOR.  It's not use (for example) asking for all the government documents about...oh...Outer Mongolia.   You have to ask SPECIFICALLY for the report written by so-and-so on such-and-such occasion.  So just saying "send me all the UFO documents" isn't going to get you anywhere.  Also, documents locked away for reasons of national security are never going to be released anyway - and a "real" UFO document would come under that rule. SteveBaker (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Executive willingness in the past has influenced the ability to FOIA previously classified material quite a bit—see, for example, the efforts by Hazel O'Leary in the 1990s. But Obama's interest here is no doubt not historical topics—he's making reference to the activities of the Bush administration in the last eight years. Whether that will amend classification rules for the past 50 years or so is not clear. Note that in order for something to get released by FOIA now that wouldn't have been released, say, eight years ago, either the classification guides have to be changed or the departments have to become less stringent in how they claim exceptions (they get exceptions for some rather vague things, which gives a lot of leeway). Whether that would reveal anything interesting about UFOs, I don't know. I personally doubt it. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, Obama has already taken actions to strength FOIA and remove the ability of government figures to arbitrarily hold back things. I'm surprised at the speed of this. Again, it's not like Obama personally handles FOIA requests (depending on the agency there is a large bureaucratic mechanism behind them.) Again, I doubt this will reveal anything especially interesting about UFOs, as I doubt any especially interesting about UFOs exists, but that's another question altogether. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The British government recently released a document, which some people suggest indicates the existence of UFOs, and some countries' governments release all of their UFO sighting data, unlike the US, for example Belgium. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy's Horse
What was the name of John F. Kennedy's Horse? Th Horse paraded during his funeral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdemo66 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Black Jack? ---Sluzzelin talk  21:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)