Humanities desk
< November 24	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 26 >

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 25

Unitary, federation, and confederation : what it really means

Hello,

I've been reading through the articles but I still haven't figured it out completely. The Federation article seems to give a nice explanation : "A unitary state is sometimes one with only a single, centralised, national tier of government. However unitary states often also include one or more self-governing regions. The difference between a federation and this kind of unitary state is that in a unitary state the autonomous status of self-governing regions exists by the sufferance of the central government, and may be unilaterally revoked" So am I getting this straight : if all congressmembers in the USA from 49 states decide that things like death penalty are to become federal matters, they still can't take that form of authority from the 50th state? Or what about this question : what would it take for the USA to become a central state (in a peaceful and democratic way)

But then there is the difference between a confederation and federation? I found differences but they are vague? Does a confederation have to be a country? Does a confederation have to use the same currency? Can inhabitants from one part of the confederation freely move to another and participate in regional elections?

Thank you,Evilbu 00:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not capable of answering all of this, but there is one point I can make. The US Constitution lays out the way in which it can be amended - Article Five of the United States Constitution. 2/3 of the mHouse of Representatives, and 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the States. If such a supermajority chose to do so, the US could become a unitary state in that manner.

Another of your points would also require constitutional amendment, or a change of opinion in the courts; 100% of the Congressmen from 49 of the states could decide that they should forbid the death penalty, , but in order to do so they would also need to amend the constitution, as the death penalty has nothing to do with interstate commerce or foreign policy, and is therefore not within the remit of the Federal government (so the courts would strike down such a law as unconstitutional). If they amended the constitution to give the federal government authority in all matters of the punishment of crime, then after that, a simple majority of congresspersons would be sufficient to pass it. (The alternative way would be the courts finding that the death penalty was a cruel and unusual punishment, which is forbidden by the constitution) --Mnem e son 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Evilbu. Looking at your last points first, I suppose the European Union might be described as a confederation, rather than a unitary state, or a federation, if we understand confederation to mean a looser alliance. The situation in Europe is quite complex: there is a European Parliament, which co-exists alongside the various national Parliaments. The European Parliament is chiefly concerned with the laws that apply to Europe as a whole. National Parliaments, however, still have great power, and are not superseded by Europe. Each country is governed individually, with their own prime ministers and heads of state, who can, if they consider this necessary, reject aspects of European legislation. For example, there is a European currency, but some members of the Union still use their own national currencies. There is in theory free movement of labour, but individual countries have in fact imposed quotas. Only citizens of the individual member states can vote in the national elections. The European Union is still very much in a state of evolution, and may very well move much further down the federal road in future, though at present this would not be a popular move.

I am not American; so you are probably in a better position to answer your opening questions than I. However, as I understand it, the federal authorities, with the support of Congress and the Supreme Court, could introduce policies that would supersede those applying in an individual state-the question of Civil Rights is one example from recent history that leaps to mind. This is an issue tested and resolved, I believe, in the Civil War. Clio the Muse 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that interpretation. The defining characteristic of a "federal state" is that the legislative/governmental authority is divided between the central government and the regional governments, with neither government able to usurp the powers of the other. In general the rules are set out in a written constitution. The USA is the classic example of such a federal state; other examples are Canada, Germany, and Australia. The example of civil rights mentioned by Clio is addressed by the U.S. Constitution: the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments give the federal Congress the right to legislate in that field. --Mathew5000 02:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that those amendments are really necessary for the civil rights acts to have become federal law. The portion of the Constitution which requires that the federal government insure that all states have a republican form of government might have sufficed. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns the location of sovereignty, the absolute right to rule – it is nothing to do with the location of power.

Britain and France are unitary states. Their governments in Westminster and Paris fight with no-one, for the final say in ‘’any’’ policy in the UK. Although there are Scottish and Welsh governments, they hold power only at the pleasure of Westminster. Tony Blair could dissolve them – by law – whether they liked it or not. All sovereignty is at national level.

The US is a federation. So is Canada, Australia, Germany, Brazil and Russia. Normally bigger countries, but sometimes smaller ones, like Austria. Sovereignty is divided between national (ie. Washington DC, in the US) and state (eg. Schwartsnegger is Governor of California). Normally external relations – eg power to declare war – are the job of the national govt. Who has the power to legislate where is defined in the constitution. But California, as a state, can decide its own education policy. That’s included in the 10th Amendment to the constitution. California is different to Scotland in that it is very difficult to abolish their government. That would need a constitutional amendment, which is, as noted above, difficult. California cannot leave the US without its own, and Washington’s, permission. California’s right as a state, is entrenched in constitutional law, which is difficult to change, and superior to all other laws of congress.

The EU is a confederation. Spain, Portugal, etc. are all sovereign state (ie. it is all at a lower level) and Brussels has no absolute right to rule. That is why if the UK Independence Party where in power in the UK, they could remove the UK from the EU whether the EU liked it or not. All sovereignty is at provincial level, and the EU rules only because the sovereign states let it rule. It’s right to rule has been granted by a normal law, not constitutional amendments.

martianlostinspace 11:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my understanding is that there is really no general typology of federated political entities that would fit all (or even many) of all such entities. It's often not helpful at all to describe an entity as a "confederation", "federation", "commonwealth" or "union", no matter whether the entity calls itself that way or not, because to actually understand the degree of federatedness of the entity one must describe its constitutional structure in considerable detail. In other words, these descriptors are mostly traditional or political labels that have little systematic value and little descriptive power. Sandstein 15:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of answers, and I thank everyone for that of course! But I'm afraid I'm still confused. You hear words like "confederal" all the time but who knows what it really means? Like why is the USA called a federation (like Russia by the way) and Switzerland a confederation? And I'm still confused about the USA in particular as well :

- If EVERY resident of let's say California wanted to make it illegal for people under 18 to drive, but every other citizen of the USA vigorously opposes it. What happens? I hear people speaking about amendments? Are they a tool to take competencies away from states. - Doesn't Texas has some sort of special status, a right to decide for themselves whether or not they wanna leave the USA,

And about Europe : - I often hear people proposing a federal Europe. Would that necessarily imply voting rights depending on where you live (in that case I would definitely oppose it)

And about Serbia/Montenegro :

-was this a confederation or federation? Did it have subnationalities? I mean did a Montenegran who moved to Serbia keep his Montenegran nationality? I'm asking because I read that Montenegrans took a train from Serbia to Montenegro to participate in the referendum (and that Serbia paid train tickets for groups who disapproved of a split) Evilbu 16:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If every voter in California decided that drivers licenses be limited to those over 18, they have every right to do so. Issuing of drivers licenses is done by the states, not by the federal government. However, the federal government does wield a lot of pressure in the forms of federal funds. In other words, if the federal government were to say, if any state limits drivers licenses to those over 18, we will withhold all federal highway money, it would cost the states who decide to go that way considerable amounts of federal funds, and they would have second thoughts about going their own way. Texas has no special right to secede, as was determined by the American Civil War. There is an urban legend that Texas has the right to split itself into five seperate states if it wants to, but I don't know how true that is. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets deal with the Constitution. Most countries' constitutions are entrenched in law (the UK is an exception) - ie it takes a very difficult law to change it. Eg. a law in the US requires a majority of both houses of Congress. But a constitutional amendment needs 2/3 of each house, and ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures (law making bodies). Amendments in Ireland need to be by referendum. If something is a federation, the rights of states is said to be "entrenched" in the text of the constitution.

Hmmm... I'll limit myself to the terminological issue, because you are also asking questions of material law. Again, my opinion is that words like "federation" or "confederation" actually mean very little in practice. That's true for many labels states give themselves: the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is a quasi-monarchy that is neither democratic nor do the people matter in any way, the "United States of America" covers less than half of America etc. Certainly, you can't simply say "X is a federation, so the central goverment can do A, but Y is a confederation, so the states have the right to B." It always depends on the individual constitution.

Switzerland, which you mentioned, is a case in point. It used to be a rather loose alliance of states up until 1848, and now it is a federal state very much like the US, but a bit more centralised. And it's been called a confederation all the time. These labels just don't tell us much. Sandstein 17:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start over and give the short answer to Evilbu's question.

Unitary Simple and straightforward: there is only the one central government. Local jurisdictions are merely administrative units of the central government and exist at its whim. Japan has such a system.

Federal The local divisions (states/provinces) are not mere creatures of the central government and can not be destroyed by it without their consent. However, the states do not have the right to leave against the wishes of the Central Government. The exemplar is the United States.

Confederal Similar to Federal except that the constituent states retain the right to withdraw. Canada is an example.

The balance of power between the Central and Local authorities may vary widely. Sufficient Home Rule may make a Unitary system look more Federal. Weak local government may, in practise, make a Confederation appear more Federal. B00P 18:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's at least in part a matter of degree, as Sandstein pointed out. One could also speak of this in terms of the level of subsidiarity - how much are lower levels allowed to deal with things that are specific to their level in stead of a higher one. About driving laws in the US, there is one northern state that has no speed limits. So individual states are independent in that respect. DirkvdM 09:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. Montana used to allow any "reasonable and prudent" speed on the interstate highways during the day, but a judge said that was too vague -- how were drivers supposed to know what a "reasonable and prudent" was? So it's now 75 mph.

Interestingly enough, the federal government did used to set speed limits; in the late 70s and 80s, the maximum speed on any highway was 55 mph. This was enacted by the Carter administration as an energy-saving measure and stuck around for a while for safety reasons. This demonstrates the fuzziness of federalism in the U.S. -- Mwalcoff 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"For a while"? Is the safety of the planet not enough reason anymore?

DirkvdM 06:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Canada is definitely not a confederation, it's no less a federation (and some would argue even more) than the US. It's our fault though, for introducing and maintaining this misconception, as we continue to refer to the founders of Canada as the "Fathers of Confederation". It's also got little to do with the right, or lack thereof of a constituent state/province to secede. This is also a misconception. It's true that the American Civil war seems to have established a precedent-of sorts-that state secession is forbidden, yet nowhere in the US Constitution are states formally forbidden to secede. A combination of the Civil War "precedent", along with the current Quebec separatist movement in Canada is the most obvious reason for this misconception. Believe me, if a good 20 million Californians were dead-set on separating from the US and forming the "Independent State of California", yes, the rest of the US would insist on negotiations regarding certain touchy subjects, most importantly those regarding military security, and of those, most importantly concerning nukes, nonetheless, rest assured that the US wouldn't send in the military to prevent California from seceeding.

The closest thing I can think of today as resembling a confederation would be the EU. Right now it's considered a "soft" confederation, yet it seems to be headed to becoming a "true" confederation in the near future. And who knows, perhaps one day it'll actually be a federation. Loomis 15:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The U.N. and Cultural imperialism

As a part of a Model UN conference I have to argue what the UN role if any at all should be concerning cultural imperialism. Specifically in regards to ALgeria. My question is what has been the UN's previous actions over this particularly any past resolutions, agreements or treaties? Ihave already done quite a bit of research and come up with very little. A simple website link or resolutions or treaties would be sufficent enough. Thanks. Yorktown1776 00:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one had replied yet let me make an observation. The main purpose of the UN is to let the peoples of the world live together in peace. Cultures blending together may help in that respect, but (at least initially) there may be resentment against too strong an influence from other cultures. So helping local culture to maintain a certain status and strength may help people accept changes in other fields. Also, most cultural imperialism today comes from the US and that may lead to other countries getting the feeling they are being usurped culturally. So if they all start to revolt against that, that gives them a common 'enemy' and may cause them to unite more. Ironically. :) Just a thought. DirkvdM 09:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any evidence of 'cultural imperialism' in Algeria I sincerely doubt that it comes from the USA! France would be the more likely culprit; but even this connection is now fairly tenuous. I assume, Yorktown, that you have had a look at UN Security Council Resolutions, United Nations General Assembly Resolution and related links? I cannot imagine that you have not. Quite frankly, I have said nothing about your request up to now, because I assumed that your level of knowledge on this question is bound to be that much greater than my own. I have to say, though, that the task you have been set is by no means easy, for two reasons: first, I think it virtually impossible that the UN would be able to define, let alone act on the preceived 'dangers' of cultural imperialism; second, as I have already hinted, of all the countries in the Arab world, Algeria is probably the one that would be most resistant to outside interference, in any shape, or to any degree. I'm sorry to sound so negative; but let me wish you the very best of luck with your continuing researches. I would be pleased to know the outcome! Clio the Muse 10:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shi'a Muslim

Which Shi'a Muslims live in Bangladesh and India? Jafaris? Ismailis? or Both?

Both! --The Dark Side 04:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Shi'a

Which Arab countries have the most Shi'a population?

Just type in Shi'a into the search box and click Go. To answer your question though, the nation of Iran has the most Shi'a muslims with a 90% population adherence or 61,924,500 people. --The Dark Side 04:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Iran is not an Arab country. -- Arwel (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Iran isn't an Arab country. The only two Arab countries with a noticeable amount of Shi'a population are Iraq and Bahrain.--Menah the Great 02:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting Lebanon, which the article says has 35%. Wareh 01:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And see further Demographics of Islam (which for some reason seems to have more plausible figures than Shi'a population). Wareh 01:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pathans in Bangladesh?

Which part of Bangladesh do these Pathans live?

Clothing

What is that clothing with the curly collar that pirates wear, such as the pirate in disney's peter pan

I can't remember the film, but in this image, Captain Hook is wearing a neck cloth called a cravat. You might also be talking about a ruff. ×Meegs 08:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of historical-rewritings.

How many documented cases exist where the U.S. Government has been exposed in the censoring of materials in textbooks given to students within the U.S., and possibly donor nations. I believe that it's well known for the most part, that there are massive discrepances in the education systems, in the west. Speaking that, most of our textbooks in many urban areas (in the U.S.) for the most part have an average lifespan of, 15 years. Also, which legislation grants such priviledge to the federal government if it is indeed "sanctioned" actions? Thank you. -- Former disgruntle Los Angeles HS Student, 2004

The US government does not issue textbooks to students. Textbooks are approved by state boards. Because Texas and California have a proportionately larger number of students, and therefore a proportionately larger budget for the purchase of textbooks, those states' textbook review boards have the greatest impacgt on how textbooks are written. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, you might be interested in Lies My Teacher Told Me. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The North/South Will Rise Again

What is the origin and meaning of the statement "The North Will Rise Again" or is it "The South Will Rise Again"? I saw it on a poster once, and heard it in a song. I have a feeling it is to do with American politics? (I'm not American.)

It is, in fact, 'The South Will Rise Again', a slogan popular with the KKK and other old Confederate factions after the American Civil War of 1861-1865. Clio the Muse 11:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the original slogan is "The South Will Rise Again", though I don't think it was strictly a KKK or Neo-Confederate slogan as much as a generic anti-Reconstructionist slogan. "The North Will Rise Again" is a recent satirical twist on the former slogan. It's been used a lot recently by left-leaning writers (e.g. [1], [2]) when commenting on the Republicans' Southern strategy and the attendant marginalization of non-Southern voters. I've also heard it used in discussions of the 2006 midterms, which many have considered the Waterloo of the Southern strategy. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lyric "The North Will Rise Again" is used in the song "The NWRA" from the album Grotesque (After the Gramme) by The Fall. It's used in the UK rather than the US context. In this case I should think it is the original phrase "The South Will Rise Again" which is alluded to.

Gaza Strip and West Bank

I don't get it. Why doesn't Israel just grant independence to these two lands? Wouldn't that stop all the bloodshed? Or am I grossly oversimplifying things?

Israel wants to keep the land. Though the majority of the Israeli population is in favor of dismantling all or most of the illegal settlements, Israeli governements are always expanding them (with the full support of the US). Skarioffszky 11:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The present status of "keeping the land" doesn't necessarily indicate what "Israel wants", nor are "Israeli governements ... always expanding them". Skarioffszky, I suggest you avoid unsupported generalizations and practice responsible writing on such a volatile topic. -- Deborahjay 12:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The settlements, the bypass roads and the wall are clear evidence of the state of Israel's intentions (which do not necessarily reflect what the population wants, as I already made clear), and under every Israeli government of the last three decades the number of settlers has grown [3], [4]. Skarioffszky 12:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of editing language, I still don't agree that anything can be declared "clear evidence" of the state "wanting to keep the land" as you phrased it initially. What we can perhaps remark is that [the State of] Israel's manifest aim is the oft-quoted "Peace with Security" -- and the construction policies ensuring apartheid are means to that end -- can you agree with me on that? It's also good practice to "never say 'never' (or 'always')" -- just a tip from Journalism 101. -- Cheers, Deborahjay 13:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The state of Israel builds entire towns in the West Bank and connects them with highways. It's a little naive to think that this is done with the aim of dismantling them later on. The idea that the wall is there for "security" reasons would be more convincing if it was located along the 1967 borders. Skarioffszky 13:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Thank you for your comment on my talk page. Yes, telling someone to "practice responsible writing" and giving "a tip from Journalism 101" does sound a little condescending. I'm glad that this was not your intention.[reply]

Neither naive nor cynical: the building and eventual dismantling of settlements has plenty of precedents (Yamit in Sinai, the Summer 2005 withdrawal from Gush Katif and the Gaza environs). The scope of Jewish settlements and their connecting roads hardly approach the far more extensive and crippling societal impact and economic costs of the Occupation to both Israelis and Palestinians in the form of the IDF presence. Ending the occupation would reap tremendous benefits for both sides, but how can this be accomplished when (a) the Palestinian leadership is sworn to destroy Israel, and (b) Israel uses deadly force and oppressive policies to combat or curtail Arab attacks from within the country (Hamas) and from across its borders {Hezbollah)?? -- Deborahjay 21:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure isolated outposts like Gush Katif and Yamit can be compared to the settler towns in the West Bank. But even if they could, you're missing my point. I didn't claim that dismantling settlements is totally unprecedented or completely impossible, I only say that they are built with the aim of being permanent. Do you seriously believe that the city of Betar Illit was conceived and constructed as a temporary settlement? As for the idea that the oppressive policies against the Palestinians are there to "combat or curtail Arab attacks from within the country", I don't think it is supported by the facts. In the years before the beginning of the second intifada in 2000, there were hardly any attacks on Israel from the West Bank or Gaza. But the occupation continued and settlement construction accelerated. Skarioffszky 09:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an Israeli, I'll respond to both parts of your query:

"Why doesn't Israel just grant independence to these two lands?" -- Israel's withdrawing from its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza would necessarily mean the establishment of autonomous, sovereign government(s) there, so the question is, by whom? Hamas, the present democratically elected Palestinian leadership, has declined to set aside its principle that Israel has no right to exist and must be destroyed. Not a likely basis for Israel to grant Palestinian sovereignty, as this presents a clear danger to the state and its population.
"Wouldn't that stop all the bloodshed?" -- see previous explanation re: present Palestinian leadership.

Thanks for asking; hope that helps explain some of the basis for this terrible problem. -- Deborahjay 12:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to start would be gaza strip and palestinian territories both have some information around this conflict and also several 'see also' articles that will no doubt help further. In simple terms it is difficult to just take one set of action to resolve the issue because both sides have conflicting requirements, and as long as they do (and believe in them strongly enough to take armed action) it will remain an unstable situation. ny156uk 12:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhh...didn't Israel withdraw from Gaza about a year and a half ago? I still don't understand how a territory can be considered occupied by Israel after Israel has withdrawn. Just for any of you who've missed it, I'll repeat it just one more time: Israel has WITHDRAWN from Gaza. Yet somehow they still occupy it, despite having withdrawn from it. Given the incomprehensible logic of it all, I don't really see any sense in them withdrawing from the West Bank, since, apparently, even when Israel withdraws, it's somehow still an occupying force.

Reminds me of a funny/sad cartoon I noticed last summer during the Lebanon War: Two Jews are having a conversation. One says: "I hear they're launching rockets into Israel from South Lebanon". -"Yep, that's true", says the other. -"I also hear they're launching rockets into Israel from Gaza". -"Yep, that's true too". -"So how are things going in the West Bank?" -"All's quiet...we haven't withdawn from there yet". Loomis 01:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They withdrew, then they went back in (2006 Israel-Gaza conflict). Clarityfiend 08:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes you wonder where the people in that cartoon get their news. Israel attacked Lebanon this summer on the flimsiest of pretexts (two soldiers were kidnapped). Hezbollah's rockets were a response to that. A criminal response, but not exactly unprovoked and certainly not the result of a "withdrawal". Skarioffszky 09:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought it up... What do you think would be an appropriate response to the invasion of a country's territory, murder of three soldiers and kidnapping of two others? Ask the country harboring the terrorists (a country that refuses to talk to you or make peace with you) to pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top turn over the bad guys for trial? -- Mwalcoff 04:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it is terrible that the IDF regularly enters Lebanese territory and holds hundreds of Lebanese civilians prisoner (soon to be exchanged for the two soldiers, I expect), I do not think this gives Lebanon the right to bomb, say, the airport of Tel Aviv or the neighborhoods where IDF generals live. Same goes for Israel. It is not true, by the way, that Lebanon refuses to talk to or make peace with Israel. On several occasions, beginning with the King Fahd peace plan of 1981 [5], the Arab countries have offered to recognize Israel and make peace with it, in exchange for withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967. Israel has refused this every time. Skarioffszky 13:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me wonder where you get your news from. Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and from Gaza in 2005. Last summer, the rockets came first, then the cross border incursion came, the murder of the soldiers, and the kidnapping of the others. Then Israel responded. Where do you get the idea that the IDF "regularly" enters Lebanese territory and takes "civilians" prisoner? They withdrew from Souhern Lebanon in 2000 and hadn't gone back 'til last summer when the soldiers were kidnapped killed and the rockets began to fall. They also withdrew from Gaza in 2005, again until more rockets were launched fom there and more soldiers and civilians killed. With reactions like that to Israel's withdrawals, one would only question the sanity of withdrawing from the West Bank. Loomis 14:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Israel's almost daily violations of the Blue Line since 2000, see the relevant Unifil reports here: [6] (excerpts here: [7]). For details on Lebanese prisoners in Israel see, for example: [8]. I'm surprised you don't know about them, because from the first day of the war this summer Nasrallah offered a prisoner swap. For a more realistic version of the border incident that was the pretext of the war, see [9]. Skarioffszky 18:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you answered my question as to where you get your news from! Just curious, how old are you? You know, just because something's on the internet, doesn't mean it's true! :--) Loomis 19:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect a substantial reply from you, but even so, this clumsy sarcasm is somewhat disappointing. Skarioffszky 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It was clumsy. It's also true though that the Mossad plotted the 9/11 attacks. Here. I've got proof: [10]. It's on the internet so it must be true, no? Loomis 00:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See False analogy. Skarioffszky 10:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question, Skarioffszky. I asked what Israel should have done in response to the invasion of its territory and murder and kidnapping of its soldiers. You say that (and, I suppose, Hezbollah's dozens of previous terrorist acts, such as the 1994 terrorist attack in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people) does not justify widespread airstrikes. Yet the refusal of the Lebanese government to take action against Hezbollah, or even to speak with Israel, makes the traditional methods of dealing with cross-border criminal activity impossible. So what should Israel have done? -- Mwalcoff 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They should have done what they have done before, are doing right now in Gaza [11], and will certainly do with Hezbollah soon: organize a prisoner trade. It's not just Hezbollah and Hamas that are holding hostages. Skarioffszky 10:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Lebanese prisoners in Israel, the only Lebanese people confirmed to be in Israeli jails are two murderers and a spy, all of whom were convicted in courts. Israel has no Lebanese "hostages" to exchange for those taken by Hezbollah. -- Mwalcoff 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

detecting precious gems

how can you tell if a quartz crystal is a diamond?

Quartz and diamonds are not the same. They have different chemical components. Do you perhaps mean, "How can I tell if a clear or nearly clear stone is a diamond?" If you have a stone that you think may be a diamond, you can take it to any jeweler and they can determine what it is for you. Dismas|^(talk) 14:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every material has a different refraction index. You can take a look at the table at List of indices of refraction and know exactly what material you have on your hand. Mr.K. 17:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Quartz is approximately as hard as glass, while diamond is much harder. If the mineral you have can easily scratch anything around you, then it is a diamond. You may also want to consult the price tag on the bottom of the specimen. If there's a lot of zeros there, it's probably a diamond... Oh, and check out herkimer diamond just for more confusion. Matt Deres 03:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

probate

what exactly is the process and what are my rights?

The details of probate absolutely depend upon where it occurs. -THB 14:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pelez, fernand (1843-1914)

i am trying to find out any information about this painter. the net give references to him and his work but little info. here is the article i submitted mainly to trty to learn more. any information, referral to sources, or where i can get a print of his le saltimbanques would be appreciated here is a copy of the article ( i mispelled his name and am trying to find how to change that):

pelez, fernand 1843-1913. painter, much social realism. very little information available on net. painted "a mouthfull of bread"; a trypich-(or, a four part piece?)"grimaces et miseres. Les Saltimbanques" 1888, now in the Petit Palais, Paris. see les saltimbanques at http://www.arthist.umn.edu/classes/ah3012/ ( the little boy is crying, the older girl is bored out of her mind, and the middle girl is saying-i just cant believe this!) another source gives:Fernand Pelez de Cordova (b.1820-d.1899). some say he was french, some spanish.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelez%2C_fernando" thank you doug Mkpdp 18:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi i need help

im gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.187.81 (talk • contribs)

Start with the article on Gay and then come back with any specific questions. And please sign your posts using four tildes. -THB 20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like 70.156.187.81 is a troll. --The Dark Side 03:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever would give you that idea? Shhh, now he knows it. -THB 06:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a gay troll somehow connotes images @_@ 惑乱分からん 07:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this guy needs to be more concerned about his understanding of the basic rules of English grammar, and less about his alleged sexuality. Clio the Muse 10:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does it feel like have u revealed ur sexual orientation to ur family? Whats ur educational background? Do u feel attracted to a specific sect of youth irrespective of the community like the Asians , Africans ... or only the whites... How do you develop these feelings?? 18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)~

Notice how THB said to use four tildes. --The Dark Side 21:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with what? To get you out of being gay or to help you with a particular homosexual activity? I'm being friendly here. Moonwalkerwiz 01:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]