Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 15

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.

February 15

Computer question-answering

Is IBM's Watson, the computer system which plays Jeopardy at the championship level able to answer a complex question like: What are two failed attempts to report the installation of an unlawful homemade electric fence having possible installation or equipment defect and unknown voltage and current to the employer of someone with the responsibility for how much anesthesia is given to cancer patients during surgery? --Inning (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you represent it using a polychotomous key? 212.169.189.40 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Represent what? --Inning (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The question in question. 212.169.189.40 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what a rule is? --Inning (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how to write intelligible questions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you able to answer an intelligible question? --Inning (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You might enjoy playing here. --Inning (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"What is leg?" Watson is good at asking questions. 68.198.183.69 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A system on the Watson level should easily be able to do searches based on criteria like that. The questions that Watson is designed to handle are much trickier, since they involve wordplay. Your sentence looks complicated but it actually has a simple basic structure. Looie496 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case could Watson replace an attorney or judge and for that matter the Wikipedia Reference Desk? --Inning (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Watson can't think, it basically pattern matches words, and tries to find where they match, then outputs that as the answer. But it's not able to generate something new. The novel thing is how incredibly well it does that pattern matching - it's able to use free form text as the input. But the output is constrained to looking up information and outputting it. To use ref desk as an example, it would be unable to give the answer I just did - I got my information from watching the game and inducing how it works, watson can't do that, it can only output what it already knows. However what it would be able to do would be to give people links to relevant articles based on their question. (Not always, but frequently enough to be useful.) BTW: The number one job of Judges/Juries is figuring out who is lying. No algorithm will help you with that. If people always told the truth in court there would rarely be a reason to have a court. Something like 90% of cases go to plea bargain - that's basically what happens when you have people who tell the truth. Ariel. (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't thinking also pattern matching? But, in a very refined and abstract way? The output here in the RD could be also construed as looking up thing and outputting them, creatively, drawing from several sources, but never entirely new. Quest09 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pattern matching is an aspect of thinking. But there is more to thinking than just pattern matching. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think even Watson would have trouble with your barely intelligible questions. It would not, however, become irritated by your persistence at asking them, as several reference desk posters seem to have.

Seriously, though, the capabilities of the Watson computer system are unknown outside of IBM. Watson represents a valuable trade secret, and it's very likely that its capabilities won't be fully published until they're ready to start selling them, by which time it'll probably be very different anyway. APL (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points here... first in regard to the law being a trade secret. The point at which this becomes and issue is where the rules of court and the law become so complicated and demanding that to stay within them requires the expertise of an attorney in the same way as any other game. Here it seems is where Watson could sustain or over rule and objection. Second, Watson seems to perform the task of identifying something which requires that whatever it is be classified according to criteria even if the criteria is esoteric. There is already a classification engine that can be scaled which allows esoteric criteria to be classified for rapid identification here that can benefit from the hardware, database and language processing capability that Watson uses to arrange variables and states in an order which requires the least number of queries be made. Most rearrangements show that identification is possible with only one question although there may be hundreds of variables and states. --Inning (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC) | Soap-boxing on the nature of the Justice System.}}

This is a reference desk, not a soap-box. If you want to lecture people on how the justice system is flawed and how it should be replaced with mathematical perfection, please do so elsewhere.APL (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not soap boxing but a legitimate response to your diatribe. You need to respect it instead of trying to censor it. Otherwise two can play at this game. --Inning (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Um who said anything about the law being a trade secret? APL definitely didn't. The mention of trade secret wasn't in relation to the law being a trade secret. In other words, no it was not a legimate response to the alleged diatribe. Frankly I can't help wondering if Watson would be more capable of giving an appropriate response to what people have actually written then you since you seem to be using a 'keyword' based response system... BTW, if your message as intended to the previous question you started, well wrong section so again I suspect Watson will have less problems answering questions at the appropriate place and still, not a legitimate response since APL didn't say anything in that previous question of yours so they clearly can't have had a 'diatribe'. And considering APL is a respected contributor whereas you have been banned multiple times each time usually more or less solely in relation to current activity I don't think there is any 'game'. P.S. Continually spamming your algorithms to the reference desk isn't likely to make people think any more highly of them particularly when you alienate most people even without the spam. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Inning is on his "the law is a trade secret" kick again. Someone needs to ask Watson, "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck..." and see what it does with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The answers on Jeopardy are already known and linked to the question being asked or classified so they can be identified. While Watson is given the criteria of the answer in the question its job is to see if it can match an answer to the question. It is the fact that there is already a known answer to the criteria in the question which makes the question intelligible. However, Watson may eventually be asked to answer unintelligible questions because not all questions are classified, i.e., have a specific answer like the trivia questions on Jeopardy. This would not be necessary for case law if cases where classified and published in the form of a polychotomous key. If optimally classified then the node in the key will be minimized. --Inning (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you want the law to be literally cast in stone. It can't work that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Case law is already cast in stone. --Inning (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Until the Supreme Court reverses it. Googlemeister (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why were the Europeans successful in colonizing North America and not Sub-Saharan Africa?

Why were the europeans successful in colonizing North America and replacing the native American population whereas they couldn't do the same thing in Sub-Saharan Africa? When the early europeans arrived in Sub-Saharan Africa, they brought diseases there and they fought against the african tribes for lands and resources as just as the europeans had done the same to the native American tribes. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Basically it comes down to climate. The only part of sub-Saharan Africa that Europeans were able to colonize heavily was the southern tip -- the only part that lies outside the tropics. The diseases that Europeans brought to the tropical parts were nothing compared to the diseases they found there. Looie496 (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Two main things. The first problem was that unlike Europe, which has four seasons, sub-Saharan Africa has two- wet and dry. Europeans could grow their crops down in South Africa, which also has four seasons, but their crops failed further north. The second problem was that disease, which was a major factor in their conquering North America, turned against them. African people, unlike the Indians in North America, had some immunity to European diseases through contacts with Ethiopians and Arabs, and had some immunity to malaria (although now that Africa is urbanizing, we're finding out that their immunity isn't nearly as developed as Europeans, and their immunity to malaria is insufficient). It was mostly malaria (and some African sleeping sickness) that did the Europeans in, at least until they figured out that quinine can prevent it (quinine, by the way, is the substance that flavors tonic water; it was used as a medicine first, then as a flavoring). That being said, the Europeans most definitely did take control of sub-Saharan Africa; the Belgian Congo is known for having been a particularly brutal example of colonization. The Europeans didn't wipe out 95% of the population as they did in the Americas, but they most definitely ruled sub-Saharan Africa- as well as everywhere else in Africa, except for Liberia (which is even worse than most of the rest of the continent now) and Ethiopia- with an iron fist. If you're interested, you should try reading Jared Diamond, specifically Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it also have been the case that the far greater genetic diversity of Africans, compared to native Americans, would have given them greater resistance to diseases brought by the Europeans? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Psrt of the nuanced answer to be found in A.W. Crosby Ecological imperialism: the biological expansion of Europe, 900-1900: in a nutshell the "portmanteau kit" of animals, including horses and cattle, that created "New Europes" in places like Argentina, North America, Australia, didn't thrive in sub-Saharan Africa.--Wetman (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Africans had continued exposure to European diseases (and vice versa) for a lot longer a period than the Native Americans did. (Similarly those in Asia.) Trade and travel between the continents was continuous over the course of thousands of years, unlike with North and South America. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When Europeans came to a new continent, local diseases killed many early on, leaving a higher percentage of those who had some natural immunity to local diseases, as basically everyone was challenged with the new disease. A similar process took place among Native Americans with respect to diseases brought by Europeans. Earlier a similar sorting out had taken place with respect to plagues brought to Europe from Asia a few centuries before the European colonization of America. Edison (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that those explanations are the whole story. Europeans did colonise some parts of sub-Saharan Africa: the entire country of Sao Tome and Principe, various coastal areas of West Africa, or large areas of Kenya, for example. I wonder if it is more significant that the contrast in climate and seasons simply made much of the continent a less desirable place for Europeans to colonise, when there were alternative possibilities. Warofdreams talk 17:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sao Tome and Principe, Cape Verde, and Seychelles were totally uninhabited before Europeans got to the respective islands making those countries up. I must say, though, given that Arabs had been going down to Comoros for over a thousand years I'm surprised they didn't land on settle that's what I meant to say at least some of the islands of Seychelles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Very true. That doesn't change my point that Europeans were able to settle areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Warofdreams talk 09:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Arabs and others did occasionally land on the Seychelles. They just never settled there. Marco polo (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're missing part of the bigger picture. In the US, the 'colonials' revolted and set up an independent nation early on: their allegiance was to a nation they considered their own, and native peoples were considered an impediment to expansion to be beaten back. In sub-saharan africa, europeans saw themselves as colonists, and native peoples were viewed as a resource to be exploited, so their intent was to subdue and westernize the native populations, not drive them out and supplant them. Had Europeans chosen to drive out the native populations (in south Africa, India, the middle east, asia)they could have done so, and the native populations in those regions would be as thin as the populations of Native Americans in the US. --Ludwigs2 19:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's correct. While it's certainly true that the US has treated the aboriginal population in just about every shitty way possible, the colonization of the hemisphere was only possible because the land had already been nearly wiped clean by smallpox, measles, plague, yellow fever, hanta-virus and other maladies. Could Europe have taken over India? Sure, anything's possible, but it would be a staggering task; it's a much easier situation (both in terms of logistics and easing your conscience) if the "natives" are killed off through infection - that wasn't likely to happen in India (in fact, just the opposite). Matt Deres (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

From Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas: "The scope of the epidemics over the years was tremendous, killing millions of people—possibly in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas—and creating one of "the greatest human catastrophe in history, far exceeding even the disaster of the Black Death of medieval Europe." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's true of the east coast indian tribes, not so much of the midwest and western tribes. notwithstanding, the American indians would have recovered their population losses over time, if they hadn't been pushed out of their lands entirely by settlers. Note for instance that the caribbean islands and central and south american indian tribes (which suffered the same loses from disease - if not worse - as the north american tribes) are much more numerous the caribbean and south and central america were run much more like the African continent). --Ludwigs2 01:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that statement is about the entirety of Native population in the entire New World. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

North America was somewhat attractive to colonial settlers -- familiar weather, good soil, not too many indigenous people left around to prevent settlement. Africa was a lot different -- insufferably hot, full of jungle and relatively densely populated already. The European population of Africa, with a few exceptions (South Africa, Rhodesia, Algeria) never amounted to more than a tiny percentage of the overall population, while Europeans were able to overwhelm North America demographically quite easily. Basically, would you rather live in Virginia or the Congo? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would rather live in the Congo. Bus stop (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

...you'll enjoy "Bongo Bongo Bongo I Don't Want to Leave the Congo".--Wetman (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Bus stop (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cable Car funicular

I saw something in a picture book. It was an apartment complex in San Francisco, California, having its own funicular shaped like the city's Cable Cars. Is this true?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently so. Dalliance (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Israel's supposed possession of atomic weapons

What is the point of having atomic weapons and not admitting it? They are for deterrence, so, if you have them, others have to know. Quest09 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

See policy of deliberate ambiguity for some general discussion of the advantages of ambiguity. Israel derived two benefits from this. One was plain old deterrence — which you can get without announcing "we have a bomb." You can make it clear that everyone who you want to think you have a bomb knows this, one way or another. Or you can make it appear that you probably have a bomb — which generally speaking is probably enough in many cases. (And certainly everyone has known for the last 25 years without any doubt.) The other is that the Israeli relationship to the US appeared to rely on Israel not announcing they had nuclear weapons. The US had opposed Israel getting a bomb, but once it was a done deal, they essentially said, "if you don't announce that you have a bomb, we won't have to levy sanctions, cut off trade, etc. with you." So it's a fig leaf, of sorts, for US-Israeli relations. Now it is not clear that this policy is working anymore — everyone knows that Israel has a bomb, and everyone knows that the US has long known this. The fact of Israel having a bomb is definitely making it hard for the US to not have an obvious double standard in the Middle East with regards to nuclear weapons, which doesn't disturb (most) Americans very much, but does disturb those in the Middle East. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the US military policy "Don't ask, don't tell" regarding US soldiers whose commanders and peers suspect or know are homosexuals. Edison (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not unrelated in its basic approach — a "public secret" in exchange for some looking the other way. It is also not unrelated in the fact that there have been unintended consequences which may have undone the entire purpose for the policy. It's an evolving thing. There are some, notably Avner Cohen, who say that whatever utility the opacity policy may have had, it has long since passed, and that it would be better for Israel and the region to "own up" to its nukes in a formal way, so that they could actually be considered legitimate tools for bargaining. (Cohen also argues, I think persuasively, that Iran may be trying to achieve a similar level of "ambiguity" regarding its own nuclear program.)--Mr.98 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. 98, you can't make a generalization that something "doesn't disturb Americans very much". It may be true that it doesn't disturb the American government and that it doesn't disturb most Americans, but it certainly does disturb some Americans, including this one. Marco polo (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a "most" to clarify what I meant. I don't know the exact numbers, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also just add: there is really no ambiguity about them possessing nukes at this point. It is an "open secret" as far as it goes. There is no need to qualify discussions of it with "supposed." The Israeli government does not even deny having them; they just do not confirm that they have them. We have a tremendously good idea of when they developed nuclear weapons, why, who helped them (the French), and so on. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing the Israelis never intended to have their nuclear weapons widely known. The difference between Israel and, say, North Korea is that the Israelis never intended to use their nukes for diplomatic leverage. I think Israel's weapons are there as a last resort in case of an invasion that threatened the state's existence, at which time the country might "admit" to having the weapons and threaten to use them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons are used almost exclusively for diplomatic leverage, just as conventional weapons often are, they certainly haven't been dropped on anyone for a long time. I think a distinction should be drawn between an open secret that is well known and a secret that is only known in diplomatic circles. I'm expect the governments of states in the middle east knew something of Israel's capabilities long before Mordechai Vanunu made it public knowledge, and a vague, unspecified deterrent can be very powerful. meltBanana 00:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Double standards" are what all diplomacy in the Middle East is made of. Nothing special here. --Wetman (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Or indeed anywhere. "Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock." - Wynn Catlin (though often misattributed to Will Rogers). Matt Deres (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As one or more of the above responses have probably already said, your question itself makes me wonder why in the world you would think that anyone could possibly not know that Israel possesses a nuclear deterrent? South Africa and, um, maybe a couple of other folks helped them out with that too, btw, 98;) WikiDao ☯ 03:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

France was their primary proliferating partner, in the 1960s. The US did not help them. South Africa later became a supplier of uranium ore, but I don't count that as being nearly as significant as the French assistance, which was really the difference between them having a bomb and them not. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's our article: Nuclear weapons and Israel. That mentions France, Britain, the US, South Africa, maybe a couple of other countries -- and, of course, doesn't mention much at all about "unofficial" much less "unwilling" assistance they may have had over the course of their highly-prioritized no-holds-barred nuke-development program ...WikiDao ☯ 16:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If you go by simple presence of names in the article, you will not understand much! France is the country which basically nuclearized Israel, in order to create a regional hedge against Egypt, who was threatening France via Algeria. The US actively sought to prevent Israel getting a bomb in the early days; after it was a fait accompli, they worked out the fig leaf approach. The British shipped supporting materials, but they would not have been useful without the actual facilities support provided by France, which was extremely deliberate. The South African connection is much later. This all is documented quite clearly in a number of good books, especially those by Avner Cohen. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the book refs, will probably add them to my reading list. I'm not really disagreeing with what you are saying so much as pointing out that the full story with the full set of details about the involvement (unwilling, unknown, unacknowledged, or otherwise) of the full set of players over the course of that story is very likely to be much more extensive and interesting than is publicly known. I do not have a ref for that opinion, though, so I will instead yield the point and accept what you are saying here. (I recall you have strong views and opinions about nuclear weapons issues, and I respect that, 98:) WikiDao ☯ 01:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Israel's getting tense / Wants one in self-defence / 'The Lord's our Shepherd', says the Psalm / But just in case, we better get a bomb." --Tom Lehrer, "Who's Next?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is aimed more at "not admitting" than at "not having". It is "supposed" because no one can prove for sure that they have them. Even if they have had them in the past, it doesn't mean they still have them, right? It is also not clear that they have weapons, maybe they have only one, who knows? Quest09 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

More likely than not Israel has nukes enough to take out at least "a few" key strategic economic/infrastructure targets (heavily populated urban centers by no means not among them) and maybe even tactically disrupt the aims of any hostile/invading military force on the ground for awhile as well.

Who knows, though? Everyone assumes they've got more than enough nukes, and that's all that matters.

If they acknowledged it, they might have to deal with all the international agreements and limits and inspection hassles and all that sort of thing. There is nothing in it for them to admit they have anything at all, and every reason for them to want everyone to "know" that they have more than enough to deal with any serious military threat (in addition to the U.S.'s total-commitment military backing in case of real existential threats too, of course, but even without that (at least short term) it's not going to be at all in anyone's best interest to pose a serious military threat to the State of Israel -- for many reasons, the one of the biggest being: the nukes they don't say they don't have and we all know they do. There are probably good links for all of this but I'll have to see if I can add those in later. WikiDao ☯ 21:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If Israel has never test-fired an atomic weapon, then there is a very real basis for doubt that they actually have them. Similarly, the world did not assume that the USSR, China, India, etc "really" had atomic weapons before they detonated one and international seismographs picked up the disturbances. Bluff can be a powerful tactic. Edison (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear that they didn't test fire one, and it's certainly clear that they've at least done everything up to test firing one at full strength. Relying only on testing as the measure of being nuclear is terribly misleading, especially in the case of Israel. You can do a lot without testing if you are clever about it. I have spoken with American weapons designers about this very issue. Subcritical testing can get you pretty much all the information you need to be very confident in your bomb, especially if another nation is supplying you with actual testing data (e.g. France). Nobody acts like Israel doesn't have the bomb and couldn't use it. If it's good enough for both Iran and the CIA, it's good enough for me. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone is in prison for revealing to the world the nuclear weaponary. Twenty years, now I think? MacOfJesus (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to Mordechai Vanunu (also mentioned by someone earlier) he's not in prison at the moment although does have significant restrictions on what he can do. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I hope the peace movements have not forgotten him or the press or the west? MacOfJesus (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

23years is a long time? MacOfJesus (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

With regard to Israel testing/not testing, see Vela Incident. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's very unclear what, if anything, that was. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Give Peace a chance", takes on a new meaning! Very elagorate "Saber rattling"! MacOfJesus (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this joke

ITE is more racially diverse than RJC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.217.228 (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And, why do you believe that's a joke? Quest09 (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why it would be a joke. The only relationship between ITE and RJC that I know of is Institute of Technical Education and Raffles Institution (Junior College), two universities in Singapore. ITE is very much more racially diverse than RJC because ITE has many foreign students and RJC does not (mainly because it is a junior college). -- kainaw™ 15:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The OP does geolocate to Singapore, so you probably have it right. --Tango (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How many times did Labour take Britain to war?

The answer to this is five according to something that was said on The Daily Politics this lunhtime? However, I can only think of four instances in which this happened; Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. Can anybody confirm if the answer is five, and, if so, what the fifth was? Thanks 86.162.52.248 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Korean War under Clement Attlee? Pais (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Or the Third Cod War under Harold Wilson? "War" is a bit of an exaggeration for that kerfuffle, though. Pais (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Overall that would add up to five, but I think they were referring to the period between 1997 and 2010, which is what has me stumped because I only remember the four listed above. And we didn't really go to war with Sierra Leone, I don't think. I always thought we just sent a few peacekeeping ttoops there, but I could be wrong. I suppose it depends on what is regarded as a war and what constitutes sending troops to war. 86.162.52.248 (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Our list of wars involving Great Britain brings the total up to five by adding what it calls the Desert Fox War of 1998. Including a four-day bombing campaign in a list of wars strikes me as being a bit of a stretch, but I'm no military historian or international lawyer. --Antiquary (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sierra Leone and Afghanistan are both policing actions, not wars. Both efforts to support the "legitimate" government rather than usurp it.

ALR (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Bosnia?
Sleigh (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"District Miss'y"

Can anyone tell me what the function of this position is within a church? I saw this role on a church sign in Phoenix Arizona and looked it up on Google, it seems to be a position for women within a church, but I couldn't find any details about its history or function. --Daniel 17:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It stands for District Missionary, but I don't know what that really means. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My guess it would be a kind of local outreach program (a job traditionally given to women in a lot of Christian sects). basically, this would be someone who either organizes other women or goes out herself to visit with parishioners who are new to the area, sick, bereaved, having difficulties, or possible just haven't been to church in a while. roughly the equivalent of having a neighbor who drops buy with a casserole to welcome you to the neighborhood or help you when things are going sideways. --Ludwigs2 19:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Walsgrave triangle,Coventry.

I am trying to find out how the Walsgrave Triangle in Coventry got it's name.Internet searches have failed to come up with an answer.Thank you for your time.92.21.222.13 (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason that "It's probably named after Walsgrave-on-Sowe" is a bad answer? Marnanel (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be just a coincidence but the triangular Walsgrave Triangle Industrial Estate is err.. well.. um... triangular.--Aspro (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your smart arse answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzosdad (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would love to know what you were actually asking. Can you explain? Marnanel (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Walsgrave probably simply meant Wal's grove or a group of trees connected to someone called Wal. meltBanana 03:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The initial answers were not very kindly written. The area of Walsgrave on Sowe takes its name from the Old English wald + graf, meaning "grove in or near a forest". The River Sowe's name is pre-English and of unknown meaning. (citation: The Popular Dictionary of English Place-Names, A. D. Mills). The Walsgrave Triangle takes its name from Walsgrave (which is where it is), and its triangular shape. DuncanHill (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Duncan. It's near where I live and is now a triangular-shaped industrial estate. Very boring really. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine a place being given such a geometrically-specific name as "Triangle" unless it was actually shaped like a triangle. The Pentagon got its name for obvious reasons. The only exception to this general rule that comes to mind is the main tower at Australia Square in Sydney, which (as I revealed here recently) is circular. The catch there is that the tower is just part of the square-shaped Square complex, but everyone thinks only of the circular tower when they say "Australia Square". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Winnersh Triangle ([2]) is only triangular in the loosest possible sense - I can't imagine someone unprompted by its name giving its shape as a triangle. Warofdreams talk 12:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As with Madison Square Garden, which is round. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If you type in "Walsgrave Triangle" to Google Maps, and look at it through satellite view, you will see that the area is bounded to the North by the M6, to one side by Hinckley Road, and the third side of the triangle is the River Sowe. --TammyMoet (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find the laws governing public facilities like a city recreation center?

I would like to know which resources I should reference to get a better idea on the rules that govern my local recreation center in Texas, USA. They are recently promoting chiropractics. I figured there should be something to prevent public facilities to endorse non-science based medical treatments, otherwise things like fad diets, homeopathy, etc would find it exploiting such locations profitable. Should I be looking for rules/laws locally, state or federal level? Maybe I shouldn't bother because they are very different from public school regulations?

JimmyRuska (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Texas law, but recreation centers are usually owned and run by cities or counties, so they would be in charge of the rules regarding the use of the facility. You should probably get in touch with your member of city council, mayor or county commissioner. However, note that the city/county might be limited in its ability to choose who gets to rent space out from the facility. There may be constitutional restrictions against discriminating against points of view. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

They're offering "free screenings", with pamphlets written like an advertisement at the front desk. They make no note chiropractors are not medical doctors and there's no evidence treatment does anything. The move seems to be done by the "health and wellness coordinator". I sent an email but probably to little effect. They just thanked me for my 'opinion' and briefly claimed their good intentions. JimmyRuska (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here[3]. Gx872op (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! 75.53.45.23 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)