Humanities desk
< November 21	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 23 >

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.

November 22

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Has there ever been a sucessful challenge of the CCRF so that a male could use a females only fitness facility? I heard on the radio today that there was a challenge, but the man lost the case. I dont think this was the first time that a case of this type was heard. Any info? Zoobtoob 03:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a supreme court challenge? I read the article but I didn't realise that. This article says that it was a BC Human Rights Tribunal. Anchoress 03:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the case that made me remember that, but i thought there was a case bfore that that the man won? 64.180.253.36 04:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, are you thinking of the case where the M→F transsexual won damages against a rape crisis centre (either Women Against Violence Against Women or Vancouver Rape Relief) because she had been rejected as a potential counsellor due to her birth gender? Anchoress 04:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I guess I must have been mistaken then. I really thought that there was a sucessful case sometime...64.180.253.36 04:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CCRF applies to legislation and governmental action, so you would not bring a challenge against a fitness facility's policies under the CCRF (unless the facility in question is run by the government). There have been at least two cases in the Supreme Court of Canada where a man invoked s. 15 claiming discrimination against men; both were unsuccessful. See for example Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872. In general, if you have a claim of discrimination against a private business, you would proceed not under the Charter but under provincial/territorial human rights legislation such as the B.C. Human Rights Code (or, in certain situations, the Canadian Human Rights Act). -- Mathew5000 07:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally the BC Court of Appeal case about discrimination against transgendered individuals was Vancouver Rape Relief Society v. Nixon, 2005 BCCA 601. --Mathew5000 09:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OT but is this going to the BC Supreme Court, if one exists? Nil Einne 15:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The B.C. Supreme Court is a lower level court than the Court of Appeal. Thus the Court of Appeal decision was an appeal from a judgment from the B.C. Supreme Court. --Mathew5000 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the B.C. Court of Appeal is the highest court for B.C.? Can you appeal to the federal court of appeal/supreme court? Nil Einne 15:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the Federal Court of Appeal, but the Supreme Court of Canada does hear appeals from the British Columbia Court of Appeal, but usually only by leave. --Mathew5000 01:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caption on Glass Lantern Slide

I am trying to decifer the caption on a glass lantern slide made by Putnam & Valentine of Los Angeles, about 1900. The image is of a man standing in front of two tents that appear to be part of a long term or perminate camp in a wooded area. There is an object on the man's shirt front that might be a badge. The caption: 183 U.S. Guardian C.D.W.C. On the other side is Maude & Bartoo sticker with the notation: Grand Canyon in Buckskin Mts., Ariz.Irvink 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Earl Brines[reply]

Maude & Bartoo is a photographer: see another example. Apparently Putnam & Vanlentine are photographers, as well. Perhaps one took the photo and one made or sold the slide. -THB 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe WC stands for "Work Camp". -THB 02:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of fumbling around I think I have come up with something that works – if anyone other than myself is interested. Starting with Maude & Bartoo's sticker: The combination of Grand Canyon and Buckskin Mountains was an obstacle as on current Arizona maps show the Buckskin Mountains to be slightly east of Parker – not close to the Grand Canyon at all. The folks at the Grand Canyon Museum say that the early settlers in and near the Arizona Strip – that portion of the Kiabab Plateau which forms the North Rim of the Grand Canyon – referred to the Arizona Strip as the Buckskin Mountain or Buckskin Mountains because of the large number of deer that they obtained from the area (other sources say the settlers got the name from the Indians). This gets Maude & Bartoo's Grand Canyon and Buckskin Mountains in the realm of reality.

This area was designated as The Grand Canyon Game Preserve (by Theodore Roosevelt) in 1906. At the time the Preserve was in the Coconino National Forest, Coconino Ranger District. James T. Owens, AKA Uncle Jim Owens, was appointed the first game warden of the preserve. The gentleman in the lantern slide looks like the person in photographs known to be or said to be of "Uncle Jim."

Putnam & Valentine are known to have photographed at the Grand Canyon (both rims and the inner canyon) in the fall of 1906.

Trying to decipher the Putnam & Valentine Caption:

  182 – the number of the slide in a set.
  U. S. – United States
  Guardian – A 19th early 20th century term for a forest ranger, park ranger, game warden etc.
  C. D. W. C. – My Best Guess: Coconino District Warden's Camp.

So maybe it is a lantern slide showing James T. (Uncle Jim) Owens, The first Game Warden of the Grand Canyon Game Preserve, in his camp somewhere in the Coconino National Forest, Arizona; ca. 1906

Was Agent Orange ever used in the Korean War?

Has anyone ever heard of Agent Orange being used in Korea? I met a veteran recently who said he was exposed to it during Korea, but he never served in Vietnam. The agent was created in '46, so it's theoretically possible, but I've never heard of it. It's somewhat important-- any ideas how I'd find out? --Alecmconroy 03:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no obvious need for it: the terrain in both countries is quite different, and there is little in the way of thick jungle in Korea. Besides, agent orange was a defoliant, intended, for the most part, to remove the opportunities for cover of an elusive enemy in a guerilla war. The war in the Korean Peninsula followed fairly conventional patterns, and the enemy was always in sight. Clio the Muse 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of herbicides being used in the Korean War, but it's not impossible. Googling around though for "herbicides Korean war" doesn't turn up anything obvious. During Vietnam I'm pretty sure Agent Orange was administered by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps; this previously classified history of the Army Chemical Corps activities during the Korean War period doesn't mention anything on herbicides or defoliants being used, though it does discuss the development of Agent TX, an anti-crop pathogen, it doesn't say it was ever used. None of this conclusively rules it out, but it doesn't lend much support to the idea. Our herbicidal warfare article implies that the US only began using it during the Vietnam War. If I were to really prove it one way or another I'd want to look into the activities of the Chemical Corps during this period — if anyone would be dealing with chemicals in warfare, it would be them — and I would want to look at why they started to use Agent Orange in Vietnam in the first place (what made them decide to go down that route, after all? how contingent was it on the conditions of Vietnam and the composition of the Army at the time? etc.). --24.147.86.187 03:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] says "The CBC investigation showed that planes sprayed other herbicides containing dioxin from 1956 to 1967, herbicides that were later banned for their health effects.The CBC investigation showed that planes sprayed other herbicides containing dioxin from 1956 to 1967, herbicides that were later banned for their health effects." Different continent a few years later. 2,4 D was the main agent in Agent Orange was invented in 1946, and was used in the 1950's so it is PLAUSIBLE but not proven that it was used in 1950-1952 in Korea. Seems unlikely, but who can say. Edison 06:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just love conspiracy theories, especially when the dear little things are in the process of conception; don't you? Anyway, I do so hate to be a bore, but I come back to the tiresome point that I made above-there would be no obvious need for agent orange in Korea. Now, whose for upping the stakes? Mustard gas, anyone? Clio the Muse 08:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after speaking with the individual, I got the whole story. Agent Orange was used in Korea on the DMZ and military personnel were exposed to it-- but that occured during the late 60s, not during the korean war proper. see here. --Alecmconroy 11:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, for the obvious reason that one would need to preserve a clear line of vision to the north, which would have been interrupted by years of untended undergrowth. Clio the Muse 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, a lot of South Koreans were exposed because they contributed troops in large numbers according to the AO article. This of course has nothing to do with the original question Nil Einne 14:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the early part of 1952, during the Korean War (1950-53), the Chinese claimed that the United States was dropping quantities of bacteria, insects, feathers, decaying animal and fish parts and many other strange objects that carried disease, over Korea and northeast China. The Chinese government declared that there had been casualties and quick deaths from plague, anthrax and encephalitis, amongst other diseases.

"They took testimony from some 36 captured American airmen who had purportedly flown the planes with the deadly cargo, and published 25 of these accounts… Photographs of the alleged germ bombs and insects were also published.

Expensive university

What is the most expensive university in the world, why is it so expensive, and what do they specialize in? --The Dark Side 03:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you this much: Balliol College, a constituent part of the University of Oxford, is packed full of expensive people. Sorry; let's make that very expensive people: expensive tastes, anyway.Clio the Muse 03:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TIME and CNN list [2][3] Landmark College in Vermont as the most expensive American college for undergraduate studies, based on tuition alone. However, that school is exclusively for students with learning disabilities. George Washington University is likely among the highest, charging $37,790 per year. Tuition and fees at Oxford total £3,000 for the current academic year (about $5,700). Bear in mind, tuition is only a small portion of college or university costs, and each country's government handles higher education differently. --McMillin24 _contribs^talk 04:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any U.S Ivy League college or equivalent costs about $43,000 per year for tuition, room and board, books, fees, etc. Edison 06:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that at one time Bennington College was said to be the most expensive U.S. college. Wareh 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full Sail. The article sites upwards of $80,000, and I currently have friends attending for about $52,000. My guess at its expensiveness is all forms of media degrees they specialize in and the short time of degree completion. 68.220.82.232 20:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expensive to whom? Are you talking about the real cost or what students have to pay? DirkvdM 07:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB, when comparing costs, especially for institutions outside the US (do US institutions even have different fees for international students?) such as the UK, NZ, Australia etc where the government often funds local students, the fair cost to take would be for international students not the cost for local students IMHO. The fees for Oxford are GBP16,040 according to this source [4] Nil Einne 14:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OGL and fair use of d20 System trademark

The Book of Erotic Fantasy, which is partly OGL, was disqualified from the d20 System License by a rule change according to D20 System. So not only does the cover not display the d20 System logo, but it doesn't mention the name, instead using "the world's best-selling Fantasy Roleplaying Game" and a photo of a d20 with the 20 side highlighted. Couldn't they still have used "Compatible with the d20 System" on the cover, under fair use, provided that they not have used the logo or made it look official? Neon Merlin 04:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Canadian military expenditure in Afghanistan since 2006

Hello,

I would like to know if anyone knows how much the Canadian military has currently spent in Afghanistan ever since 2001, not including humanitarian aid. I have tried searching myself, but have not much found much on the subject. It is as if the information has been purposefully hidden. In any case, your help would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.53.117 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps the government could tell you - especially if you are Canadian. martianlostinspace 17:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A CTV article pegs it as 4.1 billion CND since Sept. 11^th --The Dark Side 00:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Colegrove??

I thought for sure that I could find his bio here photographer from the 1980's. Is there some place I failed to look?—Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonMerlin (talk • contribs)

Googling for "Daniel Colegrove"+photographer gives 37 unique hits for a Ventura-based photog, most of which are about entries in directories or lists of wedding photographers and such, or other promotional material. Is this the same DC? Is there anything by which he might be notable? --Lambiam ^Talk 08:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, that is him. He was like the Cameron Crow of photographers in the Hollywood clubs. Thanks http://www.dcolegrovphotography.com/

Religious debate

I came across Sam Harris's book "Letter to a Christian Nation", and thought, "Man this is boring, just preaching to the choir". Many books that talk about religion tend to be either arguments against (and then I'm familiar or even well-acquainted with those) or arguments for (and then I'm again either familiar or do not know enough to rebut the arguments). What I really would like to see is a solid discussion between two intelligent/educated opponents, with some back-and-forth on the arguments (not a collection of essays from one side and the other). Do you know of such a book? Thank you!--Knyazhna 07:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look over Jill Paton Walsh's Knowledge of Angels. It's a work of fiction, one, quite frankly, of a very low standard of insight and literary competence; but much of it is based around the kind of dialectic you are looking for-proofs and refutations. Clio the Muse 08:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is the classic here (although of course Hume has his own axe to grind, and perhaps isn't entirely fair to all sides). More recent, and perhaps more balanced books include JJC Smart and John Haldane, Atheism and Theism (which I haven't read, but both Smart and Haldane are serious and interesting thinkers). This amazon list offers some more possibilities. Hope this helps. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion? Well, strictly speaking, not one of the three interlocutors takes an atheist position. All start from the same premise-that God exists-though they differ on the degree to which he can be encompased by human knowledge. This is all getting too complicated, Sam. Clio the Muse 09:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is described as frank dialogs between a non-Christian and his Christian friend and is rubbish. The arguments border on utter stupidity and are unconvincing for any thinking sceptic. I'm not sure an intelligent debate is really possible. The Christian arguments describe an immaterial authority part of a dualistic world. The non-religious (scientific?) arguments often assume a materialist unity of the world. They both describe the same world. I'm not sure where they can meet. Each argument assumes to be englobing the opponent's. God justifies material reality vs. material reality creates the idea of God. Why not read some theistic or theistically influenced philosophy (Plato, St Thomas Aquinus, Levinas ... pretty much the whole corpus of idealistic philosophy) and some atheistic/materialist philosophy (Diagoras, Marx, Nietsche, Foucault, Deleuze etc) and create your own informed dialogue.

The problem might not necessarily be the arguments pro cons but arguments about what culture do we want for mankind knowing what the religious phenomenon is (then again that is already a non-believer attitude). Keria 09:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plato, Aquinus, Marx, Nietzsche? Not, I think, a quick journey, Keria, more a long and rocky road. He who knows about depth knows about God. Clio the Muse 09:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I might have gotten overexcited. I still think that you cannot resolve the God/no God debate with merely presenting arguments for both sides, especially as each side will have problems with accepting the other side’s arguments since they come from fundamentally different world views. It seems to me the fundamentals of choosing one’s side of the arguments come down to a philosophical choice that precedes the arguments. As much as the religious people seem impenetrable to certain rational arguments, the atheist side dismisses a lot of authoritative arguments. Although these debates are fun and instructive they can rarely touch the fundamentals of one’s own philosophy. This is why I think it valuable to bring back in the philosophies that sustain the debate especially as Knyazhna seems familiar already with the arguments. It might be a fairly long road (although a few years reading will get you through the authors I mentioned) it doesn’t seem too much an effort to make up one’s mind on such fundamental problems. Maybe what appeals is just the charm of the rugged adventurer walking that long rocky road rather than the soft skinned spoon-fed monarch of cramped certitudes. Keria 11:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clio's right that this is likely to get too complex quickly, if it hasn't already, but I can't resist a few more comments. 1. the questioner didn't ask about theism vs. atheism, he/she asked about arguments for and against religion. Clearly related (which is why I mentioned the Smart/Haldane book) but distinct (which is why Hume is relevant, despite the fact that none of his characters is - openly - atheist). 2. It's a bit of a jump from 'this example of a debate is rubbish' to 'no intelligent debate is possible'. Even if Keria were right that argument is never going to change people's minds on this question (and I'm a counter-example to that claim), the point of argument can be to deepen one's understanding of one's own position, not to change it. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read The Stranger by Albert Camus, especially the last part when Mersault meets with a priest in jail. That debate, conversation rather, pretty much encompasses all the debate in the world about religion. Moonwalkerwiz 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone name which song is this?

Well, long back ago i had heard a song with lyrics somewhat like :

calofornia's cool 20 miles to go..... and i dont i dont know... should i take you along or leave you alone.... calofornia's cool 20 miles to go.....

The lyrics are not exact, but somewhat similar. And not sure whether "calofornia" was there or something else was there. Hope someone can help me out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilthemacho (talk • contribs)

California Callin' by Enrique Iglesias. See the lyrics at Lyricsfreak. –mysid ☎ 09:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Expiration on Image From Gray's Anatomy

Hi,

I would like to use an image from Gray's anatomy in some computer software I am creating. The image is a skull and this is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gray_190_-_The_skull_from_the_front.png I will be modifying the picure slightly - removing the colour and the labels.

The legend says that the copyright on the image has expired and that the image is in the public domain - does this mean I am free to use the image as I wish? And do I need to quote the source of the image?

Many thanks and best regards,

Ellen Burgess

Not if it is in the public domain. Clio the Muse 09:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it means you are free to use the image. You won't need to quote the source, unless your conscience tells you to. –mysid ☎ 09:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you are not required to cite the source, it would be polite and helpful to provide this information somewhere. People might simply be interested to know where the image comes from, and it might be mistaken for a similar one that is copyrighted. --Anonymous, 07:33 UTC, November 23.

Art or Typography

Hi, I'm on the look out for any articles (wiki, newspapers, journals etc) concerning the question. Is typography art (in broadest sense, like paintings, sculpture) or a craft ? Thanks for taking the time to answer. Curlicue Curlicue 09:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be both. Our article on typography begins with "Typography is the art and technique of ..." –mysid ☎ 09:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is art at least some of the time: example, and craft some of the time: example. -THB 09:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples that I consider art include Image:Kleine Dada Soirée 1922.jpg and Image:Destijl anthologiebonset.jpg. The argument that our article on typography uses the word "art" does not appear compelling to me, because of the dictionary meanings of "the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: (the art of baking; the art of selling); the craft or trade using these principles or methods." Most typography I would not consider art in the usual sense of "fine arts". As is usual with art, there is no sharp boundary. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also check out some Wildstyle Graffiti. 惑乱分からん 14:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help identifying some people

Ok, this is going to be a tough one. I'm trying to write an article on the Jury of the Damned (from the Devil and Daniel Webster). The full list of members can be found at User:Raul654/test. The descriptions for most of them are so short it's very hard to know who they refer to. I've identified most of them, however there are two I have not been able to - "Morton, the vicious lawyer" and "Asa, the black monk - he choked them to death". The constraints (as described in the movie) are that they must be American, and since it takes place in the 1830s, they have to have lived before then (so a lifespan sometime between founding of America until the 1830s). Raul654 14:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. The Devil and Daniel Webster identifies Morton as Thomas Morton (colonist) Raul654 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know that the movie's jury and that in the short story are different, yes? "Asa" seems to have been in the movie only. (And Morton would have been easier to identify from the story, where he's identified as Morton of Merry Mount.) - Nunh-huh 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware they're different. The whole short story jury is identified in the our article, and it includes people not in the movie (like King Phillip) Raul654 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Smeet from the original story was entirely made up so perhaps so is Asa merely to wind up people like you. Maria Monk sprang to mind as her story has baby strangling clergy and someone named Asa but that's about it. meltBanana 20:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Flies Symbology

I'm not quite sure about the Dead Man on the hill's symbolism and Simon's encounter with it. (Chapter 9 - A View to a Death). What does the dead man symbolize? Does it symbolize Christ(Simon) foreseeing impending doom , lost hope, despair? Half-Blood Auror 15:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Lord of the Flies, where you should find some answers to your question. I will give you a clue, though. The Dead Man is not a 'symbol' of anything. He is a pilot, mortally wounded in a nearby aerial combat, who dies after parachuting down to the island. It is there that his physical presence becomes a very real challenge to the fragile civilization set up by the boys, beset, as it is, by nameless horrors, which take shape in the notion of 'the Beastie'. For Sam and Eric, who discover the body, not bothering to look too closely, this is proof that the Beastie exists, and they carry news of their discovery-and their sense of panic-back to the rest of the camp. Before long rationality gives way to barbarism. It is only Simon who recognizes the destructive power of fear. Clio the Muse 16:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of names and years in older books

I am reading Poe right now, and many times he will state the year, but is is written as 18--. Also some names are written like Mr D--- and Mr G---. Why is this? Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 15:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just to avoid specificity. When referring to semi-historical things, like dates, or names of what sound like important people, or cities, they don't want to make you try to think about who or what they're referring to. I think. I've seen this a lot lately, and that's the best I can come up with. Sashafklein 16:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a literary convention, popular for much of the nineteenth and part of the twentieth centuries. I suspect it was devised to give a sense of hightened tension and verisimilitude to an narrative, based on the pretence that the author was writing a 'truth', merely 'protecting the innocent' by temporal, geographical and biographical evasions. Clio the Muse 16:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's especially common if the content is unprintably scandalous or satirical. Thus, while I'm uncertain when this was first done (interesting question), we should definitely push back the date into the 18th c., golden age of satire. For example, Pope on Queen Caroline's Death-bed (1740):

Here lies wrapt up in forty thousand towels

The only proof that C*** had bowels.

1725 saw Henry Carey's Namby Pamby: A Panegyric on the New Versification, Address'd to A—— P——, Esq., including the lines:

Now he pumps his little wits,

Sh...ing writes, and writing sh...ts,

I'd be interested in others' earlier examples, whether in English or another language. Wareh 17:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are quite correct, Wareh, in suggesting that blanking in the eighteenth century is connected with scandalous content and malicious satire, but by the nineteenth century it was taking on more 'genteel' forms, in the fashion I have indicated. Clio the Muse 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very reminiscent of the graffitti I once saw in a public restroom:

"Those who write in s..t house walls,

roll their s..t in little balls.

Those who read the words of wit,

eat the little balls of s..t."

Edison 18:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For famous literary evasion-via-initials somewhat earlier, there's the dedicatee of Shakespeare's sonnets, "Mr. W.H." Wareh 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous image of Fall of Saigon : helicopter pushed into the sea?

Hello,

an image of the Fall of Saigon in which dozens of people try to board a USA helicopter to get out was easy to find back. But I also seem to remember images of people pushing a helicopter into the sea? Who were these people? Where? And why did they do that? Thank you,Evilbu 16:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the image, but we touched on that last year in a US politics class - we were told that when evacuating there were just too many people, so when they got to the aircraft carriers they had to push the helicopters off the deck and into the sea, because there just wasn't room for the choppers and all the people that were being evacuated --Mnem e son 17:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw film of this on the news at the time. The South Vietnamese military flew their helicopters out to the carriers to get themselves, their families and others out of the country at the time of the government's fall. The US let them land on the carriers but had no room for all the choppers The post-war title to the choppers would have been unclear. If we had kept them, would we have had to pay the new government of Vietnam? Plus they might have hurt the market for helicopters to be produced by U.S manufacturers, and the maintenance histories may not have been up to US standards. So they let the people get off, then pushed the choppers off the deck into the ocean, in some cases with the blades still rotating! It is common to destroy war equipment at the end of a conflict. During tWW1 and WW2 and the American Civil War the demand for scrap metal was so great that antique cannons and ornamental iron fences were cut up to build guns and war equipment .Many ships were sunk at the end of WW1 and WW2 rather than cutting them up for scrap or putting them in a "scrap metal reserve". There was concern that an abundance of scrap metal at the end of the war would hurt the US steel production industry. Then when the next war started, it was unpatriotic to save antiques and cultural treasures rather than scrapping them. Edison 18:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The broken window fallacy is always with us, alas. —Tamfang 06:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably this picture of a U.S. helicopter being pushed overboard. Actually it appears most South Vietnam aircraft flew to Thailand, where they reverted to U.S. ownership[5]. Some few (about seven) did land on or crash near U.S. naval vessels. Here is, I think, a South Vietnamese one going over: [6]. Here is another U.S. copter going over to make room for a Cessna to land. The U.S. part was called Operation Frequent Wind. They saved the Cessna - it's in a museum in Florida. (Here is a South Vietnamese pilot ditching at sea after unloading his helicopter - equally amazing and awful.) Rmhermen 18:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone . So they really did dump their own helicopters, mostly because lack of room? Rmhermen, your last picture is incredible. Is anything known about that pilot? I mean, how can he survive a fall like that (even if he falls in the water, it's still gonna hurt)? Did he get picked up?Evilbu 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian Kurdish Relations

What is the foreign policy of Algeria to the Kurds, specifically regarding the formation of an independent and free Kurdistan? Yorktown1776 20:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be truly amazed if they have a policy that sympathizes with such a development, because it would put them on a head-on diplomatic collision course with Syria, Turkey, and Iran. Additionally, I think Algeria would wish to avoid giving its own Berber citizens any ideas of the possibility of achieving an independent and free nationhood. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Algeria does have any specific policy towards the Kurds-which I doubt-then it would certainly be one of hostility towards the formation of an independent state. Clio the Muse 23:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science that has books as object

How do you call it?132.231.54.1 21:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history and science of books as physical objects is bibliology. - Nunh-huh 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical, but bibliology is the study of 'the' book.Mr.K. 22:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look it up, you'll find it's both. The primary meaning is the one I gave; the secondary meaning is the one you mention (but in that meaning, it is usually capitalized). - Nunh-huh 22:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just looked it up hier in Wikipedia. In Google I found bibliology as a science of books.Mr.K. 22:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia should never be one's sole reference :) - Nunh-huh 22:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor google should be!Mr.K. 22:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. The reference of choice in defining a word would be a dictionary, which is what I consulted :) - Nunh-huh 22:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that. Bibliology is a very short stub now, so if anyone knows more, please add it. DirkvdM 07:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]