Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 February 24

= February 24 =

Difference Between the Mentality of the American Military and the British Military
...or indeed, the rest of NATO. Why is it that the American Military have:


 * So many incidents of friendly fire
 * So many incidents of rape, not only of women, but also of children (especially in Japan and Korea)

Sure, there are isolated incidents in other parts of NATO, but why is it a pandemic in the US Military? KägeTorä - (影虎) ( TALK )  09:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have any statistics to back up your thesis? Off the top of my head, you also have to take into account that much more of the US military is stationed or fighting overseas than the British or NATO, so while there may be more publicized incidents, the actual rate per soldier may or may not be significantly different. Also, this is inevitable with any military force: they're not made up of angels. African peacekeeping forces have also been accused of serious crimes. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Googling the fact will bring up many many instances of American over-indulgence, and I am specifically concerned with Japan and Korea. As for friendly fire, my own unit in Kosovo lost two men to a heli attack.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But the plural of anecdote is not "data." The question is whether the statistics actually bear out that the US and the UK/NATO have different rates. We still have yet to establish that 1. there are different rates and not just different totals (which would probably be skewed based on the number of American troops versus others), and 2. that publicity actually reflects reality. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that American atrocities are considered newsworthy suggests that it's quite the opposite of a "pandemic". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what you are saying. If it's just 'normal' it would not be so much in the news, except that it's not american soldiers who are dying, and not women and underage kids of american decent being raped. It's world news, Bugs.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard for world news to keep up on the atrocities committed by terrorists and brutal dictatorships. But America is expected to be on a higher moral road, so when our people commit atrocities, it's more newsworthy and shocking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Bugs, Americans are made to think they are on the higher moral road, but most of the rest of the world thinks America is trying hard to build an empire. There are massive differences in how you lot are taught to see yourselves, and how the rest of the planet sees you. I am not anti-american, not at all, but I can understand how the rest feel, to a certain extent.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  11:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If America was building an empire, it would have finished doing so years ago.--WaltCip (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting off-topic, but without winning a major war since WW2, I doubt that America would be able to build an empire, even if they were trying (which I personally do not believe). Vietnam was a failure, Korea is still ongoing, Afghanistan is still ongoing, and Iraq has not turned out to have a satisfactory end, as the people there are still blowing each other up. There are only two major wars in American history which were fought and won without outside help: the War of Independence, and the Civil War. In the Civil War, they were fighting each other, so I doubt that counts.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We had major help from the French during the Revolution. Winning World Wars I and II "with outside help" is twisting things a bit, as it was us who came to the aid of those "outsiders". There was no small number of Americans who would have been just fine with letting the Brits and the French deal with Hitler on their own. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's too easy to take offense to your statement for the following reasons - 1. The "sources" you are using to warrant your claims are no doubt from sensationalized and readily available news stories (see availability bias), 2. You are using those incidents to represent the entire U.S. military by calling it a "pandemic", and 3. You have framed your question in such a way as to get an answer that does not invalidate the premise of your claim.
 * But taking your question at face value, I would suggest that if such a claim were true, it would be due to U.S. forces being more active in many parts of the world than other armies, so there would be a higher proportion of incidents of this sort. Soldiers are engaged in extremely high-stress situations for extended periods of time. Also remember that the U.S. media has taken an active role in following around the military ever since the Vietnam War.--WaltCip (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Compare the data on United States military deployments with these outdated data on British deployments, which show the situation in 2008 before the British withdrawal from Iraq. There were about 26,000 British troops deployed outside of the UK, most of them "non-operational" (whatever that means) and stationed in countries without conflict.  By contrast, the United States has 100,000 troops deployed in combat in Afghanistan alone. Several thousand more are in the Middle East, where they have to be prepared for combat at any time. The stress and the readiness for violence involved in combat deployments almost inevitably leads to regrettable violence against civilians. So, it would be surprising if there were not higher absolute numbers of U.S. troops guilty of violence against civilians.  As others have said, we would need valid data on the relative rate of violence to accept the premise of your question, and the evidence should probably be adjusted for relative rates of deployment in combat.  I would also strongly question your claim that "It is not woman and underage kids of American descent being raped." As you might notice from the data on U.S. military deployments, more than 1 million U.S. troops are stationed inside the United States.  In fact, every year small numbers of these troops are in fact arrested for assaults on civilians off base.  Some of these involve rape and some involve underage victims. This does not generate much news coverage in the United States, because it falls within the background noise of violent crime in this country. It doesn't attract global news coverage because U.S. troops are not accused of violence against citizens of an overseas "host" country. Do you have evidence indicating that no British soldier has ever been charged with rape or rape of an underage person?  I doubt that such evidence exists.  On the other, I think that there may be understandable resentment of the U.S. military presence in countries such as Japan (and especially in Okinawa) that leads the local media to focus on the occasional violent incident involving U.S. military personnel.  Given the climate of resentment, media will focus on those incidents to increase readership or viewership.  Because the U.K. is no longer a global hegemonic power, British troops do not generally face the same kind of resentment, and violent incidents by British troops will consequently not be as newsworthy.  Marco polo (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a pro-U.S. discussion of crimes by soldiers in Korea with some actual statistics. A long read with most of the meat far into the page. Rmhermen (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The perception I get from the British media is that the US military are quick to open fire, sometimes have a discipline problem and are culturally insensitive. Only yesterday I read that the Afghans have stopped having outdoor wedding parties for fear of being bombed by a remote controlled drone; that despite being present in a muslim country for 10 years, they still manage to set fire to copies of the Koran and today open fire on protesters, killing 12; and of the 6 British military personnel killed in 4 friendly-fire incidents since 2001 in Afghanistan, two of incidents (4 deaths) were by USAF aircraft.  While the British military don't exactly have a spotless record, for example the behaviour of the Joint Forward Intelligence Team in Iraq, such things do seem to hit the news far less frequently than if the US military are involved.  However, maybe someone else can find similar statistics where other NATO (but non-US) forces have messed up.  Astronaut (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, those are multiple incidents (anecdotes), not statistics. They are not weighted for the number of U.S. troops versus British troops, number of U.S. flight sorties versus British, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a valid point. We have List of U.S. friendly-fire incidents since 1945 with British victims. It says: "The topic has become prevalent in British culture due to some recent incidents, and is often satirically portrayed in the media." The fact that "Friendly fire from American allies killed as many British troops as the Iraqis during the 1991 Gulf War." was a big thing in the UK. Whether they really are more trigger happy than other nations is debatable; the US contributes the lion's share of resources to most NATO deployments. However, in the same conflict "35 of the 148 American servicemen and women who perished on the battlefield in the Persian Gulf War were killed inadvertently by their comrades, an extraordinary proportion...The Washington Post". Alansplodge (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One important difference between the U.S. and U.K. armed forces is the length of combat deployments and the relative amount of time soldiers spend in combat deployments. Another important difference is the much greater use of reservists by the United States.  Reservists are typically people with families and nonmilitary jobs who may not have expected lengthy overseas deployments.  According to this study, the heavy use of reservists may be one reason why U.S. combat troops experience more stress than British troops.  The same study points out that U.S. soldiers have combat deployments lasting 12 to 15 months, with 12 months off between combat. By contrast, British troops have combat deployments lasting only 6 months and totaling no more than 12 months out of 36. So U.S. troops are typically in combat situations at least half the time that they are in military service and for longer periods, while British troops have relatively short exposures to combat with longer breaks in between them.  In essence, U.S. troops are driven more mercilessly than British troops, with resulting higher rates of mental illness.  Now, I don't think we've yet seen hard evidence that U.S. troops cause a greater rate of damage to victims other than combat foes than British troops (per combattant), but if such evidence exists, the much higher stress and fatigue level of U.S. troops could account for it.  Marco polo (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some British friendly fire numbers: British soldiers attacked other British soldiers in Afghanistan 19 times in the last 3 1/2 years and attacked friendly Afghani forces at least ten times. These aren't exactly small numbers of incidents even though the fatalities are quite low (0 Brit on Brit deaths, 7 Afghan deaths) Rmhermen (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have re-read my question again, and it does appear to have provoked a discussion, which is not what we do here. I shall provide sources forthwith (late at night now, so it will have to be tomorrow). As for the fact that rapes occur in Japan and Korea on a near-daily basis, it was said above that it may be because the American military is the only army there. Sorry, this makes no sense, for two reasons. Both Japan and Korea also have an army each. Their own - and there are no recorded incidents of rape of 12-year-old girls by their forces. Secondly, is rape part of basic training in the American military? Of course it isn't. But the inhabitants of Okinawa may think differently. KägeTorä - (影虎) ( TALK )  01:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * United States Forces Japan lists two rapes of teenage girls, one in 1995 and the other in 2008, hardly "near-daily". It also states that the crime rate of U.S. servicemen in Okinawa Prefecture in 2008 was 14% that of Okinawan males. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All crimes in total seem to be near-daily. See my link below. Also, the number of crimes committed may only be 14% of the local population, but what is the ratio of local Japanese to US military personnel? That needs to be taken into account.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  08:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the number of crimes, the rate. If it were 14% of the total number, American soldiers would have no time to do anything else but looting, pillaging and raping. (It actually says "per capita crime rate", whatever that means.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, rapes by natives may tend not to be reported, much less taken to court. Many cultures cover such things up. StuRat (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in Japan, Stu. Sexual abuse is well reported across the islands, and happens so often there are even signs in the trains warning people from doing it (チカンはイカン！ is the 'pun' they use). Once it is reported (which admittedly may not be in 100% of cases), the legal system is such that it will go to court, and the defendant will be tried, even if the prosecutors drop the case, because the Police will try him. I worked for a number of years as an interpreter for the Police, and this was how the system worked, at least until 2007.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  08:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a start, anyway. KägeTorä - (影虎) ( TALK )  08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No that isn't a start. Writing like that is the problem. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Saying US officers "commit rape and robbery by faking marriages" makes it clear that they consider any consensual sex outside of marriage to be rape. StuRat (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

doberman
I have a three year old Doberman who I feed complete solid foods only, yet he excreats very watery (non solid) poo. His food is "working dog 19 + Protec. Am I feeding him incorrectly ?

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.6.164 (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to take him to a veterinarian. We can't really give such advice here. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, please, take him to a vet. And you may want to ask specifically about the food.  The fact that Protec can't keep their website up and registered would concern me.  Dismas |(talk) 14:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, is your dog actually a working dog ? Very few are these days (most are pets).  I imagine the working dog formulation has more calories than the average dog should get. StuRat (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What is kuttapuchi?
There are some dead links to it around, and Google hasn't turned up anything. onyx321 13:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give us some context? Where are you seeing the word?  Rojomoke (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the OP meant kattupuchi which is probably a South Indian word. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  03:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a red link in Kuzhi paniyaram. Could be spelt wrong, no idea. onyx321 12:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Leigon of Merit
Staff,

I was reviewing your listing of recipients regarding the Legion of Merit and noted that my name was not listed. I was awarded the Legion of Merit in April 2007. Please let me know how I can get my name inserted to your listing. Thank you and great work!

Carlos Weckmann Jr. Sergeant Major (Ret.) 1st Marine Division United States Marine Corps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.126.50.129 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Legion of Merit article only lists notable recipients who meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability and can supply references from reliable sources which will allow readers to verify that notability. Ideally, you will already have a Wikipedia article written about you, but if not Wikipedia's policy on biographies is a good guide on how one should be written, though that is probably better left to someone without a conflict of interest.  Astronaut (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Prices without sales taxes
Why do businesses in the US show prices without sales taxes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.146.38 (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011_May_16. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is just the custom.  When sales taxes were introduced, merchants wanted customers to know how much of their bill went to the merchant and how much went to the government.  Merchants were opposed to sales taxes because 1) they thought it would hurt business, and 2) collecting the tax imposed a burden on the merchants.  I suspect that not including the tax in the marked price of products started out as a kind of passive protest and just became the custom.  Another issue is that people are more likely to buy a product whose price appears to be $7.99 than they are if it is marked with its post tax price (of, say, $8.47 in a jurisdiction with a 6% sales tax).  Finally, my understanding is that in some European countries it is illegal to mark a product with anything other than the post-tax price.  No such law exists in the United States (partly because of the political power of merchants).  Marco polo (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And again the tax rates may vary by several percent at stores within a few miles of each other, giving stores in those higher taxing areas a competitive disadvantage that is easily neutralized if everyone posts the pre-tax price. Rmhermen (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I always though that the lottery was a tax on people that are bad at math... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * They even downright lie in some of their ads, when they say something like "You can walk in with only X dollars, and walk out with Y", when you can't actually do that, as the sales tax has to be paid first. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely there are consumer protection laws (e.g. prohibitions on misleading advertising) that can then be invoked. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe so, but due to regulatory capture, US protection agencies aren't likely to act unless shamed into it by a media report on a severe case. StuRat (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Usually it will say "plus tax" in the fine print. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've heard this on radio ads, where no small print is possible. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Consider the following logistics nightmare: Your job is to print the color advert to be inserted in all of this week's Sunday papers within 250 miles of Chicago. There is no federal sales tax, but Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin will ALL have a different state sales tax rate; any of 100 counties may have their own little fund-raising surcharges to subsidise their local convention center, NFL stadium, or NBA arena; even certain cities like Chicago may have a city tax that's different between downtown and the suburbs, and certainly from Madison Wisconsin.  Add to that, that some of those taxing jurisdictions may have different RATES on some of the products -- food vs clothing vs kitchen utensils, for example.  Then,
 * Customizing the inserts for each individual store, which is just about what you'd have to do, if not absolutely impossible is prohibitively expensive, and highly error-prone even if you tried it.
 * Frankly, like Marco Polo said, we're used to it; it's exactly what we expect.
 * It is absolutely NOTHING like the completely-uniform situation one would find in, for example, Australia :-).
 * --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * At the very least, they could say the price is "X + TAX", rather than claiming it is "X" alone. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is nearly so difficult as some people make it. Sure, from the seller's point of view, they'd rather show you a lower price than you'll actually pay, and they'd rather pretend that you'll pay the same price at difderent locations. But, if forced to by law or market forces, it wouldn't be that hard to implement. Ads might be tricky, but the prices on the shelves and on the products are easily adjusted. The computer at the tills already calculates all the different rates of tax to work out the price of a given item, and it wouldn't be any more complicated to use the same system to create price labels. Then you stick the labels on the shelves and products, just like you do already: no more error prone.
 * All it would take is one brave play by a supermarket willing to make "we tell you the real price" "no nasty surprises" a selling point (blanket advertising everywhere), and everyone else would have to follow. 86.161.214.73 (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Retail prices in the UK must include VAT, but business-to-business prices are nearly always quoted without VAT. It's just a convention, and it's easy to adjust to either system.  Before 1973, the UK purchase tax on "luxury goods" was sometimes shown separately, but most stores showed the inclusive price because the wartime rate of 33% made a big difference to whether the item could be afforded.    D b f i r s   19:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have seen several places that say "we pay your sales tax", thus eliminating any complex label requirements. I also wonder why they can't put electronic LCD tags on the edges of shelves.  Each could be adjusted automatically to reflect the current price, with sales tax, without the need for them to be replaced each week. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Electronic tickets and borders
If you travel to some country which requires having a return ticket, how can they check at the border if an electronic ticket is valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.146.38 (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They can ask the airline.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In practice, they probably don't do a rigorous check on most passengers but are satisfied with a printed receipt if the passenger is not simply waved through. However, a government could certainly require an airline to offer its border police access to the airline's database as a condition for operating in that country.  Marco polo (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also the check at the border often shouldn't be that important for simple requirements like that. As mentioned by others recently on the RD, generally the airline is supposed to verify such simple requirements before they allow the passenger to board the plane (usually done at check in) and has incentive to do so since they will normally have to pay for to send the passenger back if they are turned away at the border, and possibly a fine to boot. Nil Einne (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Idiocracy the movie and South Carolina
In one scene of the movie "Idiocracy", a person shouts "SOUTH CAROLINA! WHAT'S UP!" out of the blue. What is this a reference to? Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Halo Remake and 3D TV hack for 2 players on the same full screen?
Does anyone here know if Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary supports that weird ugly 3D hack which allows both players to see their own full 2D screen while playing on the same console? Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Critical thinking
A while ago, I asked a question about Johnny Rebel and what he's been doing for the 30 years or so when he made no songs. Several people seemed to suggest that this old man would vandalize/spam Wikipedia with ads for his records. First, this sounds unlikely to begin with. Secondly, isn't this typically something you'd expect somebody who wants the spammed party to look BAD to do? I strongly question the critical thinking of Wikipedians. You seem to take things as facts based on nothing more than a "feeling". I've seen other statements which I *know* are wrong here and elsewhere. It's very frustrating that people are like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You really should raise that issue on the talk page. The reference desks are for questions and answers. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Opinionated screeds are not the purpose of the Talk page, either. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, "feeling"s don't come into it. We're interested in verifiable information from reliable sources.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually only one person seemed to suggest it and only in a fairly roundabout way (so roundabout that you didn't understand until I explained what was likely meant). In any case, we get a lot of spammers on wikipedia. Some of them very well be people trying to make the party they are spamming on 'behalf of' look bad. But some of them likely are the party the spam is for. If you have any real experience with the internet, you'd likely know there are plenty of people who really do spam, no matter how bad it may make them look. (Often they don't care if they believe it will help them.) In the particular case of JR, I don't think spamming is going to significantly change people's opinions of him, as opinions are likely already very polarised due to other issues.
 * However as I said earlier, there's no clear evidence it was JR. And I'm not sure if anyone really intended to suggest otherwise. Although if it isn't him, I suspect it's much more likely it's some 'dedicated' fan or similar rather then someone trying to make him look bad. From my experience, people who deal with spam all the time on wikipedia are usually careful not to say the spam is coming from anyone in particular, without evidence (and often it's not clear cut) since they are fully are there are other possibilities like the 2 discussed here.
 * Note that it also usually doesn't matter who the spam is coming from. Whether the spam is from a competitor, the party which the spam is promoting, or someone else completely, ultimately the fact remains, we don't want that stuff on wikipedia. So we do our best to stop it, including blacklisting a site if necessary (usually this doesn't cause much collateral damage since the site isn't wanted elsewhere and we can whitelist where necessary). If you look at the blacklist I think it says somewhere we're not saying the owners of the site were/are spamming, simply that someone has been spamming the site (or the site is a very likely spam target), so we're trying to limit damage.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Are foreigners allowed to join the Greek navy?
Can non-Greeks join the Greek navy? And is speaking Greek a requirement? I can't read Greek, so I can't find this information anywhere online. Thanks. -Elmer Clark (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely some Greek language ability is required. How else can they train you?  They can't be expected to have English-speaking trainers on hand for cases like yours. Also, considering recent cuts to the Greek defense budget, I strongly doubt that the Greek navy is actively recruiting any but the most desirable sailors, meaning Greek-speaking Greeks, and probably only those with additional qualifications. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not just training, how would they give you orders? And how would you give orders to anyone you commanded? I think the lack of any information about joining the Greek navy that isn't in Greek is a pretty big clue as well... --Tango (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would someone, who isn't Greek and doesn't speak Greek on the top of that, want to join the Greek navy? 88.14.192.178 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You can probably expect a broadly equal situation to exist, so checkout the UK navy eligibility requirements. Sadly, despite the fact we're all friends now, we're not yet at the point of actually allowing free movement of people and jobs - at least in the UK case, you have to be British/Irish/Commonwealth.  (Any EU citizen can, of course, become eligible by living here for five years and becoming a citizen).  Astonishingly enough, the Greek Navy does actually answer some qs on its English language website - including contact details of who to ask if you want to know more.  Good luck! --Saalstin (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe not so astonishing. There are a large number of Greeks who migrated to other countries like Australia, Canada and the USA, many as babes in arms.  They remain dual Greek citizens even though many of them cannot speak Greek well, in some cases not at all.  Presumably the Greek government could not refuse their application to join the armed forces merely on the basis of lack of hellenophony. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you presume that? Pretty much all jobs require that you be able to speak the language that is used in the job. I would expect the primary language used in the Greek navy is Greek... --Tango (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See Conscription in Greece. I've heard many stories about people who were born in Greece but have lived overseas virtually all their life, and are afraid to ever go back to visit the land of their ancestors for fear of being considered to have "repatriated" for the purposes of national service.  So, it isn't even about whether the person is interested in joining up or not; it's about what Greek law requires of its citizens, no matter where in the world they may live or how many decades it may be since they last lived in Greece.  --m   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Most armies will take non-natives - they need the personnel. I tried to join the Japanese army ( JSDL JSDF), but it turned out I was a month too old (just turned 28) - the only reason I was refused. KägeTorä - (影虎) ( TALK )  01:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to be 27 or under to write XML? ;)--Saalstin (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To write XML? No idea what you mean there. I was going for entry-level ranks, not officer-level, and 27 is the maximum, apparently. As a foreigner, I couldn't join at officer-level, despite having been a lieutanant in the UK TA. Pity, really, because the unit I was trying to join was sent to Iraq a couple of years later, to work alongside British and Dutch forces. I would have been a great help, being fluent in Japanese. Still, they got the job done. Good on them.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  02:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * JSDL doesn't link to where you think. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, fixed. no idea why I put 'L' at the end.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  08:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Global climate changes, research
Where could one check to inquire whether there is any credible research or studies being conducted on the effects of electronic airwave transmissions may or may not be causing global interference with climate change? Is it possible that global climate conditions are adversely being affected by people using all wireless transmission devices? It would be interesting to see if any credible research is being conducted, and whether such finding would be made public should these studies be determined to show positive effect on climate change. 21:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder viking (talk • contribs)


 * Before any research could be done you would first need some theory as to how this could be. That is, what is the mechanism by which they would cause global warming ?  By contrast, greenhouse gases can be shown to cause temperature increases, due to the greenhouse effect, in a lab.  Also, if radio waves, etc., warmed the atmosphere, they would lose a lot of energy in the process, and thus wouldn't travel very far, but we know that they do.  StuRat (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

credible research on the topic of diversity & tolerance
Where can one check to inquire about credible Research or Studies being conducted on the psychological overtones of religious bigotry, and hypocrisy among world Religious Leaders? Does the world have any Global Organization which investigates and gives credible theories about confronting bigotry and hypocrisy among Religious Leaders? Do World Religious Leaders of Faith in a Supreme Being actually recognize the diversity of tolerance for Godliness in a world and Universe of infinite magnitude? What research is ongoing among the world’s religious & civic leaders, who might strive for world peace and religious tolerance?21:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder viking (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder viking (talk • contribs)


 * DNFTT, I think. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * However, we can refer the OP to The Elders and to our article on them. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)