Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 5

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.

December 5

Duchy of Lorraine

Was the Duchy of Lorraine German or French? It was a part of the Holy Roman Empire but it seem French. Did the ducal family of Lorraine spoke German or French or both?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Lorraine has had a mixed Germanic- and Romance-speaking population since the fifth century. The main language of the southern part of the region was the Gallic version of Vulgar Latin, then a dialect of Old French, and in modern times Standard French or a related regional dialect. The main language of northern Lorraine was first Frankish and from the high Middle Ages to recent times, a Frankish dialect of German. So the duchy was both French and German culturally—German in the north and French in the south. The rulers of the duchy of Lorraine probably spoke both German and French for much of its history. Until about the 14th century, the ducal family seems to have been primarily German, though they probably learned French as well. During the 14th century, a series of French women married into the family, and the first language of their offspring was likely French rather than German. However, it would have made sense to learn German to participate in the politics of the Holy Roman Empire. By the 16th century, French had become the common language of western Europe's nobility, and it is conceivable that the dukes of Lorraine in the 16th and early 17th centuries could have spoken little or no German. However, in the last 50 or 60 years of the duchy's existence, the ruling family turned back toward Germany (including Austria) in its marriage alliances, perhaps in an effort to gain support for their effort to ward off French aggression. A series of German or Austrian consorts probably taught their sons German, though they also would have spoken French, which remained the language of the nobility. Marco polo (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of the areas along France's eastern border are like this. Unlike France's border with Spain, which is fairly well defined by a mountain range, the eastern border lacks a natural impediment to expansion. That's why most areas on either side of that border are bilingual. Consider that Flanders (Belgium) was always a mixed Dutch/French population, even down to today, Switzerland, like Lorraine, has always had a mixture of French and German, and the Duchy of Savoy was of mixed French and Italian peoples. --Jayron32 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Herzogtum Lothringen in German.
Sleigh (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The financial bailout - US

I know that this was discussed around the time of the US financial bailout in response to the housing crisis of the last few years but I'm not sure how to find what I'm looking for now.

Instead of giving all that money to the banks, why didn't the US gov't give it to the people whose houses would eventually be lost to foreclosure? Wouldn't they be able to keep their house and pay off that "bad debt" at the same time? This would also have put the money into the economy and kept the banks open as well, right?

I understand very little about economics, so there's likely something big that I'm missing. Dismas|^(talk) 01:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason the money was given to the banks rather than to the people faced with foreclosure is that people faced with foreclosure are not in a position to make the maximum campaign contribution allowed under the law. People faced with foreclosures are also not able to offer government officials lucrative positions in the financial sector after they have completed their work in the government on behalf of the financial sector. If the money had been given to people facing foreclosure, they would have done no more than make their minimum monthly mortgage payments, often yielding meager returns to the banks. Giving the money to the banks, while allowing the banks to foreclose on people's homes, allowed banks to insulate themselves from losses on those foreclosures while providing banks with money to engage in such activities as high-frequency trading, which are not possible for small-scale investors and which allowed banks and hedge funds to take the lion's share of gains in financial markets. These activities have allowed banks, particularly investment banks, to continue to deliver billions of dollars in compensation to their management, a fraction of which is passed on as a gratuity to the campaign funds of the parties and officeholders who helped make it possible. None of this would have been possible if the money had been given to homeowners. Marco polo (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The bank bailout was never intended to stop foreclosures. Rather, it was to prevent the government from having to cover people's savings when banks failed. The U.S. government insures people's bank savings at up to 250 000 USD per bank account: see Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. When banks fail, the government has to dole out a lot of money to customers. The government felt that in many cases, it would be cheaper to bail out the banks than to pay people for their savings. There's certainly legitimate disagreement about whether it truly was cheaper to bail out banks than just pay out the deposit insurance: see this article, for one take on the matter. But the bank bailout was never, ever, intended to prevent foreclosures, and so this question is really comparing two options that try to do two different things. Buddy431 (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, per Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008#Foreclosure avoidance and homeowner assistance, there was an unused provision which would have cost only $24 billion (at the time) to bail out all the underwater mortgages (at the time) by adjusting bank liabilities and assets simultaneously by statute.[1] So in fact there were provisions intended to stop foreclosures, but the Treasury did not use those provisions. As former Treasury Secretary Paulson put it, "The rescue package was not intended to be an economic ... recovery package."[2] If that isn't contradictory, I don't know what is. The reason that provision was unused is that incentive pay bonuses for bankers would have been much smaller, so the bankers opposed it. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Shhhh... Don't give the game away. I'm sure an economist will be along soon to explain how giving money to banks boosts the economy, whereas giving it to people who need it would make the sky fall in or something. Actually, the key to understanding this is to realise that money doesn't exist. We all just pretend it does. If the banks run out of imaginary money, we'll stop believing in it. Whether this would be a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to say that money doesn't exist. See Fiat currency. I know that you have a bias against everything related to economics, but at least get your facts straight before you distort them (to paraphrase Mark Twain). Buddy431 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually biased against economics, just the way it is taught. If you realise money is a social construct, it is actually easier to understand how it works. I note that you've not suggested my answer is wrong. Most orthodox economists would probably phrase it in terms of 'confidence' - I'm just being more honest. I'd note that the article you linked states that Fiat money is "money without intrinsic value", which amounts more or less to what I said anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Social constructs exist, though. 81.131.59.67 (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with 81.131) I am saying you're wrong. Money does exist. Yes, it's a social construct to a certain degree, but it does exist. The greenbacks in my pocket are not a figment of my imagination. Would you say that math doesn't exist, just because it's a set of rules made up by people? What about governments? Nations are built up by people and survive only because enough people agree that they do. Do nations not really exist as well? Something doesn't have to have any existence outside of human actions and institutions to be real or exist. Buddy431 (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They're examples of Karl Popper's world-three objects, to get needlessly poncy about it. 81.131.59.67 (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing any of that. Social constructs (like money, and nations) exist, in peoples' minds . Ultimately they must exist in the physical world, as connections in the brain or something. All I'm saying is that to understand how a social construct works, you first need to recognise it is one. Which actually matters when trying to explain why giving money to banks is better for the economy than giving it to people who need it. If there is a better explanation, it doesn't seem to be showing up here.

As for Karl Popper, I'll not respond beyond saying that if Ludwig Wittgenstein had hit him with a poker, I'd not have disapproved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You said, and I directly quote you, "money doesn't exist" (italics yours). If that's not what you really mean, then you shouldn't say it. (P.S.: I did give an explanation of why the government didn't let the banks fail: see above. The government was not trying to help people out, but rather trying to minimize its own losses. Whether they succeeded or not is debatable). Buddy431 (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what I should have said is "money doesn't exist except as connections in our brains". Which is another way of saying it only exists as long as we believe it does. Which is why the banks were given more money. To maintain the necessary connections in our brains. And yes, this helped the government minimise its losses too. When people stop believing in money, they tend to believe in governments less as well. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That's like saying carpentry doesn't exist. Money is a service, not a commodity. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

On the question of the existence of money, it is useful to specify which definition of the word money is being used.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To return to the original question: While Marco Polo's answer is one to which many people would subscribe, it is certainly not WP:NPOV. The article Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 that Ginger Conspiracy pointed to, says "Supporters of the plan argued that the market intervention called for by the plan was vital to prevent further erosion of confidence in the U.S. credit markets and that failure to act could lead to an economic depression." --ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Marco's answer is right, what many RS's say, while that quote is self-serving verbiage. The reason why money (for sure, a social construct - but so is everything else) was given to bank(sters) is that they run the US government, which has become a banana republic. Crises are used to further wealth extraction from the real economy and the overwhelming majority, to be directed to the banksters that created the crisis. Allowing banks to fail, prosecuting fraud, allowing market discipline to shrink a bloated and destructive financial sector and directing money to the real economy instead would have bolstered confidence and produced superior financial and economic results.John Z (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please try to answer the questions asked instead of turning the RD into a political forum. Regardless of whether the bailouts were justified, people have to remember that the bailouts were purported to be investments that the bailed-out institutions were supposed to pay back. Most of the TARP money has been repaid. In other cases, the government owns equity stakes in banks that it can sell to recoup its expenditures should the banks survive. Had the government just given the money away, it would never have seen it again. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Mwalcoff is correct. The government got most of its money back. However, the banks were able to pay back most of the TARP money only because they received virtually free money from the Federal Reserve System. See this article. If the Federal Reserve had given virtually interest-free loans to homeowners facing foreclosure and allowed them to pool their money in an entity empowered to use it to play the markets as the big financial players do, those homeowners could have paid back the government, too, probably with a much better return on its investment, assuming the homeowners were not allowed to deduct billions of dollars in compensation as bankers and fund managers have. Marco polo (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Accurate answers can have a political dimension and implication if one wants to see that in them. Seemingly apolitical, superficially neutral ones may hide bias. What I wrote is supported by plenty of (former) bank regulators and academics e.g. William K. Black, and the RS's they have written, and imho will be the universal academic opinion, albeit phrased with academic logorrhea, once these now current events pass into history. See e.g. TARP Martyrs: The Post Mourns Politicians Who Lost for Helping the Banks The Terrible Tale of the TARP Two Years Later or The Cost of the TARP: One More Time for analysis similar to Marco's.John Z (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I can personally recommend Inside Job (film), which was excellent and engaging. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a statistical pickle here

Take a look at this chart and then take a look at the two charts on this website. Something doesn't seem right. Different "taxes as % of GDP" values seem to exist even though the data comes from reliable sources. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems possible that one of the charts includes state and local taxes, while the other only shows federal taxes. The only way to know for sure is to check the source (a book called "Revenue Statistics" for the Wikipedia chart). Looie496 (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a bit more difficult then I thought at first to find the book's endnotes proving whether or not it means all forms of taxation at all levels.

But, in any case, your point seems exactly right to me. I hope that I can confirm it... Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the first graph's source material explicitly refers to "Total tax revenue" in its heading makes me think that it has to refer to state+local+federal taxes. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I get into a pickle like this, generally when lying media shills rant and rave on the basis of 1% fact and 99% ideological pitch, I like to go to the most reliable source I can find. In this case, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office is your friend. In tab F-2 of this excel spreadsheet [[3]], the first column is US federal government revenue as a percent of GDP from 1970 to 2009. There is one year, 2000, when revenues rose above 20% of GDP. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Are North Korean press releases written in English?

I always get a kick out of the outrageous grammar and vocabulary found in NK state media, but the quotes are always being quoted by a Western media group like the Associated Press. Is the NK actually writing these fabulously archaic threats or are they written in Korean and then translated by someone outside NK with a good sense of humor? The Masked Booby (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They are really not so different from other low end translations from Korean or Japanese into English. The syntax and morphology is radically different from the Indo-European languages including English, which presents very difficult translation problems for both languages under the best circumstances. The reason the idioms seem anachronistic is that North Korean education in English language has been based on the materials they had prior to the revolution, which were probably out of date to begin with. They have been so insular and cash-poor since then, and so heavily weighted in favor of government propaganda, that it might be risky to challenge the adequacy of instructional materials. Can you imagine what it is like to live there? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm claims to be the North Korean press agency, you can see the quality of English for yourself. I wonder if the common North Korean bothers with an education in English at all. But surely those trusted enough to write international press releases, will be able to have access to updated English material and education? It looks like they had sufficient access to Japan to get a domain name - whois isn't being helpful to figure out who the IP address of that website belongs to. Unilynx (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Re the English taught in Communist countries... About 5 years ago, I met two young Scout Leaders on an exchange visit from Siberia. Their school English phrase book had been written in the Stalin era. They author clearly had no idea of what life was like in a western country and was also trying to make a point about the supposed quality of life under capitalism. Two quotes stuck out in particular. From a section headed, "In the fishmongers shop" was the phrase "This pike is rotten; get me another one!" - he could be excused for not knowing that you can't buy pike in a British fishmonger's, but the inference was that capitalists are likely to sell rotten fish. Also "In the dairy", the phrase "This milk has been adulterated with some kind of fat!" had a similar theme. Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you're right that English shop keepers never sell anything rotten or adulterated (I've never lived in England, which is apparently a paradise populated with angels). But such phrases would certainly be useful in many other capitalist countries (think Mediterranean, Latin America, the modern post-communist countries...), and they were probably useful in communist Russia as well, so the author of the textbook should be excused for not realizing that England happens to be such an incredible exception on the world map. In other words, his fault is not that he criticized capitalist England, but that he failed to pour enough praise on it to satisfy you.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This report from the BBC mentions how English is taught at universities there:

"At the university's foreign language department I asked the students how they had managed to learn such good English.

"Thanks to the Great Leader," one young man replied, "we are allowed to watch English and American films, like The Sound of Music.""

Check out the "NK's version of the Internet" video to hear the English. I originally read the full article that this is an excerpt of, but I can't find it right now. It had an interesting bit on a botched propaganda attempt - the journalist was taken to a private home, where a large amount of food was offered by the host, an average elderly North Korean dressed in his best garb, decorations and all. It was supposed to be his 60th birthday, hence the celebration, but when asked about this the confused (and obviously unprepped) elderly gentleman told her that his 60th wasn't for another year, that he was told to dress good and that the food was brought in, and that he usually eats mainly noodles, all this before the journalist's "minders", as she calls them, managed to hush the guy up and reiterate the official story. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, don't be too hard on the North Koreans; after all, despite their vastly different educations, people on both sides of the 38th still believe in fan deaths. More seriously, as someone who's learning Japanese now I can attest to the fact that Asian languages tend to be vastly different from English, which creates serious problems. Japanese and South Korean people, who generally get a great education, have surprisingly low TOEFL scores. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Two Questions That Are Not Legal Advice

1. What laws in The State of Texas govern the tranquilization of the neighbor's dog?
2. What laws in The State of Texas govern the burial of oneself on land owned by the deceased and lawfully passed on to his or her heir(s) if that is the deceased wishes stated in his or her will?

Thanks much! schyler (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(1) There don't seem to be any such laws, but if you think you might be sued or the cops might be called, telephone an attorney first and ask for a free telephone consultation on the issue. The answer might boil down to whether police, a district attorney, or jury think that it's cruel or abusive, which would likely depend on the type, dose, manner, and effects of the drug, and whether it harms the dog directly or indirectly.

(2) "A family can bury its own dead without using a licensed funeral director. A statement of death and a death certificate are legally required. Generally, local ordinances or deed restrictions prohibit private burials within city limits. Check with the State Health Department and local zoning authorities for applicable laws."[4] Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(1) Why did you say "neighbor's dog" instead of "a dog"? Are you planning to kill your neighbor's dog without his consent? In both cases, there are certainly legal issues to be dealt with, for which you'll need a vet (they deal regularly with such issues, so he will know what to do). Quest09 (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would never ever dream of killing an animal unless I am starving. The only reason for tranquilizing "the neighbor's dog" would be for protection. Thus the subjectivity of the situation would probably weigh in favor of me if a jury must decide on this issue, as Ginger illustrates. schyler (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

These questions are so clearly asking for a legal opinion that I am surprised anyone bothered to answer. --Ludwigs2 16:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is long-established Reference Desk precedent that non-advice questions asking what the law is are perfectly acceptable. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not how you ask the question that makes it request for legal advice. It seems that the OP indeed wants to do something and needs information for that. So, for tranquilizing any dog, ask a vet, lawyer or both. Quest09 (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the dog thing: it's not possible to get a worthwhile answer for questions like this, because that's just not how law works. Legislatures mostly don't pass laws for super-specific things (e.g. "The Neighbour Dog Anaesthesia Regulation Act 2001"), so you're not going to find a law that sets out when one can and can't, and how would should, or shouldn't, do what you discuss. Something is legal, or illegal, if a court says it is, not if a law says it is, and not if a lawyer says it is. All you can ever do is make an educated guess about whether a proposed action is legal; even a lawyer is only guessing (he's just, hopefully, better educated in the subject). If you'd want to know whether a court is likely to find a proposed action unlawful, you'd typically look at case law, to see what other courts have done in similar circumstances. For matters where there's lots of traffic through the court (like drink driving, spousal abuse, or car theft) there's lots of case law (and lots of appellant judgements that build a body of jurisprudence) so a lawyer can start to have a worthwhile opinion about how a court might rule. But for weird stuff like this, it's all up in the air. There are any number of laws that a prosecutor might try to invoke - trespass, trespass-of-chattels, animal cruelty, interfering with a security system, breach of the peace, conspiracy, unlicenced practice of veterinary medicine, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, burglary, theft, interfering with a service animal, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of animal tethering regulations, breach of laws concerning doping of racing dogs, and goodness only knows what barely-enforced local regulations. There just won't be that much relevant case law, and what there is will be too different to be very instructive. And this all assumes that the prosecutor (and the jury) believes your claim as to why you're drugging your neighbour's dog. You say it's because the dog is noisy and keeps you awake, but the prosecutor claims you were neutralising it so you could break into your neighbour's home and rape him (heck, or maybe just the dog). So a lawyer just won't say to someone "oh, that's okay, just go ahead and roofie that dog". Being caught by the cops creeping around someone else's property at night with a bag of knockout drugs just isn't going to turn out well. The thing I said above about things being legal if a court says they are applies both ways - if you really felt some dog drugging was needed, a lawyer would tell you to go to court and get a court order permitting it, or telling you to get the local animal control people to do it. 87.115.181.19 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just btw: I thought that was a really good answer, 87.115. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't (a good answer). Like almost all answers to legal questions on the RD, it is merely someone who doesn't know anything pulling it out of his ass based on ignorant "common sense" half-knowledge and lawyer TV shows. "Something is legal, or illegal, if a court says it is, not if a law says it is, and not if a lawyer says it is. All you can ever do is make an educated guess about whether a proposed action is legal; even a lawyer is only guessing (he's just, hopefully, better educated in the subject). If you'd want to know whether a court is likely to find a proposed action unlawful, you'd typically look at case law, to see what other courts have done in similar circumstances." This is COMPLETELY wrong. Criminal law is almost entirely statutory, NOT common (common law is prominent in criminal PROCEDURE, not criminal LAW). Criminal law is based on statutory elements (common law sometimes clarifies the elements, but that's mostly for close cases). You would not "typically" "look at" "case law" -- you would "look at" the statutes, as (very occasionally) glossed by case law. Please, RD contributors, STOP pulling answers out of your ass whenver the question is about the law. You wouldn't do so about physics or history or math. 63.17.78.64 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, another vote for 87.115. Yes, "[c]riminal law is almost entirely statutory," but those statutes still require interpretation. Just to take one example, suppose a prosecutor attempted to charge the OP with possession of drug paraphernalia because he was caught with a dog treat stuffed with roofies. There will be some specific statute, probably a state statute, criminalizing such possession. It will most likely provide a definition of "paraphernalia", listing some specific types and including a catchall phrase ("or other similar items" or some such). But unless it's the world most detailed statute, this definition probably doesn't specifically include or exclude dog treats. At this point, everything 87.115 said is spot on. AaronRodgersAndHammertime (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Mexico question

Are es:Colonia Cuauhtémoc and es:Cuauhtémoc, D.F. the same thing? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Cuauhtémoc, D.F. is a delegación (borough), which is divided in 34 colonias. One of these is Colonia Cuauhtémoc. Trustinchaos (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Riverside CA history

In the early 1960s, near the intersection of Magnolia Ave and Jurupa Ave, there was a drive-in restaurant that "specialized" in pastrami sandwiches. Can anybody confirm whether the drive-in's name was the "King's X" or suggest another name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcotterl (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In the event that no one on the reference desk recalls Riverside in the early 60s, the Riverside Public Library has copies of telephone directories for the city going back to 1911. You could check one of these. Marco polo (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Tibetan football

By coincidence I came across the article Guangxi football team. I was quite puzzled over (see history of the article) the linking to the Tibet national football team, the notion that a PRC team in the 1970s would have played against the exiled team formed in 2001 is obviously a factual error. So the team referred to must have been another team, representing Tibetan autonomous region. Do we have any info on this team? Does it still exist? And would a match between teams of autonomous regions really be considered an 'international' game? (similar issues with Inner Mongolia football team) --Soman (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a sort-of definition on this page. Any match could be described as international if the players come from different countries; in this case the article makes clear the matches are not recognized by the main international bodies but by the 'alternative' federations covered by that article. Sussexonian (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Charles Bernard "Charlie" Rangel

What has Congressman Charles Bernard "Charlie" Rangel paid or fined for back taxes. what penalties, interest and fines were attached to Mr. Rangel? Was a lien filed upon him and his family? Has all money been paid in full to the IRS? and when? Can you obtain the audit transcript of the transactions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.212.113 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The section Charlie_Rangel#2008.E2.80.932010:_Ethics_issues_and_censure has some details regarding Mr. Rangel's tax issues. It is also heavily referenced, so if you follow the footnotes, you can find links to outside webpages which are more likely to have the details you are looking for. --Jayron32 18:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia user with expertise on ethnic groups wanted for mediation

I am mediating a case (Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-11-24/White_Argentine) where a user with expertise on ethnic groups have been requested to help out. If there is a user that can help out, please join me as mediator and help verify the claims. MikeNicho231 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that this claim for mediation has now been dismissed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Wikipedia entry for the Cleveland Division of Fire in Cleveland, Ohio

I am contacting you to request a Wikipedia entry for the Cleveland Division of Fire in Cleveland, Ohio. There is already a very thorough entry for the Cleveland Police Department, but no such entry for the Fire Division. I would very much appreciate such an entry. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.232.2 (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You can place an entry at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places asking for an article to be created. Alternately, if you have some reliable sources you can cite in an article, you can create your own article on the Division of Fire. You need to register an account first. See Wikipedia:Your first article for some more details on how to create an article. --Jayron32 20:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of the Bed Intruder crime?

I read the article but didn't see any mention of a suspect being apprehended or a conviction in the Bed Intruder crime. Is the case still open? They made a big deal about having lots of evidence! The Masked Booby (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A Chicago Sun-Times article by Mike Thomas, dated November 29, says the intruder "was never caught". --Anonymous, 01:32 UTC, December 6, 2010.