Humanities desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 16

From where does the strength of the pro-Israel lobby come in American politics?

Please, please try to restrain your responses to factual statements, please. The article Religion in the United States says that only 1.7% of Americans identify as Jewish. Yet, there's an Associated Press headline today reading "US Israel criticism ignites firestorm in Congress" and going on to say:

The Obama administration's fierce denunciation of Israel last week has ignited a firestorm in Congress and among powerful pro-Israel interest groups who say the criticism of America's top Mideast ally was misplaced.
Since the controversy erupted, a bipartisan parade of influential lawmakers and interest groups has taken aim at the administration's decision to publicly condemn Israel for its announcement of new Jewish housing in east Jerusalem while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting on Tuesday and then openly vent bitter frustration on Friday.

I can understand Israeli diplomats pushing hard, but where does this domestic political strength come from? It runs wholly against the majority-rule nature of a vote-based form of governance. How can "a bipartisan parade" of politicians respond to the pro-Israel lobbying and expect to keep their seats in the next election? Is there widespread support for Israel among the other 98.3% of Americans? Someone please help me understand the basis for this seemingly-tremendously disproportionate political power? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Jewish lobby and Israel lobby in the United States. The first article also links to The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a book that appears to deal with the issue (and has also been criticized for its handling of the issue). Buddy431 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "powerful American Jewish lobby" is a myth. If there were a powerful American Jewish lobby, there would be strict separation of church and state, a greater social safety net and lots of other stuff that there isn't. While the importance of Jews to the pro-Israel lobby should not be understated, you are right in assuming that without significant support from non-Jewish Americans, there would be little support for Israel among American politicians. The fact is, the great majority of Americans support Israel over the Arabs in the conflict. In a recent poll, 63% of respondents said their sympathies were with the Israelis and 15% said they sympathized more with the Palestinians. It is hard to get into an explanation of why without starting a debate into the whole conflict, but basically, most Americans see Palestinian violence, such as bus bombings, as attacks on innocent civilians (like 9/11) while they see Israeli retaliation as legitimate defense. Many American Christians also sympathize with the Jews as the people of the Old Testament and believe God gave them the land of Israel. (Christian Zionists tend to be more hard-core than the Jewish kind.) Many Americans see Israelis as being "like us" -- indeed, some are from America -- while the Arabs seem decidedly "un-American" in their attitudes and beliefs. Finally, Israel has been a staunch U.S. ally for 60 years, sometimes being among the only UN states to side with the U.S. in General Assembly votes and helping the U.S. out in ways such as slipping Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" to the CIA and not retaliating when Saddam Hussain attacked Israel with Scud missiles during the first Gulf War. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For specific groups that lobby about U.S. policy towards Israel, see American Israel Public Affairs Committee and J street. For a broader look at an aspect of the issue, you can look at Diaspora politics in the United States. There are tons of articles in Wikipedia alone relating to this topic.

And of course, groups do not need to be large to have a significant impact on United States policy: see Lobbying in the United States. The system is such that a small, motivated group can have a disproportionate amount of influence. As an example, look at the farm lobby. <soapbox> Only about 2-3% of Americans are farmers, and yet they get congress to prop up prices and feed them subsidies at the expense of the other 97%. But the farmers have a large stake in such legislation, so they advocate strongly for it. Each individual consumer is only negatively affected to a small degree, so they do not form powerful groups to address the issue</soapbox>. It's not just the pro-Israel lobby, it's pretty much any US lobby. Buddy431 (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the "Jewish Lobby" is a peculiarly US phenomenon. For example, would 63% of Europeans or Canadians say their sympathies were with the Israelis? Astronaut (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Canada-Israel relations, no, it's not like that in Canada. Note the Gallup Poll link at the bottom. --Anonymous, 06:10 UTC, March 16, 2010.

I think that in Canada, and probably in the States, the answers to public opinion questions like "who do you sympathize with more" are wildly erratic. The poll mentioned in the article was taken in 2005, shortly after the 2004 Israel–Gaza conflict. If you had asked that same question just after any of the Arab-Israeli wars, say, I think you'd have gotten a much different answer, as you would have if it had followed a period of more intense Palestinian attacks. People's opinions on this issue are somewhat flexible, and tend to fall on the side that has most recently appeared as the victim. TastyCakes (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other points:

The media in the U.S. covers the conflict in a different manner from the British media. For example, the British news agency Reuters regularly refers to all Israeli settlements as "illegal under international law" while the American Associated Press simply says the Palestinians consider the settlements illegal under international law. American journalists are generally more objective while British journalists are less hesitant to take sides on an issue.
It's worth pointing out that the U.S. intervened militarily to defend the Muslim Albanians of Kosovo against the Christians of Serbia, yet there was no accusation of a "Muslim Lobby" manipulating U.S. policy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mwalcoff, it looks the other way to me - American journalists are much less likely to question the Israeli government and military line, British journalists more likely to report that most countries' governments consider the settlements illegal. Anyway, in answer to the original question, there is an extensive extreme-Christian lobby in the US, which while profoundly anti-Semitic in and of itself, sees the return of Jews to the Holy Land as a prerequisite for the return to earth of their sky-god's offspring. DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between saying most countries consider the settlements illegal (if indeed that is the case) and simply saying outright that the settlements are illegal (as Reuters does) or just calling them "illegal settlements" (as The Guardian does).

This is getting off-topic here (surprise), but U.S. journalists clearly value objectivity more so than do British journalists, and that shows in the reporting. I read that the British journalists' union had endorsed a boycott of Israeli products. The U.S. Newspaper Guild or Society of Professional Journalists would never endorse a stand on a political issue except one specific to its field, such as freedom of information laws. In fact, some U.S. journalists don't even vote because they think it would compromise their objectivity. I recently read about a meeting held by global warming skeptics during the Copenhagen summit on climate change. The New York Times reporter simply reported what the people said without injecting his or her opinion, but the Guardian reporter got up during the meeting and started yelling at the participants about typhoons in Bangladesh and what not. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements are a questionable example suggesting American reporters' objectivity. The overwhelming consensus of states and legal scholars is that they are illegal, no country other than Israel has ever formally said that these settlements are legal, unanimous votes of the UNSC and the ICJ and many US presidents have said that they are illegal, the USA has not retracted its latest official opinion (from 1978) that they are illegal, and the requested internal official opinion of Theodore Meron, the Israeli government's legal adviser in 1967, was that settlements would be illegal. Rather than being more objective, I think it is much more the case that American journalism gives undue weight to an insupportable fringe view.John Z (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Christian Zionism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normansmithy (talk • contribs) 11:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into an argument over international law, but if you look around the Internet you'll find a lot of comments from some very learned legal experts who believe the settlements are legal, and indeed the U.S., while seeing the settlements as an "obstacle to peace," has voted against UN General Assembly resolutions denouncing the settlements as illegal. Granted, those who believe the settlements are legal under international law are in the minority, but it's not like people who believe the moon landing didn't happen. Anyway, the point is, American reporters, rightly or wrongly, cover the Arab-Israeli conflict according to a journalistic ethic that places objectivity and what Wikipedians would call "NPOV" above all else, and that has a marked impact on how the conflict is presented to Americans and how Americans perceive the conflict. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up question to Mwalcoff's fine answer: Mwalcoff says (and I've often heard elsewhere) that Israel has been a staunch ally for 60 years. But I've heard in other quarters that, in recent years, the relationship has become increasingly one-sided. Have there really been good examples of Israel acting as a staunch ally in, say, the last 20 years? John M Baker (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, from 1948-1967 the U.S. kept Israel at semi-arm's-length in some respects, and certainly carefully avoided the appearance of any kind of open military alliance between the United States and Israel. It was in 1967, in response to what in the United States was then widely viewed as the Arabs' pathetic and repellent performance in the events connected with the 6-day war -- such as issuing a constant stream of vituperative bloodthirsty wannabe-genocidal bombastic threats before the war, then spectacularly collapsing in a cloud of military incompetence during the actual fighting -- that a wave of emotional support for Israel occurred inside the U.S. and broke down the old diplomatic inhibitions, so that after 1967 the U.S. was now willing to be seen as being in open military alliance with Israel. From 1967 on, Israel has been seen as a democratic country largely free of anti-American sentiment in a sea of autocratic or dictatorial regimes, and there has been useful cooperation between U.S. and Israeli intelligence services. As for the larger question of the "Israel lobby", American Jews have made support for the continuing existence of Israel (against threats of Policide from Ahmadinajad and many others before him) a kind of a test issue with respect to the status of the Jewish community in the United States -- major established Jewish organizations are of the opinion that those in the United States who question the right of Israel to exist are really questioning the right of Jews to be full citizens of the United States. In this respect, 1967 was also around the time that the power of the old-line "Arabists" (old style experts on the middle east) at Foggy Bottom was pretty much broken -- from the 1940s to 1967, the middle east desk at the State Department always invariably advised U.S. Presidents to sell out Israel because the Arabs had oil, more votes at the United Nations, etc., regardless of the circumstances of the diplomatic situation of the moment, and thus there were constant zero-sum "I win you lose" struggles between the American Jewish community and the Arabists over who could most influence presidential decisions. American Jewish leaders considered the Foggy Bottom Arabists to be largely supercilious pin-striped country-club WASPs of old northeastern "good" families who were partially motivated by a kind of genteel refined upper-class anti-Semitism of the Gentleman's Agreement kind (not to be confused with any kind of crude or vulgar anti-Semitism suitable for the lower orders of society, oh no). That's why breaking the power of the Foggy Bottom Arabists was viewed as an all-around unequivocal clear-cut victory for the American Jewish community as a whole (not just a matter of middle-east foreign-policy lobbying). AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but at this point 1967 is going on toward the half-century mark. What has Israel done for U.S. lately? John M Baker (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that Israel had done anything for the U.S. in 1967, either (though it did defeat states allied with the Soviet Union and provide information about Soviet weapons). What I did say on that particular point was "From 1967 on, Israel has been seen as a democratic country largely free of anti-American sentiment in a sea of autocratic or dictatorial regimes, and there has been useful cooperation between U.S. and Israeli intelligence services." AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think not retaliating when Saddam Hussain attacked Israel with Scud missiles during the first Gulf War was a huge favor Israel did for the U.S. I can't think of another time when a country uninvolved in war was attacked and did absolutely nothing about it because its ally (which was fighting the war) didn't want it to. And although it wasn't a favor for the U.S. at the time, Israel's destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 sure made it easier for the U.S. to defeat Saddam in two wars down the road. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't a large number of Israeli citizens in Israel vote in the elections there and also in U.S. elections, because of having dual citizenship, more than the number of Muslim-Americans living in Muslim countries who get to vote in U.S. elections? Edison (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100,000 people (the number of Israeli residents who can vote in the U.S. election, according to that link) is not that many in American national politics. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If some state which were tightly contested were highly represented, it might be important. More US citizens from some states likely migrate to Israel than from other states. A couple of thousand votes in a given state could sway many Senatorial elections, or could decide the electoral votes for a number of states in some Presidential elections. Edison (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the OP directly, I agree that there is widespread support for Israel in the United States, not just among Jewish Americans. That support may be the result of a pervasive pro-Israeli bias in the US media. You have asked only for facts, so I hesitate to speculate on the reasons for this bias. However, I will venture that committed American supporters of Israel (Jewish and Christian) are more passionate and motivated than most critics of Israel, because Israel's most committed supporters are motivated by religious belief, whereas Israel's non-Muslim critics are rarely passionate. In the United States, Israel's passionate supporters outnumber its passionate critics (mainly Muslims). Israel's committed supporters are vigilant and will go to great lengths to make life difficult for institutions or individual politicians who are critical of Israel. For example, AIPAC is credited even in the mainstream media for bankrolling the electoral defeat of U.S. Representatives Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard in retaliation for their criticism of Israel. Another factor in U.S. politics reinforcing support for Israel is that American Jews are likely to be committed supporters of Israel, and, partly due to their relatively high average incomes, they also provide a disproportionate share of contributions to political campaigns in the United States. Generally, campaign funding is critical to electoral success in the United States, and the need for political contributions often influences politicians to court groups by supporting those groups' interests. By contrast, U.S. critics of Israel are nowhere near as well organized or funded. Marco polo (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one point here -- the Washington Post article linked to above does not claim AIPAC "bankrolled" the opponents of the anti-Israel legislators. It says AIPAC board members contributed to the opponents' campaigns. But a person can only give $2,400 to a congressional candidate. I don't know how many board members AIPAC has, but it can't be enough to make up a significant portion of donors in a hotly contested election. And one other point: The website you link to as your source on the claim that Jews contribute a disproportionate share of campaign donations is "Occidental Dissent," a website whose aim is the establishment of a "Jew-free, racially exclusive White ethnostate." You might want to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not investigating that website before linking it. I will undo the link. I did not intend to link to a racist website. Marco polo (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The impact of the campaign contributions of pro-Israeli Jews (acknowledging that a minority of Jews are critical of Israel) on U.S. politics in the Middle East seems to be a something of a taboo topic in the United States. This article suggests some of the reasons why this is so. Marco polo (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court of India appealing before itself

Recently, there has been a curious example in India where the Supreme Court of India appealed before itself against a judgement passed by the High Court. The High Court had ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India came under the Right to Information Act, which the SCI has challenged.

Is the Supreme Court of India a legal person to sue and be sued or is this whole report a misunderstanding of the facts of the case? If the SCI can indeed sue, on what occasions can it be sued? Can it be sued for example (at courts at any position in the judicial hierarchy), when it passes a judgment that is against the constitution of India?
If this indeed is abnormal, does this indicate a flaw in the Indian constitution, or it something allowed deliberately by design? Is the conflict of interest objection valid?
Are there any examples from anywhere around the world, where such an incident has happened before?

Chancemill (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, a) SCI is not a separate entity that can be sued b)when a SCI judgement is questioned/appealed, it is usually given to a SCI bench with a higher number of judges than the one which pronounced the original judgement c)whenever COI issues arise (like the above given case), consensus is arrived at by the judges collegium and the law ministry. In the past, in case the govt wants to bypass the SCI, it enacts special legislation or amends the constitution. An example is Shah Bano case. d) The ninth schedule of the indian constitution is sometimes used to enact laws to bypass the judicial preview of SCI [1]. So if the govt wanted to go against the SCI, it enacted laws under nineth schedule. But in 2007, SCI made a judgement to close the loophole. So far no one has challenged that pronouncement. When that happens, during the next show down between the SCI and parliament, we will see what happens.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this kind of thing is actually is kind of a semi-sub-field in political science. Political systems always have a curious tension. on one hand, they are always 'bootstrapped' entities: i.e. at some points the system or its parts must declare itself legal according to its own authority. The whole concept of Judicial Review in the US came about because the supreme court decided the judicial branch had that right, and no one disagreed until it was too late to do anything about it. You see the same thing in other branches, as well, e.g. the Bush Administration's rather liberal assertions about their immunity from investigation. On the other hand, political systems have a desperate need to appear legitimate: lack of legitimacy is a death knell for a political system, and almost always leads to deterioration and civil unrest. The logic here, I imagine, is that the Supreme Court bears the responsibility of properly interpreting the law, so this act is justified; however, they will be very careful in their decision to avoid giving any impression of impropriety, because a loss of legitimacy might mean that parliament or some other branch of government will step in to limit their power in future cases. bit of a tightrope, but not uncommon. --Ludwigs2 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corsets for men in the 19th century

Does anyone out there have any information about corsets for men in the 19th century? Materials, design, etc. Trakorien (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were often sort of canvas tubes, intended to keep the paunch in check but without enforcing curvy shapes like women's corsets did. AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK,they were made of the same material as women's.Some sort of stout fabric,reinforced with stays made either of whalebone or steel.They had laces up the back which were like long ..shoelaces and usually bought separately from a manufacturer.http://www.oakhillclothiers.com/Catalog/1800s/MensClothes/Undergarments/tabid/731/Default.aspx...hotclaws 14:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banksy

Does anyone know with certainty the identity of the street artist Banksy? I have already checked out the references on his wiki-page. GerardLP (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a BBC article about how he was supposedly revealed (or maybe not): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7504132.stm -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Banksy hasn't confirmed any speculation over his identity, so there is no question of it being established beyond all doubt. However an enterprising BBC reporter following up one of the speculated identities appeared to come across corroborating evidence in his former home: see this video report. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm sure Banksy knows who he is! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of "his" work requires many people to organise and put together - such as the excellent exhibition in Bristol last year that I went along to. Those people (or, at least, many of them) "know" who he "is". But, to them and to Banksy himself (themselves?) there is a clear commercial value in maintaining the mystique of anonymity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would not surprise me if the publisher of his books knows who he is. And I suspect that HMIT know. -- SGBailey (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"HMIT" = HMRC, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- SGBailey (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banksy has a 'handling service' through which his works are authenticated and (very occasionally) sold. Pest Control website here. I remember when in another capacity I was called upon to deal with the future of 'One Nation under CCTV' having an interesting debate as to whether it would correctly be described as 'school of Banksy' or 'attributed to Banksy'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asatru

How many (approximately) active Ásatru societies are there in the world today?Antheafor (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Ásatrú, and the articles it links to, may help you. DuncanHill (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the artist Ib Geertsen?

Where can I find valid information on the danish artist Ib Geertsen? I have searched the net, and only found brief summaries. Both Scandinavian and English sources are ok. JennaJ82 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A straightforward Google brought up this obituary, this home page, and many other reliable references (over 6,000 in fact). If you mean "Where on Wikipedia can I" find information, that is a different matter - there is no article (yet) in English because no-one has written one, but there is this over at Danish Wikipedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bigfoot

i have heard a lot of people saying bigfoot is hoax. but what i can see from Bigfoot#View_among_the_scientific_community is that there is no consensus among the scientific community on this issue. Is bigfoot real?? --Fovol (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading of that section differs from mine. The consensus appears to be that it does not exist, but that we are lacking explanations for what evidence there is that has been offered in its support. I think by & large, we can agree there is no such thing, and that belief in bigfoot absent any compelling evidence is mere fancy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The first two sentences make this clear: "The scientific community overwhelmingly discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is little or no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature." Perhaps you are confused because they listed scientists who support the existence of Bigfoot or are unsure, and didn't list the millions who think it's a total hoax. StuRat (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of scientists discount the possibility for the existence of Bigfoot; however a small number of cryptozoologists maintain that there is a possibility that some cryptids exist. One of the pieces of evidence that has received much scientific examination is the Patterson-Gimlin film. ~A H 1^(TCU) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah - I think you need to separate the scientific and speculative viewpoints here. Most biologists would agree that it's not at all impossible to find an unknown species of animal - lots of new species are found annually, and while most of them are tiny little things, there's no reason to assume that there aren't any bigger unknown creatures out there. However, the bigfoot thing is driven more by fantasies about 'not-quite-people' sharing the world with us. it's the same thing that has made people fascinated by dwarves, elves, leprechauns, space aliens, intelligent dragons, afrit, angels, demons, etc., etc., etc. there's just something special and primordial about a true 'alien' (not just an animal, but something on our mental level, but different). It probably traces back to tens of thousands of years of sitting around campfires, staring off into the dark, and wondering about other tribes that might be hunting us - are they beasts, can they be reasoned with, what to do, what to do? --Ludwigs2 18:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orang Pendek may be more plausible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly now that a Society I belong to, the Centre for Fortean Zoology, has published in their latest journal sketches and a (very poor) photo, by individuals personally known to (and trusted by) me, of one seen on their 2009 expedition. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has that been added to the article yet? Its possible relationship to the "Flores hobbit" is also interesting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite "examination" of the Paterson-Gimlin film is this this version that compensated for camera movement. It's amazing how much a bouncy-camera causes us to use our imagination and see what we want to see. APL (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many cryptids have folklore and hoaxes associated with them. But those alone don't completely invalidate the possibility for their existance. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not. Just took a peek at the film linked to by APL above. Only thought: "Who's that dude in the fur coat?" --G-41614 (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Nigeria

I have just read that Gaddafi proposes splitting Nigeria into two separate countries [[2]] - is this a good/feasible idea? Thanks for info., --AlexSuricata (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RD doesn't deal in speculation on the future, which is what we would need to do to answer this question. Gaddafi makes a good point, and partition has been achieved in other places, but not without enormous disruption. Quite what the unintended consequences would be, is difficult to fathom. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi also proposes splitting Switzerland along language lines. Not to be taken very seriously.131.130.223.109 (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been tried before. It kinda-sorta failed miserably. See Biafra and Nigerian Civil War. The article on Biafra also discusses a modern revival of the secessionist movement. --Jayron32 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, take a look at this recent event: Libya's Gaddafi calls for holy war on Switzerland. ~A H 1^(TCU) 17:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he doesn't include in his successful examples Northern Ireland. SGGH ^ping! 08:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Africa (Petrarch)

According to Bergin and Wilson's English translation of Petrarch's Africa (p. xiii), It was not until 1397 in fact that Pier Paolo Vergerio gave to a world no longer quite so impatient the first "published" text of the "Africa." However in Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder, who I assume is the person they are talking about, this important work does not seem to be mentioned in the article. Either

I missed seeing it in the article, maybe under another title.
it was not considered an important work of his works, although it seems important enough to mention in the article.
we are not talking of one and the same person as Bergin and Wilson mentions as "Pier Paolo Vergerio"; although the age seems right and he taught logic at Padua and Florence.

Which? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or:

4. Wikipedia is not a finished work, and no one has yet added that information to the article. Since you apparently have access to a reliable source which mentions the fact, you could add the information to the article and cite your source using inline citations. --Jayron32 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thought of that - however just wanted to make sure Bergin and Wilson's "Pier Paolo Vergerio" is the same as Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder. Bergin and Wilson book came out in 1977 and does not use the term "the Elder". Wikipedia's article came out initially in 2007 - however you think then we are talking of one and the same person? IF so, I'll be glad to add to the article and reference accordingly.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: The 1397 date matches exactly the 1397 date mentioned, with cited reference, in the Africa (Petrarch) article, AND the date fits in the lifespan of Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder (1370-1444), he'd have been 26-27 at the time, whereas the only other notable Pier Paolo Vergerio would not have been born for another century. If you are concerned, you could post the question on the talk pages of the various articles, and/or contact the people who heavily edit those articles and see what they say. The person who added the date to the Africa (Petrarch) article may still have access to the source of that date (its a print source, so I can't access it right now) and may be able to confirm your information. --Jayron32 15:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've updated Africa (Petrarch) and Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder as I also feel I have the correct "Pier Paolo Vergerio", based on that print source I have.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short stories dealing with sexual abuse

Where could I find some short stories, preferably in the public domain, that deal with the issue of sexual abuse, without being inappropriate for high school students?--99.251.239.89 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain is hard, because most professionally published stories that cover this subject overtly, in language accessible to teenagers, will still be in copyright in most jurisdictions. I can recommend Vandals by Alice Munro, which appears in her book Selected Stories. I also like The Tulip Touch by Anne Fine for tweens and younger teens, although this is a short novel rather than a story, and the focus is on the anger and dysfunctional behaviour caused by the abuse, rather than the abuse itself. I don't know whether any of the books listed here would be any help? Ka renjc 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Canadian work; Rape Fantasies by Margaret Atwood is a good one. It doesn't really involve any abuse, but it's still relevant. Vranak (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing the age of the high school students, I was amazed to find The Color Purple used as a set text for A level English in the UK a few years ago. If that's suitable reading for 16 year olds then I'd recommend it. I know it's not a short story but it's quite short for a novel. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, I was looking for something that can be read in about 5-15 minutes, and is available online.--99.251.239.89 (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]