Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 7

Humanities desk
< May 6	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 8 >

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.

May 7

U.S. troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years

All I can find are casualties or a 2009 estimate. Thanks. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You may find something in this report: "Troop Levels in the Afghan and Iraq Wars, FY2001-FY2012". Alansplodge (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I found as well, but it's based on 2009 data. I think Iraq numbers have come down 100K but Afghan may be up as much. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Most children

Give examples of men and women in non-Islamic modern industrial capitalist societies (from 20th century onwards) who gave birth to most children. I found a reference which says Desmond Hatchett, an American man, has fathered 21 children. Is it record? And give examples of famous persons (in non-Islamic modern industrial capitalist societies) who have most children. --HoulGhostjj (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As a man, it's possible for a man to impregnate a woman nearly every day of his life. So, if a man lifes to 100 years, and hit puberty at 14, that's 86*365.25 = 31,411 children as an upper limit (assuming no multiple births). Realisticly, not every ejaculation leads to pregnancy, even under ideal conditions, so the actual maximum number may be something less than 1000 in a lifetime as a hypothetical maximum; then there's the social problem of finding enough fertile women to willingly be impregnated by you... However, 21 by 11 women isn't anywhere near what I would consider "out of bounds" in terms of the upper limit. Jim Bob Duggar has 19 children by ONE woman, and shows no signs of letting up any time soon. Just random digging turns up Tom Green, who had 35 children by five women, and I would have serious doubts that he was anywhere near a "record". On the female side, a woman's reproductive life is limited by the fact that she can only realisticly produce a child every 11 months at a maximum clip, and will hit menopause eventually; meaning that assuming she has a child as often as possible from, say, 14-50, that's 36 years*12 months/11 months per pregnancy = 39 children (again, assuming no multiples). The aforementioned Mrs. Duggar's 19 is probably not a record. Jayron32 02:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I entered Most children in the search box and was redirected to List of people with the most children. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank for the link. --HoulGhostjj (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On a closer look, the article does not meet my criteria, i.e. examples from non-Islamic modern industrial capitalist societies from 20th century onwards. Please name some modern famous persons who have nearly 10 or more children. --HoulGhostjj (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Preferably from western countries. --HoulGhostjj (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"As a man, it's possible for a man to impregnate a woman nearly every day of his life. So, if a man lifes to 100 years, and hit puberty at 14, that's 86*365.25 = 31,411 children as an upper limit (assuming no multiple births)." - that's your upper limit? wow, you're assuming a long recovery time. 188.156.59.141 (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have raised this issue in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Ismail_Ibn_Sharif, please discuss the science there. This thread is for examples. --HoulGhostjj (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach had 21 children, and he was nowhere near special in this regard. Pfly (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the Guinness World Records site doesn't give the information you are looking for, whereas in their published editions it does. If you have access to a Guinness Book of Records you will find the information therein. If you don't, I will have later today and can provide some information for you. Meanwhile a Google search on "most children by one woman" will bring you some modern examples. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As for a famous man who has fathered lots of children, try Anthony Quinn with 12. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Bach (see above - you seem to have missed it) had almost double that number, and from only 2 wives, while Quinn's 12 were from 4 women (3 wives plus one other). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

So what? I have answered the OP's question, where he asked for examples from the modern world, whereas the example you quoted was 350 years old. I could have mentioned my ancestress Elizabeth Woodville, or Countess Fyodorovsky with her 69 reputed children if he'd have asked for examples going back that far. The question wasn't about couples with most children, but either men or women. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Duff of Craigston. Born Craigston, Scotland 1655. Died 3 August 1731. Father of 36 children, he is said to have been complimented by King Geroge II on the addition he had made to His Majesty's subjects in Scotland. Married first 1687 Anne Innes (died 1700), dau of John Innes. They had 13 children. Ancestor of David Cameron. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Kitty did you mean to post this here or above? --TammyMoet (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Here is fine. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Another answer for the OP here. While researching my own family history, I have two recent examples: my paternal grandfather was one of 16 children, and my mother was one of 11 children. In the days before the wide availability of birth control, such cases were the norm. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find people who are members of a Christian sect who belong to large families today, given the RC prohibition on mechanical methods of birth control, and some others such as "quiverfuls" who think that when God told them to go forth and multiply he really meant it! Of course, they aren't notable so the OP wouldn't be interested. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly answering the question, but to give you an idea of what is possible/has been done see descent from Genghis Khan. 124.171.217.32 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ramses II had something like 100 children, though he's admittedly far from "modern". 72.128.95.0 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Jean Chrétien, former prime minister of Canada, was born on January 11, 1934, as the 18th of 19 children (10 of whom did not survive infancy). Quebec had a very high birthrate until the Quiet Revolution.) BrainyBabe (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

law: Recanting

If someone makes a statement resulting in criminal charges and then recants it, there are all sorts of legal ramifications and I'm sure we have an article on it somewhere but our article recantation doesn't seem to lead to it. (I'm trying to improve a link.) Can someone show me the correct link? RJFJR (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that recantation is the right word here. Recantation usually refers to the abandonment of a long-held belief, such as a religious faith. I presume you're talking about situations where a person is charged with a criminal offence on the evidence of someone else, who later admits they were lying or at least mistaken. They would withdraw their statement, but there may be a more formal legal term for that. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have always heard recant for the case of a witness changing his/her story. Could be that that's a US-specific term, though I've never had any reason to suspect that prior to now. --Trovatore (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jack (for a change!): I have heard the word repudiation used in this circumstance but I don't think it's a legal term. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Repudiation" is for a contract - i.e. a party to the contract saying "I'm not going to perform this contract anymore".

From an Australian law perspective, I think the issue RJFJR describes is just a general one of evidence. In New South Wales evidence law, this issue is called "prior inconsistent statement" (i.e. the evidence given by the witness is inconsistent with one or more statement they have given in the past), and there are rules and practice about how to deal with such. A statement where a party states something to their disadvantage in the context of the case is called an "admission", and there are special rules applicable to those.

From somewhat hazy memory, the way barristers are supposed to highlight the inconsistency between a witness's statement in court against one or more prior inconsistent statement is to take them to that (those) statement(s), and then ask them which version is the correct one. When the witness says "that was wrong and what I say now is correct", this inconsistency may then be useful to show that the witness is unreliable, mistaken or not credible; or to show that the other side's case is based on mistaken or erroneous evidence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Is retraction the term you are looking for? Astronaut (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Retraction seems to refer to journalism and writing rather than law. RJFJR (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've heard recant used in terms of witness statements as well. And I don't think it's a US-specific term because I'm *fairly* sure I heard it used on A Touch of Frost, though that's not exactly an ironclad source for English usage in Britain. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Baptism

I am not a religious believer but have paid some attention to some articles on Roman Catholic theology. Some aspects of the Roman Catholic view of baptism seem easy to understand, including the sacramental character and the conditions of validity of a baptism. But I have read that Catholics hold that if a person is baptized in the Eastern Orthodox Church, then he or she is a member of that church, and similarly a person baptized in the Catholic Church is a Catholic. Various online sources, including Wikipedia's article about baptism, do not seem to explain this doctrine. Where is there an account of this? Should a Wikipedia article be created for this topic? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Where have you read that? It doesn't sound like the Catholic view of baptism, because Catholicism believes in "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins", and hence anyone intentionally baptised with the trinitarian formula, with the intention to Baptise them, is baptised. There aren't different types of 'being Baptised': eithe you are or you aren't. It is the case, however, that "(i)n the Eastern rites the Christian initiation of infants also begins with Baptism followed immediately by Confirmation and the Eucharist, while in the Roman rite it is followed by years of catechesis before being completed later by Confirmation and the Eucharist, the summit of their Christian initiation", that is that infant baptism in the Roman Rite is followed by years of learning about the faith, followed by the Eucharist and Confirmation when the child is old enough to understand, whereas the Eastern Rite gives all three straight after each other, as the Roman Rite does with adults. Perhaps you are remembering that? It would mean a child baptised in the Eastern Rite has also started receiving Communion and has been confirmed, whereas a child baptised in the Western Rite has only been baptised. The Catholic Church also teaches that "Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."" and I have heard that many in the hierarchy consider Orthodox christians to be enough in communion that it's fine for them to receive the Eucharist without first becoming Catholics (without taking classes in what Catholics believe and deciding to be a Catholic). The Orthodox Churches do not generally consider the reverse to be true :) 86.166.40.199 (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Rereading your question: it's true that we'd usually talk about a child baptised in the Catholic Church as a Catholic, and there is the saying 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic', and we'd tend to talk about a child baptised in an Orthodox Church as an Orthodox, but this isn't a comment on the nature of baptism: if someone was baptised in an Orthodox Church and then decided to become a Catholic, they would become a Catholic without any extra baptising :) 86.166.40.199 (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On a web page that possibly no longer exists, a Catholic priest answered a question from a parent of an infant. One of the parents was Greek Orthodox; the other Roman Catholic. The question was whether they could have the baby baptized twice—once in each church. The priest replied, saying among other things that that is forbidden. He also said that if the baby is baptized in a Catholic church then the baby is Catholic, and if in an Orthodox church, then he is Orthodox. That last part is the subject of my question. Was that comment actually a part of Catholic dogma? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No it is not, because Catholicism considers there to be one baptism, which most of the churches who call themselves Christian carry out. (Some do not baptise with the trinitarian formula, being non-trinitarian, and some do not have the intention to do what the Catholic Church does in baptising: the Orthodox Church is far from being in either box) However, it may be a practical truth, particularly if (as is usual) the Orthodox baptism also involved receiving the Eucharist and being Confirmed with oil of chrism. That sort of pushes you towards one route for the child's religious education and participation or the other. 86.166.40.199 (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Identify the logical fallacy

"No -ism is bad/wrong. All -isms are valid." Identify the logical fallacy in this statement. --Hould Hoster (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Astronaut (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I think you have mistaken. It is not homework question. This question interests me for a quite a long time, finally I asked here. Please answer if you know, thank you. --Hould Hoster (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious: is it something in the school or college curricula in some English-speaking countries, that we are getting so many requests to identify logical fallacies here? — Kpalion^(talk) 10:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Faulty generalization perhaps?

And Hould, it is easy to see why Astronaut thought this was a homework question: presenting a question as a command ("Identify ... ") is typical of exams and homework. If you had said "What is the logical fallacy ... ", or "Can anyone tell me what is the logical fallacy ... ", Astronaut would probably not have thought this. --ColinFine (talk)

If we regard this as an enthymeme with an unstated premise along the lines of "No bad/wrong theory is valid", it's an example of an Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. Of course, the major premise may be false (there may in fact be "-isms" that _are_ bad or wrong, and I'm sure we can all think of potential candidates), but that doesn't affect the _logic_ of the argument. Tevildo (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there really is a logical fallacy as such in that statement because it is a philosophical premise, a core tenet. It's not a statement that can be disproven (or proven) and that places it beyond the realm of logical analysis. An analysis of its viability, however, shows it cannot be followed without self-contradiction or going against your self-interest. Consider an example of a follower of said philosophy called bob that encounters a sect called the bobmortists who believe that all people named bob should be tortured to death, for instance. On the other hand that's not a logical fallacy it's just a consequence of a poorly-thought-out belief. Statements of belief are usually beyond the rigors of logic. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do American supermarkets still count out pennies?

This is not exactly a deep question, but it's one of those nagging conundrums I can't figure out.

Pennies are the cheapest "coin" in the U.S., 1/100 of a dollar, 1/5 of a nickel, though as zinc is not what I would call a coinage metal, I think one could fairly dispute whether pennies are coins at all. If a cashier makes $10 an hour, and there are 3600 seconds in an hour; and if it takes nearly 3 seconds to obtain or dispense one or two pennies, count them, toss them into or take them out of a separate change drawer (counting the time to obtain and move rolls of change, charges for counting, etc.) - then it seems like a market makes no profit on pennies at all. Now yes, it is possible that a competent clerk gets ahead by a fraction of a second for each one, until, that is a customer fumbles around in his coat looking for one or two to complete his purchase, or drops one on the floor and bends over hunting for the coin, blocking traffic. I would think the store could simply choose to round down all purchases to the nearest nickel, and it would cost them next to nothing when the cost of cashier time is considered - and of course, it would create a tiny discount for the customer.

So why don't they do this? Wnt (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The cashiers' wages are sunk costs. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Unless the store is losing customers because the cashiers are too busy, it will make no difference. It is unlikely rounding down to the nearest nickel would save enough time to allow the store to employ fewer cashiers. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally to the above, totals are usually just under a whole number of dollars (because of price points like $0.99) so usually cashiers are giving pennies in change rather than taking them in payment. Giving a nickel in change is no quicker than giving a penny, so you would have to round up those totals. Customers wouldn't be happy about that. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Some stores have a "take a penny, leave a penny" tray near the cash register... this does speed things up when it comes to making exact change (no fumbling around looking for two or three pennies, you just take them from the tray... and return the favor by leaving any pennies you get in change). As for rounding -all those pennies do add up. A few cents may not mean much for the individual customer... but for a busy store rounding down could add up to several hundred dollars in lost profits by the end of the day. If a store wanted to round prices to save cashier time in counting change, it is far more likely that the store would round up rather than down. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Efforts to eliminate the penny have failed; see Penny debate in the United States. The U.S. military eliminated pennies on bases in Europe in 1980. Took the liberty of linking take a penny... ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The US government said in 2008 that it cost 1.7 cents to mint a penny coin. What I can't understand is why the US government doesn't let the dollar bill die of slow attrition and correspondingly up the production of dollar coins. Doing so would be far more cost effective. But I suppose if you can't get rid of the penny, you're not going to get rid of the greenback. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Every time they release a new dollar coin, it gets "collected" and taken out of circulation. The treasury would have to eliminate the paper dollar before dollar coins would really get used. Any guesses as to how many state quarters have been stuffed into collector books by kids? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Tons of them, I'm sure - encouraged by coin collection books that you can get most anywhere. There are still plenty of state quarters floating around, though. Regarding pennies, this was discussed at great length on a ref desk recently. I suspect the reason they won't abolish the penny is because people (1) wouldn't like their receipts getting rounded up to the next nickel; along with (2) the suspicion that businesses would figure out a way to make everything round up to the next nickel. And businesses probably wouldn't like having it round down to the nickel, due to accumulated lost revenue. So there it sits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And as you say, the dollar coins disappear, because the dollar bill remains in circulation, and dollar bills are more convenient to use than dollar coins... or coins of any kind, actually. So they're often treated like souvenirs, which takes them out of circulation. Although that may be counterbalanced by the approach of "dumping" (spending) them ASAP, which accelerates their circulation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In a way, this reminds me of the lame attempts to introduce the metric system on highways in the 1970s. There's no reason to use a new system if the old system stays in place. Metric distances have now disappeared from highway signs... and dollar coins disappear quickly also. I'm surprised no one has brought up the 2-dollar bill, which is also seldom seen. That's another item that tends to be treated like a collectible or spent quickly to get rid of it. Supposedly a 2-dollar bill is considered bad luck because of its association with the standard 2-dollar bets at horse race tracks. That could just be an urban legend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

An aside, Re the $2 bill... back in the early-1980s the US Navy was faced with a wave of Anti-sailor antagonism by the local population of Norfolk, VA (where the Navy has its major east coast base)... so for a few weeks the Navy paid all its sailors in $2 bills. The town was soon flooded with them, and the locals quickly realized how much money the sailors contributed to the local economy... the antagonism quickly faded. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. :) I see in the United States two-dollar bill article that the bill is still being produced, though in very small quantities by comparison with ones and other bills. No small part of the problem is that there is often no slot for them in cash register drawers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Guess what? Those countries happy to use such bills have invented a new kind of cash register that DOES have such a drawer. Radical, eh? HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Besides, most US cash registers have a slot for $50s that they never actually use because they either don't accept $50s or they hide them under the register drawer as soon as they receive them. There's also a slot for dollar coins that's likewise not used. Those two compartments just wind up being the "junk drawer" of the cash register and wind up with pens, coupons, occasionally a roll of pennies. APL (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone is happy to use US two-dollar bills? Hmmm... maybe the State Dept. should take a hint from the Navy and use big bundles of $2 bills for foreign aid. Blueboar (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. Well, with the slide in value of the $US, we Australians prefer our own currency these days  ;-) , and polymer banknotes produced in Australia are used in at least 20 other countries. Oh, and BTW, Australia abandoned one a two cent coins, and replaced one and two dollar bills with coins years ago. (But I think we're a fair way off-topic now.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Modern dollar coins aren't "Collected out of circulation." (Though the silver dollars were).

The treasury has tons of them and is eager to mint more. However, they can't get rid of them. Banks don't want them because the bank's customers don't want them.

You can get as many as you like direct from the mint's web-site. (Though if you want more than a few hundred of them, they will want to know why. They've had some scams taking advantage of this.) APL (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To respond to the first round: I've thought about the "sunk costs" argument, except - there's no way for a store to predict how many cashiers it will need. Saving a few minutes a day might do nothing, or it might eliminate a full cashier position - the weighted average of these probabilities should be the same as if the store is literally paying wages by the minute. (Which it may well anyway, as overtime varying from day to day)

The "take a penny, leave a penny" system should work in theory; but in practice the stigma of accepting charity in the U.S. is so extreme that very few people do - then, of course, they see no reason to go out of their way to leave pennies either. I don't think it affects checkout time much.

I wanted to avoid the argument over abolishing the penny in general, since it's only the behavior of individual storeowners that surprises me. As a political issue, people get into tradition, admiration for Lincoln, etc. and may no longer make economically motivated decisions.

The argument that collectors defeat serious circulation of dollar coins seems very strange to me indeed. I've actually heard multiple rumors that sometimes these coins were actually given away during their introduction in certain places - I hope they're just fantasy. Really though, when coins are stored up by (paying) collectors, for the government it should be like a voluntary tax donation. The collected coins do nothing to spur inflation, because they're not part of the normal money supply. My suspicion was that this must be intentional - that the government issues $2 bills and dollar coins in amounts calculated to keep them collectible with a marginally increasing value, and that quantities are limited by what they would estimate would collapse the value of the coins/bills and make people stop holding them.

And the Australians may have the stronger dollar, but we have Encyclopedia Dramatica! Just try to claim you got the better end of the deal. =) Wnt (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The main problem with modern U.S. dollar coins is that they're just too damn close in size to a quarter -- ideally, you should be able to very easily distinguish each circulating coin from all the others just by the feel in your hand, without looking at it at all. It's been known for 30 years that modern U.S. dollar coins fail this test, which has had the effect of making it politically infeasible to retire the dollar bill, yet nothing has been done to fix the mistake in all that time... AnonMoos (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting - the arguments over differentiating banknotes by size seems to have gone the other way entirely over the same period! Shimgray | talk | 10:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The bills are well-known by the portraits on them. As Moos points out, you can't dollar coins are similar to quarters. The old-old silver dollars were much larger - and proportionately heavier. If they tried to reintroduce coins of that size, there might be a rebellion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The different pictures on the notes are not the issue. Shimgray | talk | 12:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see where there could be a problem for the blind - a problem that has always been there. Since wallets are made to a standard size, you can't make the bills any larger than the 1 currently is, and you would have to make successively smaller bills significantly smaller, to the point where a 1 might be the size of a postage stamp. Embossing them somehow might help, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Other countries, such as the UK, have no difficulties with their different sized banknotes. The difference in size doesn't need to be large. --Tango (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, please try not to describe problems that you just put five seconds of thought into as though they were an insurmountable or an extremely difficult puzzle that we need to ponder over, when it's trivially easy to identify existing solutions to those same problems.

Typically they slightly reduce the length of some of the bills. So the largest bills still fit comfortably in a standard modern wallet, and the smallest bills don't take up the whole length of the unfolded wallet. The difference is not enough to make the smaller bills difficult to handle, but blind people can compare their bills to special notched measuring sticks that are manufactured and distributed for that purpose. (I assume that blind people would eventually just sew a couple of notches into the edge of their wallet for this purpose, but I don't know.) APL (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

UK referendum results: a record?

In Thursday's UK referendum, which was counted yesterday, 430 out of 440 districts voted 'no'. I assume this must be some sort of record, most unanimous British vote ever or something, but does anyone know specifics? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 09:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Districts" isn't a very comparable statistic, as the UK has frequently restructured the organisation of local and regional governments. There have been only two referendums which cover the whole of the UK (cf Referendums in the United Kingdom#List of major referendums); the other (the United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975) voted 67.2% for "yes" (as opposed to AV's 67.9% "no"). Of the others, the Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum, 1973 returned a "yes" of 98.9% (because those you'd expect to vote "no" instead boycotted the vote). Of unboycotted ones Welsh devolution referendum, 1979 returned a "no" of 79.9%. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 10:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There will have been a lot of records set in that referendum, given that it was only the second one ever in the UK. That fact, of course, makes those records quite meaningless. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

UK High Court Judges

On being appointed a high court judge, a woman is made a DBE, while a man is appointed Knight Bachelor rather than KBE. Why is this? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Male HCJs were appointed KB before there were female HCJs. When there were, the women couldn't be appointed KB because there is no female equivalent, so they appoint them DBE but didn't change arrangements for the men. I guess this was easier that creating a Dame Batchelorette order to make things symmetrical. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 10:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some Baronetesses in their own right, so why not Dame Spinster?  :) And that's the real reason: "spinster" has acquired such negative connotations that it's almost never used anymore. Yet, there is no other female equivalent of an unmarried man. What a dumb language: we have words for the most arcane, abstruse and utterly ridiculous things, yet one for the extremely common occurrence of a woman who isn't married is too hard? Of course, this usage has nothing to do with the recipient's marital status. A great-grandfather with 37 progeny can still be a Knight Bachelor. They need to find a suitable female equivalent that doesn't involve the word "spinster". The British are good at coming up with illogical and unpredictable and completely unintuitive exceptions to all manner of things. Why stop now? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There have been attempts, but not enduring ones. In the 1920s - a point at which British English had a pressing need to find a term for "young woman living alone, unmarried, and likely to remain so for the imminent future" - 'bach' was briefly popular; it apparently fell out of use shortly thereafter. The OED doesn't record this use, but does note that c. 1850-1900 it was a common shortening, especially in the US/Canada/Australia, for "bachelor" when applied to men - it may have been a deliberate resurrection of a recently remembered phrase. Shimgray | talk | 23:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The way to make them symmetrical is to make the male judges KBE. No Baronetcy is currently held by a Baronetess I think.Kittybrewster ☎ 12:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be the way to make pretty much all Knights Bachelor symmetrical - it's not just judges for whom there's a mismatch between male and female titles, as women who do anything which would warrant a plain knighthood in a man are almost always made DBEs. It would be pretty easy effectively to abolish Knights Bachelor and appoint them all KBEs instead, as the KBE grade is currently used pretty rarely (mainly for peers and those who aren't subjects of the Queen, i.e. people for whom the honour would be invisible if they were simply Knights Bachelor and didn't have any post-nominal letters). This would have the added benefit of making us not have to keep reverting well-meaning editors who "correct" "Sir John Smith, CBE" to "Sir John Smith, KBE" in articles on the basis that if he's a knight he should have a "K" (although I have to admit that regrettably convenience for Wikipedia editors probably isn't very high up the Government's agenda). (I think it's also worth pointing out that it's confusing to use "KB" as an abbreviation for "Knight Bachelor", as it actually stands for the obsolete rank "Knight Companion of the Order of the Bath" (the only rank in that order before 1815).) Proteus (Talk) 18:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We also sometimes see "Sir John Smith, Kt.", which is just as irregular and just as confusing, as KT is the postnom for Knight of the Order of the Thistle. Nature might well abhor a vacuum, but sometimes vacua are mandated. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question

Would anyone happen to know if Ireland has freedom of panorama? I need to know this as there is an image of a monument that needs copyright clarification. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As a habitual user of the RD you should know that we don't provide legal advise here. Quest09 (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Now there's the ultimate in silliness, saying we can't tell people which images they can use in Wikipedia, since that would be legal advice. I suppose then we'd better ban all pics, just in case, and all prose, for the same reason. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this counts as legal advice. The figure in Freedom_of_panorama#Europe suggests that Ireland has freedom of panorama sufficient for wikipedia commons. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Wrongfilter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

@Quest09: and you should know better that we just pretend not to give legal advice here. It all comes down to the way you ask and answer the questions. The same applies to medical advice. Wikiweek (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In the case of copyrights, there is a significant awareness within wikipedia about this issue, so I don't think this qualifies as "legal advice". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For the justification for the use of the image, the relevant Irish Statute is Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, Section 93 --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

From Commons: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Ireland

§93 of the Irish copyright law permits photographers to take pictures of sculptures, buildings, and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in a public place or premises open to the public, and to publish such pictures in any way. Irish law is in this respect modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

• Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, Chapter 6, §93
• Irish copyright law

And, they have a template for such images: Commons:Template:FoP-Ireland. Hope that helps. ^Avic_ennasis @ 22:15, 3 Iyar 5771 / 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of paranoia exists on all islands. Of which there are many. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all the helpful answers. I am working on getting an article to FAC and there is an image of a monument that the reviewer had questioned regarding its copyright status. I see now it's ok to use. Cheers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Question on logical fallacies

What is the meaning of argumentum ad in Argumentum ad populum? argumentum ad - It is definitely Latin, what is its literal English translation? In google translate it is showing Indonesian language. Why? What is the meaning of "ad"? --Hould Hoster (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

ad is a preposition which means "to", "toward", or "about". (ref) -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The article argumentum ad populum, says the phrase means "appeal to the people". "Argumentum" is "argument" or "appeal"; "ad" is "to" or "towards"; "populum" is the accusative of "populus", "people", or "populace". --ColinFine (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

But Latin to English dictionaries say argumentum means "proof, evidence" [1], then why is it translated in English as "appeal to"? --Hould Hoster (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends on context. No language can be directly translated, word-for-word, to another language as a "word A in one language ALWAYS means word B in another" for every single word in both languages. Often, depending on context, the same word may mean different things in another language, and visa versa. Depending on how it is used, argumentum can mean argument, appeal, or evidence. --Jayron32 16:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The etymology of "argue" is interesting,[2] and as I suspected, its root connects it with argentum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "word A in one language ALWAYS means word B in another" doesn't even work for English-to-English: "If you wait a minute, I'll point you to a minute post with a point for you to use with your miniature post box." -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Or, "let us cleave together and cleave some bread." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

An "argumentum ad populum" is an argument saying that because people many believe something to be true, it must be true. In this case the "ad" is more accurately translated as "about", or "pointing to" (ie an argument made by pointing to people). Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be the argument used by conspiracy theorists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for overview, 'argumentum ad...' would normally be translated as 'an argument that relies on...', where the ellipsis is something generally considered to be a weak or improper grounding for reasoned discussion. Argumentum ad populum this would be 'an argument that relies on popularity', with the understanding that the popularity of an idea has no relation to it's truth-value. --Ludwigs2 18:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is why conspiracy theorists often cite polls that show that some "significant" minority questions the official story of something, such as JFK, Apollo, 9/11, Obama, and Osama. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's not just conspiracy theorists: everybody does this kind of thing. humans are just not particularly good at logic. I mean, with something like the moon landing you'll have one side saying "A lot of people think it's faked" and the other side saying "A lot more people think that's poppycock". same fallacy on each side, and neither argument helps resolve the debate in any meaningful way. --Ludwigs2 19:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people think it does resolve the debate.  :>) Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The argument that something must be true because many people believe it certainly isn't always correct, but if you believe things because the vast majority of people believe them, you will be right most of the time. For example, if most people in an area think that eating a particular berry will kill you, then don't eat it. You could research it to make such a determination more scientifically, but, if you don't have the time or inclination for that, then, unless you are starving to death, the risk (of ignoring them) is just too high and the benefit too low to make eating those berries a wise decision. So, such "logic" is useful, even if not always correct. StuRat (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Blue & Stu: Logic isn't about being right; logic is about being valid, because validity is the key to demonstrating that you're right. I know, it's a stupid way to look at the world: Socrates' complaint box is down the hall, third door on the left. --Ludwigs2 00:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See Social_proof for more on this. Interestingly, there are some well-known examples where following the crowd leads to outcomes many would find less desirable (such as not eating at a very good restaurant because no one wants to be the first to eat there). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This Dilbert strip vaguely relates:[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded of what Harry Reasoner said in a newscast at the height (or depth) of the Watergate scandal. He said that polls indicated that 35 percent of the American public believed in UFOs while only 20 percent believed in President Nixon (or figures along those lines). He commented, "I'm not sure what that says about us... But it says something." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it says that 5 percent thought that Nixon was a space alien? (it was the 70s after all.) Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "believe in". I have always believed that RMN was President of the USA, said and did various things, and resigned. But I never "believed in" him (and particularly not after he told Frost, When the President does it, that means it is not illegal). That sort of terminology is usually reserved for beings you have not perceived using the normal senses, but still accept that they exist and that doing what they allegedly ask of you is a good thing - like God, for example. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, me... in my experience of the world, there are only two kinds of people - those who believe with their eyes closed, and those who believe with their eyes open. I've never met anyone who had no beliefs whatsoever, and my impression is that the few people who manage to escape belief entirely sooner or later end up as someone's object of reverence. Believe it or not, Nixon was only president because people believed he was president (a function of the delusion of common will implicit in the act of balloting). 'Believing in...' is a different belief set - not just the collective delusion that he became president, but the assertion that he must be a good president by virtue of that collective delusion.

Honestly, when you think too much about human society, it just makes you crazy. --Ludwigs2 06:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's to be assumed that Harry was being funny, using two slightly different meanings of "believing in". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

True or myth: Nazi dog with a label 'dog' on it.

The rationale was that it had the label because it was a dog. I don't know if that was a joke or a real story. Quest09 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Where are you seeing this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In Away_from_Her. Quest09 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that writeup about either Nazis or dogs. Explain further, please. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Extended content
"00:07:44,553 --> 00:07:49,026 She told me that each of the German patrol dogs 63 00:07:49,097 --> 00:07:52,775 wore a sign saying "hund." 64 00:07:52,842 --> 00:07:54,560 "Why?" said the Czechs. 65 00:07:54,570 --> 00:07:59,839 And the Germans replied, "Because that is a hund."

" It's not in the article. See above. Quest09 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The words "nazi", "dog" and "hund" do not appear in the article. It sounds like a lame joke of some kind. Like they had to label the dogs as "dog" so they would know that they're dogs. Weird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The story is not very important for the plot in the film. Quest09 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Does my hypothesis fit at all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is probably a lame joke. But it could be true. Quest09 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the joke relies on the Nazis' excessive organizational and labeling, such as their need to have Jews, Gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and every other minority be labeled with patches on their clothing. The joke would be better, in my opinion, if the dog was labeled in more detail, such as listing the breed of dog. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Kind of like my old high school, where every room had a number, even the broom closets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I laughed at the joke during the movie. If you like The Far Side type of humor, you'd probably laugh too. It reminded me of one old Far Side, where a guy labels everything with a paint brush, including "the dog", and says "That should clear up a few things around here!" The cartoon can be found online, but I believe we're not supposed to link to copyright violations. —Kevin Myers 18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Not in articles, but for the purpose of answering questions here, I don't think there's any problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sex question

Sorry for the sexually explicit question but any google search about this just turns up porn links. I am looking for the name of the sex act in which he penis is rubbed against the vulva for a long time, including to orgasm; without penetration. It's like tribbing but with a man and a woman instead.

Petting? BTW, have you tried enabling SafeSearch to exclude porn links in the Google search?--151.56.113.184 (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

the technical term is frottage. --Ludwigs2 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's right. --151.56.113.184 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd call it the "he forgot to take off her knickers" technique. It's a common problem on the Isle of Man. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

When I was in high school (light years ago), we called it Dry humping. It was typically performed with both partners fully dressed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Light years is a measure of distance, not of time. Quest09 (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Or "mileage". As in, "it's not the years; it's the mileage". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a measure of time, distance, and state-of-mind in my delightfully bohemian high school.Jim Morrison we'll never forget you--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That might have been the type of school that Chicago DJ Larry Lujack was thinking of when he would enunciate high school as "hiiigh school". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

All riiiiiiiight......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For many years I thought frottage was only between consensual strangers on public transport (Henry Miller describes such an interlude in one his Cancer books). You learn something every day here. Zoonoses (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So I guess an old-fashioned "lover's lane" could also be called a "frottage road"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen people dry-humping in a car. Imagine a cop shining his torch/flashlight inside the car's interior only to discover the panting lovers locked into an amorous embrace but fully dressed! LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Mixed Number Proportional Representation

Is there a website where they show an example of a mixed number proportional representation ballot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.234 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia? :) 81.98.38.48 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That Won't help. I mean an English-speaking website, that actually shows the ballot in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.21.69 (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for a picture of a ballot paper? --Tango (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If that is what the OP means, the best I can see is a mockup of a Scottish parliament ballot on this site. There is also an image on Electoral system of New Zealand. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

National debt

In the US, why is such a fuss made about reducing the national debt? Albacore (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the interest payments are very expensive and there is a reliance on being able to find lenders when the bonds reach maturity and need to be rolled over. --Tango (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

furthermore, over the past couple of weeks the s&p has warned of a possible downgrade f the us' creidt sstatus, which is big deal in a country with the highest credit rating (expect gold to shopoot right up) and the dollar to crash when that happens.Lihaas (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If creditors (those who the U.S. counts on to buy the debt when it is rolled over or increased) were to grow concerned about the size of the debt or doubt the ability or the willingness of the United States to repay it, then interest rates on that debt could rise substantially (in order to attract doubtful creditors). This could strain (or break) the budget of the United States. See Sovereign default. Marco polo (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See Suez_War#Financial_pressure for an historical parallel. Basically, US national debt is other countries owning dollars. Theoretically these countries could sell off massive amounts of the US dollars they own and plummet the US economy. In effect, the countries that own US dollars have control over US policy. Schyler (one language) 03:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Most US national debt is actually held by companies and individuals within the US. --Tango (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just going to that its not all owned abroad.

furthermore its a catch 22, ttates swill not sell the debt, certainly not that quickly, because too will lost their money aat that point.Lihaas (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In some ways its a hilarious situation. China, for example, holds a substantial amount of US debt, but what can they do with it? Ultimately the only thing they can do is to buy stuff from us, but their economy depends on selling stuff to us rather than buying stuff from us. They could do us a lot of damage by dumping their debt holdings, but they would damage themselves just as much in the process. Thus their US debt holdings are effectively more of a curse than an asset. Probably the best thing they could do for all concerned is simply to give their US debt holdings to the US as a gift, thereby relieving our debt issues and their own foreign exchange imbalance issues -- but that's apparently too radical to consider. Looie496 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Having the reserves isn't really a problem, so there is no reason for them to give them away. The problem is that maintaining an artificially cheap currency is very expensive - they have to keep buying dollars that they then can't use without undoing all the effort. The state is basically subsidising all exports. Whether they keep the reserves or not doesn't change that. While they have the reserves, they are, at least, earning interest on them. --Tango (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The best answer was the first one: (a) it costs a lot to pay interest on the debt, and that money is not available for other uses (public services, tax reductions); and (b) there is a nagging, but as yet unproven, sense that at some point the usual suspects (i.e., those who habitually buy T-bills and other debt) will demand much more return on their investments. In addition, there is the political side, which is each of the major parties blaming the other for raising the debt level / refusing to accept the "right" approach to reducing the annual budget deficits. DOR (HK) (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Russian jews

the article on Russian Jews says that they are Ashkenazis BUT it is not cited and seems an OR presumption. but i was under the impression that people from east of the urals are sephardic which would include the large number of people from Kazakh, Uzbek, etc. Which group would they be categorised under? an easier response may be to see if those foreign-born israelis from said countries vote with shas or the other more mainstream generally ashkenazi parties? yisrael beitenau being one. If Greeeks are considered Sephardic ;olke hank azaria then how can russians be ashkenazis?Lihaas (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

See our two article on Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews. Essentially, in the middle ages, the Sephardic Jews were centered in the Mediterranean (especially in lands that were at times under Islamic rule, such as Greece, Sicily and southern Spain) while the Ashkenazi Jews were centered to the north in Germany, Poland and Russia. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Russian Jews are generally Ashkenazis. The usually accepted history of the Ashkenazi is that they originated in Western Europe (France, Germany, even northern Italy) and, over the centuries, gradually migrated eastward, especially into the territory of Poland-Lithuania, most of which in the 19th Century became part of the Russian Empire. The Russian Jews of Central Asia would be Ashkenazis who migrated from this region under the Russian Empire or during Soviet times. However, there is also a non-Russian Jewish population in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc.). These non-Russian Jews are not Ashkenazi; they are Mizrahi. Now, the term Sephardic is sometimes used to refer to the Mizrahi, but they are really distinct groups. The true Sephardi are actually Spanish in origin. They fled Spain in the 15th and 16th centuries after the formerly Islamic parts of Spain were conquered by Christian kingdoms. The true Sephardi mostly ended up in countries around the Mediterranean Sea, though some ended up in England, the Netherlands, and elsewhere. Few, if any, ended up in Central Asia. Marco polo (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Vladimir Ashkenazy is a Russian (who took out Icelandic citizenship, lives principally in Switzerland, and spends a lot of time in Australia and elsewhere). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The area of the Khazar Khanate has been part of Russia (mostly) for a long time, and it once had a strong Jewish presence, see Khazar_Empire#Conversion_of_the_royalty_and_aristocracy_to_Judaism and Mountain Jews for some Jews which didn't arrive in Russia via the traditional root of the Ashkenazi. --Jayron32 03:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The fate of the Khazar Jews and their connection (if any) to modern Jewry is a disputed topic. As for the Mountain Jews, they are a branch of the Mizrahi who did not live in Russia proper and are ethnically distinct from the Yiddish- and Russian-speaking community normally described as Russian Jews. Also, unlike the Russian Jews, who migrated to Central Asia along with other Russians under the Empire and Soviet rule, migration of Mountain Jews has been mainly out of Russia. Marco polo (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Dalia Rabin-Pelossof

Does Dalia Rabin-Pelossof, the daugheter of rabin sit with the new faction of labour that split from the liberal wing and led by ehud barak or the liberal side that stayed in labour. i ask because her father was obviously of the liberal strain, but offspring dont always share the same ideology?Lihaas (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Dalia Rabin-Pelossof is not currently serving in the Knesset (Israeli parliament). When she did, she remained in the Labor party but left the government in protest at then PM Arik Sharon's hardline policies she considered out of line with her father's beliefs. As for the current situation: The split was an act on the part of Labor party head Ehud Barak defecting from the party along with 4 MKs to form a faction they call "Atzma'ut", thus retaining four ministries within the government coalition of PM Benjamin Netanyahu. This faction plans to announce the formation of a "mainstream Zionist" party as distinct from the Labor party's "social democratic" platform. 9 May 2011, Haaretz. Which party Dalia Rabin-Pelossof would join or support remains to be seen. As she heads The Yitzhak Rabin Center that studies Israeli society and democracy, her position will be significant to those who share her ideologies and look to her for political guidance. Ehud Barak's disassociating himself from a party that stands for a social democratic agenda is at least candid, whatever betrayal of the voters who elected him it represents. Deborahjay (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks.

seems like barak's reelection will be crucial nexty time, unless he runs from a duifferent place..Lihaas (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

An interview with Barak himself was printed in Haaretz the same day. FWIW, Deborahjay (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)