Humanities desk
< March 4	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 6 >

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 5

noam chomsky

I wanted to make a request: please tell me where I can find the complete text of the talk titled "education and democracy" given by professor Chomsky at michigan state university,march 28,1995.Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.246.50 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that the text of that specific talk is available (although it might be), but it is probably very similar to the text of this talk given a few months earlier. Looie496 (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googling finds some discussion of that speech in this book. I don't know about transcripts but there are probably audio recordings of that speech floating around. Chomsky's fan base are like Deadheads in following him around with taping gear everywhere he gives a speech. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guns in Libya

This article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12654670) includes a picture (towards the end) of what looks like (to my very untrained eye) an M-16. Is there some way that fighters in Libya could have US arms (I would have assumed more or less everyone was using AK-47's) or, more likely, have I misidentified the gun? 24.215.229.69 (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert, but I imagine that they're available on the international arms market to anyone with enough dollars and there's no shortage of those in Libya. Note that the M-16 is also made under licence in Singapore. See AR-15 variants. Alansplodge (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about the image with two men holding guns towards the bottom of the article. The man in the tan jacket on the right is holding some kind of AK variant with a folding stock. I don't think there is enough resolution to identify the weapon on the left. The way it is being held in front of the tree and the building in the background really obscure its shape. It looks black and appears to be some kind of rifle or shotgun, but beyond that I couldn't say. As for the possible presence of M16s in Libya, I guess it is possible, but there are so many more AKs on the international arms market and their price is so much lower, I would be surprised. If the US was secretly providing arms to the opposition, you can be certain they wouldn't be out of US Army weapons lockers. --Daniel 22:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lesson plan

the meaning of the acronym SMART in lesson planning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.61.83 (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... is as set out here. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valletta

Why Valletta is mentioned as de-facto capital of Malta, not just capital? Is there de-jure capital? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.224.253 (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either, but you're not the first person to wonder about these here: see Talk:Valletta#De facto?, where there is also no answer given. Maybe it just means there is no law explicitly specifying Valletta as the capital city. —Angr (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The impression I got was that Valletta is just the old administrative region in the centre of a large urban sprawl made up of all the surrounding towns and cities, similar to the Cities of London or Westminster. Though, I could be completely wrong. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The city's own website lists is purely as the capital city, which it took over from Mdina in the 1570s. Nanonic (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it's "de facto" because the Maltese system of government is very centralized, as you'd expect in such a small nation. Until the Council of Europe compelled Malta to adopt the European Charter of Local Self-Government in 1993, I don't think it even had a uniform system of local government. As a practical matter Malta Island is about the size of the District of Columbia and much smaller than the Australian Capital Territory, so even if the Parliament were to leave Valletta, it's not like they'd get very far. :) --M @r ē ino 19:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counties and Episcopal dioceses

Dioceses of the Episcopal church in the USA

I am trying to create an SVG version of the image to the right. This should be a fairly simple matter, since (with the sole exception of the Navajoland Area Mission) all the dioceses comprise integral civil counties. So I should be able to make a list of which counties go into which dioceses, run a script over File:USA_Counties.svg, and there we go. I've done this for a couple of provinces already and it's looking good. However, I am having quite a lot of difficulty finding a list of which counties go into the dioceses for some states, particularly New York and Pennsylvania. For example, Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania (i.e. Philadelphia) tells you which counties it covers; Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh says "several counties", unhelpfully. I can work it out by comparing the shape of the PNG with county maps, but I'd rather base this on something more reliable. So, does anyone know of a master list of counties per diocese? Marnanel (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the Episcopal Church's list of dioceses. From there you can click on the link for each diocese, which gives you a list of all parishes and what city/town they're in. Then, you just have to find out what counties all those cities/towns are in, and you're in business. Of course, there may be some counties in some states that don't have any Episcopal parishes in them, and if they happen to be near the border between two dioceses, you're stuck with visually comparing the diocese map (also at the link given) to the map of counties. But I'm glad you're doing this; I'm the one who made the series of maps like File:ECUSA Pittsburgh.png, based on the map you linked above, and I know my maps are suboptimal. —Angr (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Although I've found it's not impossibly difficult to overlay county and diocese maps (examples), it's not as though the diocese maps come with WP:RS citations. I suppose a list of parishes would actually be really rather useful; I could add them in as dots, or something. Thanks. (I may be back on your talk page at some point to ask you about the sub-maps, if I have questions.) Marnanel (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Episcopal New Yorker who worsipped at the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine. The Diocese of New York, for historical reasons, covers Manhattan (NY county) and Westchester (a northern county adjoining Manhattan). Indeed, Westchester is primarily suburban and tends to be ignored by the bishop. I believe Brooklyn, may include Brooklyn, Queens and maybe LI but I'm not certain. The info should be available at their web sites. The church clings to historical tradition.75Janice (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)75Janice.[reply]

Per http://www.episcopalchurch.org/directory_11224_ENG_HTM.htm, "The Episcopal Diocese of New York is a community of over 200 congregations encompassing Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island in New York City, and the counties of Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster and Westchester." Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island are in the Diocese of Long Island. —Angr (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marnanel, I'm sure you know this, but just to make sure it's said: the websites of the individual dioceses may also help. And when you do find out exactly which counties belong to which diocese, in addition to making the maps, you can also add the info to the territory= parameter of {{Infobox diocese}} in the article. —Angr (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment in practice

How many countries abolished capital punishment, but in fact have very loose regulations on the use of police weapons? I mean the cops may generally shoot the criminal on the spot if he/she does something stupid? -- Toytoy (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be said that the UK fits this definition (seeJean-Charles de Menezes). --TammyMoet (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

de Menezes didn't do anything stupid and, generally, the police must not shoot a criminal in the UK. 212.169.187.224 (talk)

It's questionable if he was criminal too (there's a slight chance he was an overstayer at one stage which would potentially make him a 'criminal') and in any case it wasn't in any way related to the shooting. Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being an illegal alien (it's possible that he was one) is not a criminal offense. Quest09 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a RD so ^{[citation needed]} please? The UK government doesn't seem to agree with you. See appendix 4 [1] which includes a whole lot of possible criminal offenses arising from immigration law including knowingly overstaying. [2] talks about similar things. Note that I didn't say anything to the contrary of whether the possible immigration violation was done knowingly (since it's largely irrelevant, I'd planned to say he wasn't a criminal but had pause for thought that this may not be an accurate summation since there is a slight chance he technically was). BTW just to emphasise another point I hinted at earlier, there doesn't seem to be any doubt he was in the UK legally at the time (which confuses me, if he overstayed and hid this when applying to enter then he likely wouldn't have been legal and if he didn't hide it then I'm surprised he was allowed to enter unless he genuinely didn't know he overstayed which would seem even more likely, but EU immigration law can be fairly complex and as I said it's largely a moot point, I was simply covering all bases by not excluding the possibility he technically was a criminal). P.S. In many perhaps even most countries including I'm prettys rue the UK those solely guilty of immigration violations even ones that are criminal offences or otherwise carry penalties that may include prison or fine who don't have any right to stay in said country legally are simply deported without criminal proceedings or ther other penalties being pursued because it's considered pointless to pay money to carry out said proceedings particularly if prison times is going to be involved when the country just wants them gone and probably never to come back. This doesn't mean there aren't criminal offences that may have been committed but are rarely prosecuted. There are of course many other cases when something that is technically a criminal offence is allowed to slide. P.P.S. Are you perhaps confused by summary offences? While many immigration law violations particularly those of interest here may be summary offences in the UK, these are still criminal offences AFAIK supported by our article and the earlier refs. Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"P.S. In many perhaps even most countries including I'm prettys rue the UK those solely guilty of immigration violations even ones that are criminal offences or otherwise carry penalties that may include prison or fine who don't have any right to stay in said country legally are simply deported without criminal proceedings or ther other penalties being pursued because it's considered pointless to pay money to carry out said proceedings particularly if prison times is going to be involved when the country just wants them gone and probably never to come back." - that's one hell of a sentence, Nil Einne (90 words). Any chance of translating it into English? :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen and read, many (particularly developed) countries choose not to pursue immigrations violations as criminal offences or otherwise seek any form of justice even when it may be possible under existing law. If they can be deported, they simply deport the people involved and try to recover costs involved in deportation. There must be a variety of reasons for this but one of the key reasons from what I've read (and simple common sense) is that the governments involved don't feel it's worthwhile to spend more money on the person when they just want them gone. This may not apply when the people have committed other more serious offences (or perhaps are suspected of it) or perhaps if the person keeps coming back. Prosecuting someone particularly when you need to prove they did something knowingly and may need to provide for their defence too doesn't tend to come cheap. And then if you succeed keeping them in prison just adds more cost. Particularly acute in countries where human rights are considered important i.e. most developed countries. Of course some suggest they should be more vigorously prosecuted to discourage future overstayers and this will reduce the cost in the long run but we're getting rather OT here. I included the P.S. because I wondered if Quest09 thought the lack of many prosecutions meant there were no criminal offences so wanted to explain there are other reasons for that. Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any country which would simply expel criminal illegal immigrants. They do get prison time and get deported afterwards, normally that's even a part of the sentence. Equally, I don't know any country which considers illegal immigration a crime (although they do punish related crimes, like document forgery). Do you have any source for the claim that illegal immigrants get deported, but could be prosecuted? Foreigners in US and European prisons are certainly a proof that they do no simply get deported without a prison stay.Quest09 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, I'd say that anywhere that police are allowed to carry deadly weapons, they will kill people. Even without them, they could still occasionally kill people with their bare hands, I suppose. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they will kill, but the question is whether they will kill for any frivolous reason and get away with it. 212.169.187.224 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still remember the man who stole a tank in the US, and it got stuck on what I think you call the "median". Rather than stop the traffic, which happens in the UK from time to time even on motorways when people try to commit suicide for example, a policeman coldly shot him dead without being in any danger himself. 92.29.117.180 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking of Shawn Nelson, and I don't think you can say the cops "coldly shot him dead." Look up the videos on Youtube. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing he had done warrented a death-sentance. 92.15.18.16 (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the cops had reason to be concerned he would kill someone if he wasn't stopped somehow. It's had to fault the cops for shooting the suspect under those circumstances. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They could have just stopped the traffic and done a variety of other things to incapacitate him. 92.15.5.255 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you watch the video? This wasn't a matter of stopping traffic. The guy was in an M60 tank. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched the video thanks. Life is cheap in the US. 92.29.124.221 (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that doesn't necessarily depend on the laws. The typical problem is that it's left up to the police department to "police themselves", and they would rather cover up an illegal shooting than investigate it. Here's an example of what appears to be a current police cover-up: [3]. StuRat (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But sometimes, like in the UK, they have a separate police to investigate police officers. 212.169.187.224 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are they really fully independent of the police, or do they ultimately report to the same person (who would want any info about police misconduct to be suppressed) ? In the US, this is the problem with Internal Affairs divisions. StuRat (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In England and Wales, investigations are managed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission [4]. If a police investigation is needed, the IPCC ~~appoints a team from another force (not usually a neighbouring one)~~ have their own team of investigators. The IPCC reports directly to the Home Office which is the government department that regulates police forces. I believe that there is ALWAYS an IPCC investigation if the police shoot somebody[5]. Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still see a conflict of interest there. If the Home Office is responsible for regulating police forces, and they want it to look like they are doing a good job, wouldn't suppressing any evidence to the contrary (that police are shooting people for no reason), be in their interest ? This might depend on how long the Home Office staff have been there. In a new administration ("government", in UK terms), they might be able to blame police misconduct on their predecessors, while, if they've been there for years, the blame might fall on them for a lack of oversight. I would suggest that the investigators should instead be elected directly by the public, and should not be allowed to have any party affiliation, since that could cause them to go easy on police members in their party. StuRat (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Well, 30 people have been killed in 12 years in the UK, a country whose police do not regularly carry firearms. According to one article, the US rate is about 100 a year (the article's a little out of date, and somewhat unclear), with a population five times bigger (approximately). Of course, this may be irrelevant, depending on the nuance of the question. And indeed the US haven't banned capital punishment, so it is only tangential.] Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way you start your question suggests that you search for statistically accurate data, but when introducing terms like "loose regulations", "may generally shoot" and "something stupid" I doubt that it is even possible to provide an answer. The debate could be interesting (not to mention endless), but the question does not lend itself to be resolved statistically.--DI (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? A person told me recently when in the North of Ireland, that they went into a Petrol Station/Grocery Store and was in time to witness a person with a knife demanding money. There was a policeman in the store at the time who produced his hand-gun and asked him to drop the knife. As there was no immediate response, the policeman shot him dead. (In that order, and time). MacOfJesus (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 US Census

Are Census images is the Public Domain (in specific [6])? Albacore (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Census images, made during the course of official duty by a Census employee, are works of the federal government, and can generally be considered in the public domain. If the work in question was created by a contractor, though, it can have an independent copyright status. The particular image you've linked looks like it is purely by the Census Bureau and thus in the public domain. (Here is the Bureau's own page on the matter, which says more or less what I said.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to upload the image to Commons, the license template to use is commons:Template:PD-USGov-DOC-Census. —Angr (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]