Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 30

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.

March 30

No gas day

Every so often, when the price of gasoline spikes, people here in the States will get the idea that there should be a day when none of us buy gas. And to that end, they send notices around social networks to their friends. They do this under the pretense that it will "send a message" or something to that effect. Is there any evidence that these No Gas days actually do anything? Financially or politically?

As for the financial aspect, I would think that it has zero effect since you're just offsetting which day you buy your gas on.

As for politically, again, I don't see it making a difference. It's not as if politicians are blind to the fact that gas prices have gone up.

BTW, no, we have no article on No gas day.

Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 00:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So few people actually participate, it has zero effect. Secondly, even with 100% participation it would have zero effect, since all those people who participate either fill up their tank a day early (so they don't run dry that day) or some time afterwards; in the end the same amount of gasoline will be sold. If we really want to stick it to the oil companies, we'll all go out and sell our giant, gas-guzzling SUVs, buy fuel efficient hybrids or full electrics, and start demanding better public transportation and better urban planning to make use of it. Or we won't, and instead will all continue making symbolic one-day boycotts that have no effect while oil company executives smoke giant cuban cigars rolled in 100 dollar bills and blow the smoke in our faces. --Jayron32 02:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

[This article] seems to indicate that your friendly state and federal governments are profiting almost as much, or as much, or more than the oil companies are... for their own product. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 16:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Arguably they have a negative effect on real change — see slacktivism. People get the "I am doing something" feeling for nothing, and don't pursue real change. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I sometimes wonder if oil companies aren't behind such efforts, reasoning that everyone will get out their anger against them in this ineffectual way, rather than demanding anti-gouging laws from politicians, etc. StuRat (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea of no gas day is to not use any gas, not just refrain from buying it. So for example you would use your bike instead of your car to get to work that day, which would actually save some gas. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this link will work but this effort has been showing up on my FB account for a few days now. Apparently a few of my friends are supporters of it. Anyway, the text of the soapboxing only mentions refraining from driving once in the entire description of the 'event'. For the most part it prattles on about showing the oil companies that the organizers and supporters are sick and tired, yada yada... Dismas|^(talk) 09:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been covered by Snopes, with the nice comment that 'all [schemes of this type] are reminders that "protest" schemes that don't cost the participants any inconvenience, hardship, or money remain the most popular, despite their ineffectiveness.' AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd looked but didn't find anything. Dismas|^(talk) 13:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Are there any federal agencies that'll pay off all my college bills, like the military, but for anyone who's medically disqualified from it?

I'm referring to the US military. Because I have anxiety and medications, I wouldn't get to join them.

However, are there any other federal agencies that I can join and still get college-paying benefits like the military? Please link them. Thanks. --98.190.13.3 (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. --JFK

The Peace Corps allows you to defer student loan payments, and also offers some financial assistance for graduate studies (Masters and Doctorate degrees), see [1]. AmeriCorps offers an educational stipend which can be used to pay tuition at universities following your service, see [2]. Teach For America and other related state-level programs offer tuition reimbursement for people who make a commitment to teach in a disadvantaged community for some number of years (usually 2-3). Maybe one of those can help. --Jayron32 04:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Peace Corps only selects 1/3 of their applicants. I doubt I'd stand a chance. I don't know how selective Americorps is (provide that info please?) As for teaching, based on the way education is here, I'd rather teach overseas.

Thanks for the tips. Any more? --98.190.13.3 (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you pursue a teaching career with your degree, many states offer programs to pay off your student loans. The caveat being you must spend X years teaching in that state once you complete your degree & teaching program. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Which English-speaking countries let us go to college for free?

I know the UK subsidizes it at £3100/year, but due to their budget woes, that's probably about to go.

What other countries would have English-speaking universities that will not charge tuition and fees thanks to their wonderful government? Wherever it is, I MUST go there. Thank you. --98.190.13.3 (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, you know that the education is not for free, right? The universities in question still have expenses which come out of taxes. So you still pay for it, though it is called something different (in this case a tax, rather than tuition), but in the end TANSTAAFL... --Jayron32 04:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

At least the taxes are through fuel and sales. I might get a motor scooter or take public transport, which might get me ahead in the long run. Moreover, if the VATs make us pay taxes out the nose, then at least I can find cheaper alternatives to what I'm looking for in most circumstances. You see, in this way, I'd have more control than by the tuition-based system back in America. That is all the more reason why I hope to attend an English-speaking college overseas for a lesser cost. --98.190.13.3 (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "college"? That word has diverse meanings across the world. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I presume he means "univeristy (post-secondary)" education, given that he asks, and I quote (bold mine) "English-speaking universities". --Jayron32 04:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Depending on how you define free, Australia provides it - in the sense that you effectively gain a loan from the government to be paid back once your income gets over a certain threshold via your taxes. See Tertiary education fees in Australia. You also find that HECS scholarships, where the debt is covered by the university, are available for postgraduate work in many universities. That said, true private universities, such as Bond University, also exist, and while the HECS scheme is better than full-fee paying, it isn't the same as free. - Bilby (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well then, I suppose I'll have to visit the Office of International Programs at Kansas State University and speak to them about attending a university in Australia. Which one would you recommend and why? I suppose I'll even finish my schooling there, as a matter of fact. --70.179.169.115 (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Scotland is not free but they seem to offer a good deal, plus it's (mostly) a beautiful country.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Maastricht University in the Netherlands teaches many courses in English and is currently recruiting students from the UK. You may need to be an EU resident to benefit from the very low fees. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you need worry too much about educational debts in England - you only pay them back when your income is high enough, and in any case it is completely cancelled when you reach 51 (an extremely long way off, I know). So if you have a low income over your career, you get free education. 92.15.1.33 (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well then, I suppose I'll have to visit the Office of International Programs at Kansas State University and speak to them about attending a university in the UK. Which one would you recommend and why? I suppose I'll even finish my schooling there, as a matter of fact. --70.179.169.115 (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You might keep in mind that foreigners are seldom granted the same fees as citizens. Bielle (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. As you are a US citizen apparently, the UK universities will welcome you with open arms - and your money with open accounts! Even in the good old days over 30 years ago when I did my degree for free, foreign students were charged thousands of pounds a year for the privilege of receiving a British education. The thing about student loans in the UK only applies to UK citizens. I'm not sure what the position for loans is for EU citizens, except that UK institutions have to treat them exactly as they would UK students as far as fees go. So it looks like you're out of luck and might as well bite the bullet and pay up where you are!--TammyMoet (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Then where would I get a free education, even though I was born as a US citizen?

What are the processes to become an Australian citizen then? I was informed by an old friend that to get free education in Australia, I'd need to be their citizen. I wouldn't mind having multiple citizenships. (It could look good on a resume anyway.)

Other than that, where would I get to enter college for free with the citizenship I have now? Would any English-speaking university in the world let an American citizen study for free? _{With the $14T federal deficit, quantitative easing, and out-of-control printing of money, hyperinflation is just around the corner so I had better flee before I get caught up in the fallout! According to List of countries by HDI, Australia is the English-speaking nation with the highest HDI, in a close second only to Norway. Even though we're in 4th now, I'm afraid it'll slip its position by a landslide before the decade is even half-over.} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.169.115 (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to live in Australia for 5 years minimum before you can become a citizen. --09:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Then will the free tuition also apply to permanent residents? If not, would there be a partial subsidy of some type? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Since tertiary education isn't usually free in Australia even for citizens (Tertiary education fees in Australia) the answer to your first question would be an obvious no... I suggest you get better friends, just avoid causing them to hold grudges. You should BTW be aware if you don't have a job or any qualifications or much money or a special talent and aren't married to someone who is a citizen nor are you a refugee, qualifying for residency in any other country is going to be 'tricky' to say the least. Even as a fresh graduate qualifying for residency is generally going to be difficult (unless you have one of the aforementioned advantages instead) particularly for any developed countries. Nil Einne (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Wikiversity not good enough for you? 80.58.205.34 (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Not when I'm trying to earn credits for job eligibilities. But would Wikiversity have copied-and-pasted textbooks? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

United States Military Academies have free educations, but you have to commit to serve in the military after you graduate. Corvus cornix_talk 22:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cooper Union --Nricardo (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Organic Atheism" -- or, have any atheist societies existed on a large scale in recorded history?

I'm an atheist, might as well get that out of the way. I'd also appreciate it if the axe-grinders sat this one out, as my question is purely one about history. Looking back over the 20th century, the Soviet Union, China, and Japan stand out to me as largely atheist societies. In the first, it was state-mandated and though vigorously enforced a strong religious undercurrent survived and (since the fall) has flourished in those lands. In the second, despite the government's official position, Buddhism, Daoism, and even a regulated form of Christianity have persisted. In the last, while very, very few citizens would be considered "religious", they nevertheless patronize a variety of Shinto temples, use Buddhist burial rights, and so on. Religion, it seems, has endured even in largely a-religious (or forcibly a-religious) societies, just as atheism has endured in highly religious cultures. And yet, by and large the theist humans are many, many times more numerous than the atheists. Which leads me presently to wonder if there have ever been any completely atheist cultures/societies in recorded history? This is a slippery slope to be sure, but I shall try to define it by requiring the complete absence of any supernatural beliefs whatsoever. The Masked Booby (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure — in this question, do you use "atheist" and "atheism" to mean entirely non-religious? Some forms of Buddhism are atheistic in that they reject the existence of a deity, but obviously their adherents are not non-religious. Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It would have to be a pretty austere form of Buddhism, as boddhisatvas and belief in Nirvana or reincarnation would put you in my theist basket. Not sure what all is left after that. All life is suffering, be nice, and meditate? The Masked Booby (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I expected that you meant, but I wanted to make sure. If I understand rightly, atheistic Buddhists reject the concept of God or the gods, apparently thinking that their religious activities are related to non-divine supernatural activities. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, probably there were "pre-theistic" societies in, say, early human cultures, that is societies where the concept of God or the Supernatural wasn't yet formed; these would be fully atheistic cultures. The formation of religion is one of those things that requires significant leisure time. When human society spent most of its time hunting buffalo and running from bears, there likely wasn't much time to ponder the hereafter. It would have been very early in human society, though, as there are clear indications that even neanderthals had as belief in an after life, given their burial practices. --Jayron32 05:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Burial practices would seem to disqualify most if not all, as you mentioned. The Masked Booby (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there must have been some point in human society where they didn't bury their dead; i.e. dead people were just left where they lied, or perhaps there was some non-religious purely pragmatic burial methods, i.e. no one likes to hang around a stinky, rotten corpse. Those societies would have been purely pretheistic. --Jayron32 14:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I presume by culture/society you really mean "region" or "ethnic group", otherwise I could (annoyingly) say "sure, the Leeds Atheist Society is a society of atheists". I'd like to mention Inuit mythology - technically they are/were atheist, that is, not theist - but you appear to have ruled them out by barring all supernatural beliefs. Bah. 213.122.38.107 (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Your presumption is correct. I'll read up on Inuit Mythology, thank you. The Masked Booby (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Not directly answering your question, but have you seen Irreligion by country? The information there suggests that (depending on your definition and on the survey conducted) there may now be a majority of non-theists in countries as varied as Estonia and Vietnam. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, and perhaps what you are getting at with this question, but one of the more dubious claims I have heard atheists make is that atheism is a "default state" — that you have to be taught religion to be religious. (I say this as an atheist who has spent considerable time with other atheists.) This has always struck me as silly. Specific religious belief is obviously taught — you can't intuit transubstantiation, for example. But religiosity as a whole, and the attribution of activities to the supernatural, seem quite hardwired on some level, and take considerable training to "unwire." Left to their own devices, people seem to come up with naturalistic religions spontaneously. Various studies have shown genetic components to religiosity as well (which holds open the irony that it is an evolved trait). None of which is a normative claim, of course — it doesn't prove in the slightest that religions are true in any way, or even that we require them today any more than we require our appendix. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't getting at anything. My own observations support your statement beginning with "But religiousity..." and I was curious if I had overlooked some society somewhere sometime. The Masked Booby (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you qualify "left to their own devices"? I doubt any human left entirely alone from (just before) the time they are capable of being influenced by anyone else would survive long enough to "come up with religion". Specifically, an infant will not survive without the intervention of someone (normally a mother) who may influence the child's thinking. Or are you referring to a self-sufficient and isolated group of people, none of whom have ever been exposed to religion, "coming up with" a religion of some sort? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some rather interesting studies of people who have been raised entirely without language (e.g. completely deaf in places where there is no accommodation for that) who nonetheless, once they acquire some language, immediately know what the idea of "God" refers to — something larger than themselves, something tied up with why things work out the way they do, something that explains the unknown, etc. That's what I had in mind. I also note that, as the query points out, religion is one of those things which is something of a constant in human societies, even if the specific expression varies a huge amount. It's easy to see why that would be, of course — Levi Strauss went a long way to showing that even the most "primitive" animistic religions do a lot of social and cognitive work, and explain quite a lot from the perspective of the people inside of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That immediately devolves into a chicken-and-egg situation, Mitch. The Masked Booby (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

One belief is that after Adam and Eve sinned true worship was infiltrated by Satan. Therefore all religion is a deviation from the original. 129.120.141.200 (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Hard-wired" seems an unnecessary stretch. No need to postulate an in-built theory of gods: you could just say that gods are the most obvious explanation of various peculiar phenomena for the completely ignorant to reach for - that a shallow investigation of the world suggests gods. "What mechanism could possibly be behind this?", thinks the early human (skipping past the part where he thinks "what's a mechanism?"). "What kind of things do I know of which are capable of causing and controlling complex effects? I know - it must be - some kind of other, invisible human!" 81.131.22.209 (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What I mean by "hard wired" is, "our brains are set up so that this kind of explanation comes into it quite readily." That's all. I'm not saying we have a "religion part of the brain" or anything like that (though there are theories to that effect), or that religion was necessarily specifically selected for by evolution (it may be, as you imply, just something that comes with all of our pattern matching abilities). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK, misunderstood, beg your pardon. 81.131.22.209 (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the other responses here, but I can say conclusively that the human animal simply has religion ingrained into him. This has been my experience as previously both a non-religious and religious man, a man deeply interested in cultures and their religious expressions, and even through a sociology of religion class I took.

There may be exceptions, but humans will inevitably come to worship something - it's just in our nature. A great example is civil religion - even without a belief in a higher power, people come to exhibit decidedly religious characteristics toward an ideology. In the United States, people sing songs of allegiance and subservience while staring at a flag which represents a higher ideal (i.e., the US itself) - in a religious context, we call that worship (or, in a high church, hymns). In North Korea, they unfurl giant posters of their leader, and attribute godlike qualities to him (e.g., a supernatural birth or shooting 36 under-par on his first time ever golfing), while participating in long marches with pretty colors, etc. The allegiance to the country goes beyond a mere social cohesion for expedience's sake - there's a deep reverential quality that goes to the core of the human soul (however you define "soul", as being an illusion or actual thing).

Finally, I think you will find that atheist nations, at least in the west, are deeply unhappy, perhaps because they are shirking that god-given and/or evolution-given need to believe in a central higher power (I've yet to encounter even a polytheist religion that didn't have one guy at the top- though I could be wrong). IIRC, abortion/suicide/alcohol-abuse/etc. rates are depressingly high in Eastern Europe - List of countries by suicide rate certainly shows a rough correlation between irreligiosity and suicide, with the multicultural India as the major exception (perhaps the less concrete nature of Hinduism isn't as fulfilling as the rigidity of monotheistic or animistic religion? You'll notice I am not very politically correct in my scientific observations - I have a few more nasty scientific ideas to mete out if you should ask me). I don't think there can be any question that religion leads to someone being happier on average - whether you call it "ignorance is bliss" or "fulfilling a God-given hole in your life", it certainly exists IMHO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. For a profoundly secular view of the evolutionary roots of religion, I recommend The Naked Ape. If you want a religious view, just ask me and I'll do a bit of research, as I'm sure more exist. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion (keeping it short) is that rather than say "it's just in our nature", we can say "it's just in nature", from the point of view of a human, that is, which is slightly simpler and doesn't entail explaining why our brains should play a mean, weird trick on us. By the way I've seen The Naked Ape parodied as The Mobile Mineral. It's reductionism. 81.131.22.209 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Does the answer to the original question depend on whether you consider myth to be belief in the supernatural? Because anthropologists usually consider myth-making to be a human universal. I agree with them because it seems that trying to make sense of the world, looking for reasons and patterns, is an intrinsic part of what we are as a species. Science and religion, in that perspective, have a common origin. In pre-industrial societies, some questions can be answered through observation, e.g. "will there be a full moon tomorrow night?". And other questions call for a different kind of answer, e.g. "why does the moon have different phases?" It is only in recent centuries that we have tried to use observation and experiment to answer the second kind of question. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Judith brings up a good point. There's a difference between believing the Sun is carried across the sky on the back of a moose, and worshiping said moose. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For an intelligent (albeit misinformed) observer it's not unreasonable to deduce: the moose carries the sun; I need the sun; therefore I'd better be nice to the moose because if I annoy him he may not bring the sun back. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

" ... myth-making to be a human universal [trait]." - Perhaps that might be more accurately worded as "hypothesis-making". I think that when we make up these "reasons" for things (be it celestial mechanics or a lunar-laden moose), they are not myths at the time. They only become myths after science knows them to be false. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Population for non-municipal settlements in Australia

Reading the article about Leigh Creek, South Australia, I was surprised to see that no population total is given, and obviously the Outback Areas Community Development Trust (OACDT), which functions as its LGA, isn't very helpful due to the fact that it covers the majority of the state. I notice that the latter article provides a population figure for Leigh Creek, but the source for this section is a map that says nothing about population. Is there any way to get official census population figures for Australian communities that aren't basically identical to one LGA or a group of them? Three further bits — (1) Forgive my confusion; I'm an American, so I may be misunderstanding something completely. (2) If I understand rightly, the census is a nationwide program, so I suspect that it would do its best to operate in a similar manner in all six states, or so I'd guess simply because that's the way the American census operates. (3) The OACDT article refers to communities such as Leigh Creek as "Proposed Unincorporated Area Districts", and this is backed up by the source that I linked above. Would such communities be similar to the concept of a census-designated place in the USA? I can't find relevant information in the source document. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This probably won't help you, Nytttend, but the Outback Areas Community Development Trust has been replaced by the Outback Communities Authority, which seems to do essentially the same job. Our article ought at least to be updated.

I can confirm the Census is a nationwide data collection, and the same questions are asked everywhere on the same night. The Australian Bureau of Statistics runs the Census and has special arrangements to enable remote communities to participate. Census in Australia might answer some of your questions about how areas are classified.

The ABS is a friendly place - I used to work there and I like to think my legacy lives on :) - and they can help with any sort of enquiry about census or statistical issues generally. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wang Jian

Who is the "Wang Jian" credited with writing many of the songs in Romance of the Three Kingdoms (TV series)? Is it the Tang poet? --Quadalpha (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It can't be the Tang poet given that many of the songs credited to this Wang Jian are written in vernacular, not classical. A google search took me to this Baidu Zhidao thread, which says, amongst other bits copied and pasted from the web: 王健(1928—— )女歌词作家。北京人。天津河北师范学院音乐系肄业。1949年业于华北大学三部音乐科。长期在中国音协《歌曲》、《词刊》任编辑，为副编审。代表歌词作品有《绿叶对根的情意》、《历史的天空》、《生命的星》、《妈妈的小屋》、《小小的我》、《让世界充满爱》（合作）、《歌声与微笑》 、《我是小鼓手》等。

My rough translation: Wang Jian (born 1928), female lyricist, native of Beijing. STudied at the Hebei Normal School Faculty of Music in Tianjian, graduated in 1949 from the Music Department of the University of Northern China (III). Long term editor of the Song and Lyrics publications of the Chinese Music Association. A list of works follows, including 历史的天空 which appears in the Three Kingdoms TV series. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

General Assembly of the Organization of the Americas and Summit of the Americas

What are the differences between General Assembly and Summit of the Americas in Organization of the Americas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.104.154 (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried the article on the Organization of American States and Summit of the Americas? You should find some answers there. As a rule, though, general assemblies of multilateral organizations are standing bodies that discuss an organization's policy orientations, membership, budget and human resources at the working level (i.e., no heads of state there, only lowly minions, and perhaps ambassadors and ministers). Summits, on the other hand, are meetings of heads of state that usually discuss very, very broad issues, get a lot of media coverage, at the end of which a declaration is issued that will usually have been previously discussed and agreed-upon at the working level. Bear in mind that not all multilateral organizations hold summits (only a few do, actually), but they all have a standing body such as a general assembly. --Nicsilo (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

when do companies get new stock options?

I already asked this once but didn't get an answer. When will Apple get stock options that expire later than January of 2013? Does no one know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.29.153 (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are talking about LEAPS (long-term options). this site discussses some issues of these options. I quote the following, relevant item:

All new January expiring equity LEAPS are initially listed shortly following the expiration in either May, June, or July each year. The month that the LEAP is initially listed in is dependent upon the quarterly cycle of the option. Cycle 1 options January expiring LEAPS are listed after the expiration in May, cycle 2 after the expiration in June, and cycle 3 after the expiration in July.

Hence, by the middle of the year you will know if new Leaps have been issued for your stock. Pallida  Mors 19:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Archaeology

I know this is a very broad question but I would like to know, in general terms, the percentage of historical artifacts, structures, sites we have discovered and excavated out of the total number of artifacts, structures, sites there are estimated to be out there in the world.

More generally, is Archaeology a dwindling field where there is less and less to discover each year? Is it thought that at some point there will be nothing interesting left to find? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've often wondered about this myself, but thinking about it now, it strikes me that there are at least three variables involved in the question which are very hand-wavy and philosophical:

• How far away is the past? (Consider industrial archeology. Is the past getting less distant?)
• How much of it is interesting? (Quantify that if you can!)
• How powerful is our ability to find out about it?

Then, you want to know whether our archeological power is outstripping the amount of currently interesting stuff remaining in whatever we currently call the past. It's a very slippery sort of question. If it's any comfort, though, I was reading recently about doggerland, and it seems that there's plenty of very ancient archeology safely (?) hidden under the sea, and in such abundance that it can be picked up accidentally by fishing trawlers. 81.131.22.209 (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember that as time passes more and more potential archaeological artifacts are created. Todays dumpster is tomorrows archaeological dig, and we have never produced more objects, structures and generally made a larger cultural imprint on the landscape than now. Archaeology can be about very recent things as well, for example there is industrial archaeology (ah, I see that is already mentioned above). --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to give a useful answer in general terms. For example, for tens of thousands of years humans made flint tools, and the flakes that get chipped off in that process are easily recognized by specialists, and exist in vast quantities in quite a number of places. To get a meaningful answer, you really have to specify a period of time you are interested in, and a level of structure a site needs to have in order to interest you. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay to be more specific then let's say I'm only interested in buildings from the Roman Empire. Is there any sense of how much is still out there to find in that category? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between a site being discovered and a site having been fully archeologically excavated. For example, in Jordan, both Gadara and Petra are significant Roman-era archeological sites which can be readily visited but of which only a small percentage has been excavated. There's work for archeologists for a long long time at those two places; there are many similar sites like that throughout the Roman world. There are probably relatively few completely undiscovered Roman sites, but there are a number of places where the Romans were present where it has been very difficult to conduct any serious archeological work for decades (e.g. Algeria, Lybia, Iraq...), so you never know. --Xuxl (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Even in Rome itself new discoveries are made every time a construction project that involves digging is undertaken. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Much of the material used in Roman buildings was re-used by later builders - not necessarily in major buildings, but by later farmers and so forth in the local area. For example, material from the Roman buildings at Caerwent was used in building Chepstow Castle a few miles away and several hundred years later. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Near my wife's hometown in northern Italy, they were digging a subway line and discovered an old Roman settlement. They had to halt construction while the archaeologists came in. From what I understand, it's a fairly common occurrence and often causes delays.Jasonberger (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In the 19th century, famous "archeologists" like Heinrich Schliemann were basically treasure hunters and self promoters, of the Indiana Jones style, who would go to what they imagined was the site of some famous ancient city and hire workers to dig swiftly down through the layers built up over thousands of years looking for valuable baubles which could be exhibited in a museum. When they finished, all context was lost, and there was little left for future archeologists. Modern archeology goes to a mound which might be a historic site and carefully excavates a defined trench, or a square pit layer by layer, centimeter by centimeter, preserving exactly where each artifact was found, and doing carbon dating of charcoal. The generally do not clear the whole site (unless a superhighway is going through or a building is going up on the site). That way, future scientists with better gadgets will have something to study. Edison (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For an example of relatively recent archaeological sites, read our article on the Irishtown Bend Archeological District in the US city of Cleveland, Ohio — the district's period of significance (the time when artifacts found there are seen as archaeologically important) starts in the third quarter of the nineteenth century. Most archaeological sites in Ohio are Native American, but the people who left artifacts at this site were Irish immigrants. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute... are you telling me that Archeology isn't about sneaking into mysterious old temples, swapping the crystal skull for a bag of sand and then getting chased by giant boulders until you fall into the pit of snakes? Well, that's no fun at all! Better to be a paleontologist (at least there you get to recreate dinosaurs from their DNA). Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Double snark! (Now drilling into my piece of amber to extract dino DNA) Edison (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.sandiegoarchaeology.org/askanarchaeologist.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There are archeologists who specialise in digging-up WWII aircraft[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic use(s) of "free election"

At Talk:Free election (Polish throne) we are having a discussion about how many encyclopedic uses the term free election gets. Another editor suggested I ask about it here, hence, the question. So far there is one certain use (the current free election (Polish throne)). We are discussing whether there are any other historical, accepted usages of the term, as well as whether the term free and fair election is encyclopedic and should have an article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Why dosn't the BOE have a higher inflation target during recessions?

Why havnt the BOE/government(s) taken on board the theory of the economist Minsky (described in many places including Debunking Economics by Steve Keen, 2001, Chapter 11, pgs 253+, available to preview at Google Books), since it foresees and describes the current recession in the UK?

Minsky's theory

"Minsky argues that if the rate of inflation is high at the time of the crisis, then though the collapse of the boom causes investment to slump and economic growth to falter, rising cash flows rapidly enable the repayment of debt incurred during the boom. The economy can thus emerge from the crisis with diminished growth and high inflation, but few bankruptcies and a substained increase in liquidity. Thus though this course involves the twin 'bads' of inflation and low growth, it is a self-correcting mechanism in that a prolonged slump is is avoided..... If the rate of inflation is low at the time of crisis, then cash flows will remain inadequate relative to the debt structures in place. Firms whose interest bills exceed their cash flows will be forced to undertake extreme measures: they will have to sell assets, attempt to increase their cash flows at the expense of their competitors, or go bankrupt. In contrast to the inflationary course, all three classes of action tend to further depress the current price level, thus at least partially exacerbating the original balance.....The asset price deflation route is therefore not self-correcting but rather self-reinforcing, and is Minsky's explaination of a depression. ......A high rate of inflation during a crisis enables debts that were based on unrealistic expectations to be nonetheless validated, albeit over a longer period than planned and with far less real gain to investors. A low rate of inflation will mean that those debts cannot be met, with consequent domino effects even for investments that were not unrealistic.....This behaviour could well turn low inflation into deflation."

It will be interesting to read what the forthcoming 2011 edition has to say about current times. It would involve a political loss of face to revise the inflation target upwards, but it may have been done covertly already. Thanks 92.15.1.33 (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not really a new idea -- John Maynard Keynes said similar things decades ago. The basic reason is that regardless of all such logic, people just simply hate inflation, because it makes their money have less value. The wealthiest people, who are the most influential, hate it the most. For the same reason, people instinctively are happy about deflation, because it allows their money to buy more, even though virtually all economists agree that deflation is devastating to economic growth. Looie496 (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that surveys show that wealthy people actually have the most debt, so they ought in fact to welcome inflation as it would make the real value of the debt fall. The people who would suffer would be people whose income is mainly from bank interest on their capital, and there cannot be many of those. It is completely untrue that people like deflation - this means that the value of people's homes fall and the real value of their mortgages increases (a nasty double-whammee that wastes away people's hard-earnt lifetime savings/equity fast), and they are more likely to be made unemployed. These last three may account for the bad housing situation in the US. 92.15.1.33 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, inflation causes stocks and bonds to lose value as well (bonds more than stocks). The only assets that protect against inflation are hard ones such as land and gold -- but putting wealth into those forms entails risks as well. Looie496 (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is true that stocks lose value during inflation, since most companies borrow money to invest, and the real value of these debts would fall and therefore their equity rises. I cannot see why bonds would fall in nominal terms, perhaps you are getting mixed up with rises in interest rates. Edit: Minsky's theory itself suggests that the above would be good for stocks. 92.29.119.112 (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Normally bonds reflect the expectations regarding inflation. And there are inflation protected bonds too, which certainly do not suffer through a period of high inflation. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me respond to the previous two comments. First, the response of stocks to inflation is complex. If a stock pays a fixed dividend per share, then a rise in inflation will cause the value of the stock to fall. On the other hand, if the stock comes from a company whose profits will rise in lockstep to inflation, the stock itself ought to rise in value in lockstep to inflation, at least approximately. Second, it is true that bonds reflect expectations regarding inflation, but if those expectations change, the values of the bonds one has in one's portfolio will also change. Looie496 (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"If a stock pays a fixed dividend per share, then a rise in inflation will cause the value of the stock to fall." You mean its yield will increase? No, I do not believe that is true. Only happens if interest rates rise. Are you sure you're not mixing them up? 92.29.127.125 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Interest rates always rise when significant inflation sets in -- you're right that I was taking that for granted, but it is practically a law of nature. Who is going to loan money at 5% if the money loses 10% of its value each year? Looie496 (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, if a share gives 5% and then inflation rises, then the nominal value of the share will increase, and since the real value of the companies debts will fall, then its dividend should increase above inflation also. So investors will get both a capital gain and an increase in dividend. Investors would be overjoyed to "loan" their money. I think in developed countries, the central bank makes the decision over what the minimum lending rate will be, and if it thinks inflation is too low, then it will not increase interest rates. 92.15.8.176 (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And by the way let me point out that the US Federal Reserve has in fact set its inflation target upward a bit: to 2%. And even this has caused a huge amount of moaning and groaning by the Republicans, the party who primarily represent the wealthy. Looie496 (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Inflation in the UK is currently at double the target rate, yet the Bank of England hasn't increased interest rates (they are currently pretty much as low as they can go without being zero). That suggests to me that they do accept that high inflation is a price worth paying at the moment. --Tango (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be very much better for business confidence if they made it public, and also if they gave definate dates until which interest rates would stay the same until, instead of leaving people guessing every month. 92.29.127.125 (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how picking an arbitrary date would be better than making informed decisions based on new financial data each month. --Tango (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Try reading the previous paragraph again. 92.29.127.125 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What was the US inflation target before? Having a target nearer zero might explain why the US recession has been more severe than that in the UK. 92.29.119.112 (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the US Federal Reserve's policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee has never had an explicit inflation target, though it has considered doing so and has recently set "target ranges". However, historically the FOMC avoided even stating a target range under the grounds that secrecy was a key central bank tool for managing interest rates and the money supply. I don't think that the FOMC ever announced a lower "target range" than the current 1.5–2%, so this is not demonstrably a higher target than before. Before, there was no stated target. The FOMC merely decided whether current inflation was too high, tolerable, or (recently for the first time since the 1930s) dangerously low. Marco polo (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it has generally been believed that the implicit goal was to have inflation as low as possible while avoiding any serious risk of deflation. The buzz that the explicit policy has generated is an indication that people believe it represents a change of some sort. But I take your general point. Looie496 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternative vote encourages lunatic fringe?

In the UK we are having a referendrum to vote on switching to AV instead of the current system, but so far I've seen virtually no discussion of it and its implications in the media. I don't understand the article either.

1) Will AV make it easier for far right parties to gain a toe-hold?

2) Are Australians content with AV, or is there any wish to have something like we currently have in Britain?

3) Would having AV risk getting the kind of political instability seen in Italy?

I predict a low turn-out for the referendrum, as people do not understand it. Thanks 92.15.1.33 (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this a question, or an attempt to voice your opinion about AV? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

They are questions. I think you are well named. I don't hhave an opinion about AV, I'm simply trying to find out its implications apart from just getting a description of the mechanics of voting. 92.15.1.33 (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think these are valid questions. Have you read today's BBC articles, and some of the pages it links: those under the header "related stories" to the right of the main text area, and the links "What is the alternative vote? Q&A: alternative vote referendum, AV poll: Where parties stand" beneath the textbox just underneath? I think you may find these helpful. Regarding 1) and 3), there are definitely many opinions on those subjects on the linked pages, from people who know what they're talking about (well, politicians at least) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a bit of a coin toss at the moment; the particular issue is this: do the lunatic parties have concentrated support amongst, well, lunatics... are they something that most of us quite like but would never vote for, given 0 exlectability. My gut feeling (as a libertarian supporter but a reulcutant conservative voter) is the latter so I think there is some sense in that viewpoint... on the other hand BNP supporters are honestly no problem (EDL could be but no one can tell what they're for, apart from anti-Islam (a good aim admittedly but so is any anti-religion)) so the main lunacy is greens, who you'll have noticed already have a seat (a good justification for not giving students the vote). Or labour, which is criminally insane lunacy, if it were up to me I would have approximately half the parliamentry labour party put to death (not all of them, I like quite a few: Frank Field, Tony Benn, etc...])

So to er sum up my gibbering... it really is something we need to see what happens. Take a look at politicalbetting - a fantastic site with very clued up people. Egg Centric 21:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For me, the most important deciding factor is which system will best keep the far-right out. I'm not certain which choice will do that. The "yes" campaign to my surprise say that they will; I think I like many other people am getting confused with proportional representation. 92.15.1.33 (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For 1) No! AV is designed to find a winner that is acceptable to the majority of the voters. Chance of the far right winning a seat under AV is less than under FPTP. If you think of the situation where a sizeable minority may rank the far right first and pretty much everybody else ranks them last, then the far right would never win the seat under AV, whereas under FPTP they may just sneak in if the remaining vote is split between enough parties.

For 3) Also no. AV is not proportional representation. The Italy situation mainly arises since their version of PR gives every party with some fraction of the vote a seat, whereas most sane PR systems impose a limit of something like 5% or 7% of the overall vote polled before any seats are assigned. AV is miles from either variant. AV will do little to encourage smaller parties, but will split the seats between the larger parties more fairly. Hence less landslide victories, probably slightly higher chance of coalition governments. (Which, I consider a good thing; in general, not in the current incarnation.) 86.145.164.245 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the simple answer is to point at all the countries that have an election system similar to that. Are their economies better or worse on average than Britain's? And as to people being able to understand it, do other countries have big problems with their voting? The experiment has been done a number of times - the scientific method to answer your question says to look at the results of the experiments. Dmcq (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Where, if anywhere, can I see this info? Thanks 92.29.119.112 (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Some political scientists would say that jurisdictions with instant-runoff voting are less likely to have two-party systems than those with FPTP because of Duverger's law, which says that FPTP systems lead to two dominant parties. Duverger's law seems to apply in the U.S., where voting for a third party (such as the Greens) is often considered counterproductive because it can split the vote on your side of the ideological spectrum and help the candidate of the opposite political orientation win. However, Duverger's law seems to be dead in the UK and Canada, neither of which has a single-party majority government. On the other hand, Australia has IRV and a very stable system in its lower house. There are three parties, but the two conservative parties have worked closely together for decades. So I don't think one can say that IRV would necessarily lead to more political instability. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Slightly offtopic to the original question, but to the first half of what MWalcoff wrote, there are others who argue that under the current US system, a vote for the Greens, or other minority party, is the opposite of "counterproductive" because if the minority party gets a lot of votes, this will push the dominant Democratic Party and Republican Party toward pandering to that minority party — in this last election, Tea Party candidates did better than expected, and many Republican Party candidates may have veered a little to the right as a result. All that said, I wouldn't dispute that there's also always concern among conservatives that a Tea Partier vote helps the Democrats. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The bit about the "political instability in Italy" needs comment. The postwar Italian political situation was if anything excessively stable until the early nineties. Many so-called "changes in government" would have been called "cabinet reshuffles" in the UK; even those that were not rarely changed the basic makeup of the ruling coalition, though the balance of power within it shifted a bit I suppose. A lot of column inches were generated in newspapers; policy stayed the same, and the two dominant parties, the Christian Democrats and the Socialists, were usually in government, generally with some combination of the Liberals, the Republicans, and the Democratic Socialists — those five made up the so-called Pentapartito, the five-party. (There's a phrase, cambiare di tutto perche' tutto resti com'e`, changing everything so that everything will stay the same.)

The first serious change was likely brought on by the Tangentopoli scandal. The ruling parties, under no real threat of losing office, had become corrupt, and it all came crashing down. The dominant parties shattered and reformed into other coalitions; even the Communists changed their name and moderated their approach. The novel political entities of the Lega Nord, and the various parties headed by Silvio Berlusconi, gained at the expense of the old order.

That event was a genuine change. If that happened all the time, you could say Italy is unstable. But of course it doesn't. Berlusconi has been in power for five years; before that there was a center-left coalition for maybe a couple of years(?), don't remember exactly. Now Berlusconi is likely on his way out. This is normal alternation, something that was sorely missing in the supposedly "unstable" postwar period. --Trovatore (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Answering the "are Australians content", speaking as an Aussie, I say yes. You don't often see surprising results due to AV - left wing votes go to the left and get sorted eventually into the leftish major party; right wing votes go to right wing parties and sort down to the major right wing party. But it does mean people are more willing to take a risk on voting on a minor party where they wouldn't dare in first past the post. An example where I think this made a difference is the seat of Melbourne in the 2010 Australian federal election. I believe that in a first past the post system the seat would have gone to Labor. --203.202.43.54 (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If we already have AV for the election of MEPs, does that explain why there are one or two far-right British MEPs (as far as I recall) or is that due to some other reason? Like most people, I'm unaware of what goes on with British MEPs in the European parliament - it never gets reported in the UK as the British parliament does. Thanks 92.29.119.112 (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, elections of the UK's MEPs is not by AV, but by the D'Hondt method (which is also used, in part, in the elections for the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament). D'Hondt is fully "proportional", AV is just kinda proportional. It's difficult to really predict how real voters will respond to a different voting system, and I don't think one can extrapolate too much from how other countries with the same voting system fare. Compare, for example, the votes in the NW England euro-constituency with those in the Scotland euro constituency. In the 2009 election the BNP got 8% of the vote in NW England and 2.5% in Scotland; UKIP got 16% in NW England and 5% in Scotland. So on the same day, with the same voting system, two adjacent and socio-economically similar constituencies voted in vastly different ways. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As Finlay says, the election method used for MEP's is very different to AV and it will tend to result in small parties getting a few seats. The other reason the election of MEPs gets a very different result to the election of MPs is the policy areas being vote based on. A lot of people vote based on their opinion of Europe (despite the fact that Westminster will decide whether the UK stays in the EU, not Brussels, so voting for UKIP in European elections is pointless - their main policy is something they can't possibly implement from there). There is a lot of Eurosceptic feeling in the UK, but generally people have higher priorities that they based their UK votes on, but not their European votes. --Tango (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's easy to predict how real voters will react. 90% (surely that includes the real ones) will gain their education(?) about it from the tabloid media. They will have no idea how it really works. They will vote in exactly the same way as before. HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Australia uses a preferential system (i.e. similar to AV) for the lower house and a proportional representation system for the upper house (each state forming one electorate). The result is that the lower house is usually almost entirely made up of the two major parties (counting the conservative coalition as one party), while the upper house often sees a larger contingent of third (or fourth) party members, even extremist ones on occasion. While this only tangentially answers the original question, I think it illustrates that a preferential system does not tend to elect extremists and still relatively speaking favours the mainstream parties, whereas a proportional representation system is more likely to elect extremists.

On (2), I believe the orthodox and mainstream view in Australia, certainly the impression I got from civics-equivalent class at school, is that FPTP is a crude method that is does not best reflect the preferences of the voters. I have never encountered any instance of anyone arguing that either the preferential or proportional system be abandoned in favour of FPTP. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What would happen in the following scenario please? Say there were only three candidates: Tory, Labour, Greens or some other small party. Say my first choice under AV is for the Green Party candidate, but my second choice was for Labour. In what circumstances would my first-choice vote for the Green Party be a wasted vote? Is there still any point in tactical voting with AV as there is with FPTP (when you realise your minority-party favourite is never going to get elected, so you vote for your second favourite instead). Thanks 92.15.8.176 (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In your scenario I could see no reason why you'd want to vote other than 1.Green,2.Labour. However there are scenarios where tactical voting under AV is possible: Assume you are a Tory voter and the first preferences are 40% Tory, 30%Lab, 25% LD. Assume that all LD voters have second preference Lab. whereas the second preference of Lab is split 50/50 between LD and Tory. Under AV Lab would win (LD eliminated first, votes transferred to Lab who then win). However *if* 6% of Torys tactically vote LD, then Lab is eliminated first, votes transferred 50/50 to Tory/LD and Tory will win. Counterintuitive and difficult to pull off: if too many Torys switch then LD will win outright. So for all practical purposes tactical voting is so difficult under AV, that one can safely assume it doesn't happen. 81.159.121.108 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In Australia, parties receive government funding for campaigning, based on primary votes gained at the previous election. That gives a clear reason to put your preferred party first, even if they have no chance of winning. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

When bills are considered together

In Australian parliament when two closely related bills are introduced, members can speak to either bill during the (second reading?) debate. What is this called? 124.149.24.20 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A cognate debate. Closest we have is Cognate (disambiguation). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I knew it started with 'c'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.24.20 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just removed the "cognate debate"/"bills" entry from Cognate (disambiguation) because it violates WP:DDD. No article links to the redlink cognate debate. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)