Humanities desk
< December 7	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 8

Tennessee Williams Cause of Death

In a lot of sources, it says that Tennessee Williams choked to death on a bottle cap (an extremely depressing way to die), but I've also read that he died of acute seconal intolerance here:

These links/sources suggest that the bottle cap story was invented in order to avoid negative media coverage and that the coroner, Elliot Gross, quietly corrected his report six months afterwards. Heck, even this Wikipedia article--Secobarbital--supports the seconal intolerance claim. My question is, how did Tennessee Williams actually die? Futurist110 (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digging a little deeper, the book Unnatural Death by Michael Baden is cited as a source in that last blog link of mine. I checked this book and it appears to be pretty reliable. Also, Elliot Gross (if this is the person of the same name) was accused of incompetency several times (http://truthinjustice.org/gross.htm, http://articles.philly.com/2004-08-27/news/25391453_1_murder-charge-ellen-andros-medical-examiner-s-office, http://www.phillymag.com/articles/who-killed-ellen-andros/, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/30/nyregion/koch-dismisses-gross-faulting-his-leadership.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm, http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I93_0205.htm). Therefore, Gross lying about Tennessee Williams's death might not have been entirely implausible. Futurist110 (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Myers's credentials look legit (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/24/nyregion/a-prolific-playwright-finds-name-dropping-pays.html). I wonder if the revised report for Tennessee Williams's death (if it ever existed) can be found somewhere. That should resolve this whole dispute. Futurist110 (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli election 2009 map

Is there a map that shows the map in which areas did Shas and Meretz gain the most votes from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These links might help:

I seriously hope that these links will help you. Futurist110 (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recall Haaretz or JPost having a really good interactive electoral map, in which you could see very detailed results. Not sure where to find it now though. --Soman (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to Haaretz, http://www.haaretz.com/news/how-they-voted-see-israel-election-results-by-city-sector-1.269923 , but it only gives major cities it seems. --Soman (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the cities listed at the Haaretz site, Shas got highest percentage in Tiberias (19%), Meretz got its highest percentage in Tel Aviv (8%). --Soman (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shas Israel most support from cities

Which places of Israel does Shas mostly get their support from since their establishment in 1984? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sodom and Gomorrah

The biblical Sodom has given its name to an act that is commonly deemed sinful (Sodomy)... but what about Gomorrah? What was their sin? ... Gomorrahmy? Blueboar (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you commit that sex act, you get Gomorrhea. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I think George Carlin asked that same (rhetorical) question, decades ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"An even weirder move...", but the naming is the opposite way around: [1] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's actual an entry at Urban Dictionary for gomorrahmy.--108.46.98.236 (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are amusing... but the question still stands... what was Gamorrah's sin? Blueboar (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a cheap-looking over-sized turtle which flies by spinning in circles as flames shoot out of it's various holes is sin enough for me. :-) StuRat (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hardly any cities have ever lent their names to specific sins. Sodom is probably the solitary exception. The city-pair is a byword for non-specific licentiousness, dissipation, debauchery and excess, but Gomorrah alone has no particular associations. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you've never been Shanghied. StuRat (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I've been "Hi, Jack"-ed more times than I care to count. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

"Gomorra" is the name of the LGBT rights network inside the Swedish Christian Democratic Party. --Soman (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gomora's not a sin, he's a horny monster at a loss for a bit of tail. (Clip, with tail at 1:45) μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KJV Gen 18:20 says only "And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous." The Talmud and other commentaries give some more details, but none of it would be very surprising or outrageuous today. Sodom seems to have got the lion's share of the publicity because Lot (not a very nice man) lived there. Zoonoses (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, offering your daughters to the locals to rape instead of your foreign guests would not be very surprising or outrageous today? I'll stick with Gomora, thank you. μηδείς (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that Lot is the good guy in this story. The sin was at least as much that of inhospitality as deviant sexual practices, see Sodom and Gomorrah. John M Baker (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, Gomorrahites practised oral sex (specifically, fellatio) or what the book calls a "buccal coitus". The author however doesn't mention the relevant verse, perhaps it's a secondary source interpretation. According to Jeremiah 23:14, "...among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. [...] the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah". This implies that Gomorrahites were engaged in adultery and lie. Brandmeister^talk 17:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What work is Joe Haldeman referring to regarding James Tiptree, Jr. (comically wrong, zero-g onanism)?

In an introduction to his short story collection None So Blind, Joe Haldeman writes about how the oft-heard advice said to budding writers, "write what you know", is, or can be if unqualified, very poor advice indeed. But he then relates some words of caution for writers who traverse truly uncharted territory for themselves on matters that others do know, and how it can trip them up. He then relates some anecdotes where this occurred in print, flagging a passage by James Tiptree, Jr. (a female writer who used a male nom de plume), wherein she attempts to describe male masturbation in zero-g and truly but unintentionally gives herself away as decidedly not a man by the tragically wrong imagined details. He does not, though, state where this passage appears or give any hints to narrow the search such as whether it was a short story, novel, when in her career, nothing. I am very familiar with both these writers and wanted to find out where this passage appears and want to read it. I tried a Google search without luck, so I thought someone here might know or have better Google-fu.--108.46.98.236 (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"tragically" wrong? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only "tragic" if it negatively impacted future book sales. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you don't have the name of the short story itself? Recent works of fiction aren't going to be available for search at google books. Here's a searchable collection of Tiptree at Amazon. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember John Varley getting orgasm in zero G wrong in Titan. I've read every word by James Tiptree Jr and cannot remember this incident at all. Could someone have mixed up onanism and orgasm? Hotclaws (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Scientists and Ayn Rand

It seems that Ayn Rand has quite a following amongst American computer scientists, and much less so amongst physical scientists, mathematicians, and foreigners. Why would that be so? 67.255.120.20 (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for that observation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quora, Hacker News, that sort of websites. Is it a vocal minority that is posting there, and I am not seeing a real cross-section of the profession, or is the phenomenon real? 67.255.120.20 (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem representative to me. However, had you said she has a following among economists, no one would be discussing your assumption. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They should: Rand's not popular among economists in my experience as an (Australian) economist. I think that finance-types are more likely to be sympathetic to her, but economists tend to be most interested in the work of other economists in my experience. Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, would they end up with programs expected to write themselves, with nobody helping out ? StuRat (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Many CS people seem quite liberal to me, what with Free Software Foundation, and all. StuRat (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I double majored as an undergrad in philosophy because of my interest in Rand, my other major was in Bio, and my post graduate studies have been in languages/linguistics. Most other Randians I have met have been artists (Michael Newberry is notable, see here) writers and scientists of all sorts, as well as historians (Chris Sciabarra) and so forth, as well as professional Randians who are mostly academics and none of them computer scientists. The only professional computer scientist I know who's seriously into Rand is Joseph Rowlands who runs rebirthofreason.com and he is hardly notable, although I do know other programmers and day trader types, as well as webmasters who consider themselves Randians. The question seenm stereotypical and ill-informed, but hardly insulting. PS, it should be on the miscellaneous, or, better, the Humanities desk. Scientists may reasonably have no idea who Rand is. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remington Rand they might know or have-known. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rand claimed at parties to have borrowed her name from her Remington-Rand writer, but it has been proven she used the name in Cyrillic in Russia before Remington-Rand was incorporated and went into production. The issue is quite interesting to her biographers. See the works of jennifer Burns and Anne C. Heller (neither of whom are Randians) and comments at such sites as objectivistliving.com which are frequented by Rand's former associates. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so she lied. But everything else she said is true, right? Oh, except for the part about there being no such thing as God. But everything else... ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a question for me, Bugs, or are you suffering a fit? μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. It's a comment on Christians who embrace that atheist's world view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this whole question and answer are ill-informed speculation, I'll dive in. Since computer geeks tend to be both relatively intelligent and towards the autistic end of the spectrum, it's not a great surprise that they would be attracted to a "philosophy" which amounts to not working together, and not taking account of the needs of the less fortunate. Henry ^Flower 07:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither a (politico-economic) libertarian, a Randian (Objectivist) nor a computer scientist, but I don't find it that odd that many computer specialists might be drawn to libertarianism (Jimbo Wales, founder or co-founder of Wikipedia being a notable example). However, from the little I know of Ayn Rand's philosophy, I would find it a bit surprising that her variant (whether heresy or improvement) of libertarian ideas would have that much appeal to computer scientists. But that's all unsourced personal observation and speculation, and so it's unverifiable (or disprovable) WP:Original Research. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Jargon File, the main tome of libertarian scripture among the computer-savvy is not so much Atlas Shrugged as it is The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Gabbe (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the obvious part of the question... Ayn Rand spent most of her life in the US, was heavily involved with various US political organisations, and it sounds as though her novels were mostly set in the US and aimed at an American audience. Of course, her books were written in English, too. So it should hardly be surprising if she has a greater following among Americans than people of other nationalities. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did any Japanese historic sources describe or comment on Minamoto no Yoshitsune's tactics in the Battle of Dan-no-ura?

I have been confused by previous queries about this issue, since they yielded no answer at all or contrary answers. In the Chinese wikipedia article which I am working on there are such descriptions "...At that moment Yoshitsune ordered his forces to aim and shoot arrows at the helmsmen and boatmen of the Taira clan, thus immobilizing their fleets. Though, this tactic was considered contrary to some unwritten conventions of battle at that time." I am not sure either if this act of attacking the helmsman and boatmen existed, or if this tactic was criticized for violating conventions of battle (at that time, but not the criticism from modern views),since both items have not been cited. I really need help from experts of this field to resolve my confusion. Thanks!--Inspector (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of the tactic of shooting sailors is in Fighting Ships of the Far East (2): Japan and Korea AD 612-1639 By Stephen Turnbull (p.42); "The Minamato archers first concentrated their fire on the rowers and helmsmen, so that the Taira ships were soon out of control...". Stephen Turnbull (historian) is a prolific writer on Japanese medieval military history. Alansplodge (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also in The Samurai: A Military History (p.72) also by Turnbull. Sadly, any notes aren't viewable on Google Books Alansplodge (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that the primary source for accounts of the battle would be the epic Heike Monogatari, a translation of which is here. The account of the Battle of Dan-no-ura is in chapters VIII to XI. However, it doesn't seem to mention the specific incident that you describe, so it must come from another source, unless I've missed something. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for givine an example of source. However, as I had done before, I am quite baffled by the sources derived later on, unless they give clear references. I guess limiting the range to first-hand sources(For example Azuma Kagami) just after that period would help me more. In Heike Monogatari there is, actually something similar to what is discussed about the tactics:"Meanwhile the Genji warriors sprang from one Heike vessel to the other, shooting and cutting down the sailors and helms- [p. 250]men, so that they flung themselves in panic to the bottom of the ships unable to navigate them any longer." Though, the Heike Monogatari does not give any criticism, and the sailors and helmsmen were slew by melee fight, not by arrow barrage.

Plus:I have also read the Chinese translation of Heike Monogatari but there seemed to be a number of discrepancies, possibly due to translating error, ambiguity in original text, or they are based on different versions.

In the Japanese Wikipedia article it seemed to say those criticism about violating conventions of battle emerged recently, but the translation is getting me mad. Perhaps I should get it done myself.--Inspector (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can follow the logic of contemporary (ie medieval Japanese) criticism, as there were quite formal rules to combat before the Mongol invasions. Samuri would seek out a worthy opponent and announce their name and pedigree before trying to chop each other into pieces. Archery was a skill for warriors only, rather than the trained peasants used in Europe; arrows were carefully decorated and inscribed with their owners' names. At one poimt in the Heike Monogatari, a Taira warrior is admonished by a comrade; "Why add to your sins by slaying so many men of little repute? Can you find no famous adversary?" (p.254 of the linked translation). So I suspect that killing lowly sailors would be beneath the dignity of a proud Samurai. But I'm not really an expert; perhaps someone else can comment? Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I don't prefer unreferenced or poorly referenced original research, no matter how "logical" it seemed to be.--Inspector (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

325 BC

Hello,

in 325 BC, what area did the Maya city states El Mirador and Kaminaljuyu control?

Were the islands of the Red Sea part of a nation?

What was the Danywhadi kingdom?

Was the island Hainan Dao part of a nation?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Red Sea islands, assuming you mean the big ones in the south, this map suggests the principal candidates, especially Kingdom of Aksum and Himyarite Kingdom - unfortunately, none of these articles seem to specify the status of the islands. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Danywhadi kingdom, see Dhanyawadi and History of Rakhine. Another useful search term might be "Dannavati Period". 184.147.123.169 (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(You may also like to look at the "Map of the world in 323 BC" on the 4th century BC article. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC) )[reply]

Note, though, that map is inaccurate in its presentation of what is now the eastern United States as a territory of hunters and gatherers. In fact, the peoples of that region were practicing agriculture. See Eastern Agricultural Complex. As for your last unanswered question, about Hainan, first of all, there were no nation-states at that time. There were states, but Hainan was not part of a state in 325 BC. It was inhabited by the ancestors of the Li people, who probably consisted of a number of tribes in different parts of the island, each with its own political structure, but not really a state. Marco polo (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olmecs and the Maya were also not contemporaneous with each other... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers.

Did the Adenas have a ruler? And the Chorrera, Pukara and Paracas? And the Valley of Mexico and the Yue? / Were they states?

And in 325 BC, was Crete independent / an own state?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here for the Crete question. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese districts and constituencies in 1968

Hi,

I started working on articles on the different constituencies in the Lebanese general election, 1968. However, I'm confronted with some inconsistency in the sources regarding the constituencies and current districts. In creating Template:Lebanese general election, 1968 I notice here districts named 'Tripoli (city)' and 'Tripoli (district)'. In this reference there is a Tripoli City constituency and an Al-Diniyah district constituency. Neither of the references mention the current Miniyeh-Danniyeh District. Were the district boundaries different in 1968?

Also, regarding the constituencies in the south, the first reference is not consequent. On page 637 it separates Matn and Baabda constituencies, but on page 640 it mentions a 'North Matn' and a 'Baabda-South Matn' constituency. Which is correct? --Soman (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would an invasion of America be impossible considering the heavily armed American people?

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion by who? The Belgians? The Chinese? Aliens from Alpha Centauri? You seem to be asking us to speculate about a vague hypothetical event - and this is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not a forum, I mean by an Army of any country. Keeeith (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is America's geographical location, large size, substantial standing military, nuclear arsenal and strategic geopolitical alliances that make America effectively impregnable to conventional invasion - not the needlessly heavy armament of its citizenry. As most gun owners do not also own flak jackets, kevlar helmets, field artillery, spotter aircraft, and other things that would be useful to a genuine army, it's unlikely they alone would provide sufficient deterrence to a sufficiently determined enemy. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No an invasion would not be impossible... just less likely to succeed (or, at least, to succeed quickly... With so many armed civilians, there would be a significant guerrilla resistance.) Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Canada? are there military facilities in the North? There are few people over there and any country could take it over very quickly. Keeeith (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They could rely on protection from the US military, so they are perfectly safe, too. I'm guessing you just saw Red Dawn. Sorry, but that is pure silliness, even more absurd than the original. The threat from North Korea is that they will launch a nuke at Hawaii or maybe California, not send paratroopers. (It would take hours for troop transport planes to cross the Pacific, and they would easily be shot down in that time.) StuRat (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an opinion forum question imho. "Needlessly heavy armament" is classic weasel words... can we cut off this sillyness now? Shadowjams (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is impossible. The last time our mainland was invaded by an army, other than dring the Civil War, was probably in the War of 1812. There have been numerous small-scale mainland attacks since then, such as the Japanese bombings in the northwest during WWII, and terrorist bombings including but not limited to 9/11/01. And there's always the threat of nukes. But to mount a full-scale conventional invasion would probably require staging in Canada and/or Mexico, and it's unlikely that could be done secretly. Invading from the sea would be extremely hard to do. It's not for nothing that Will Rogers said, "The best friends America's ever had are the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This question is a request for speculation and asking to confirm that armed civilians is good for America. Attacking and occupying a country, even one as poor and small as Afghanistan is a daunting task, which requires billions, million of people and dozens of countries to cooperate. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, even though there's more guns than pets in America, much of the firepower is concentrated in the hands of gun dealerships, collectors, and survivalists. Also, much of the firepower is not automatic. I can find plenty of people who own bolt or pump action rifles or shotguns, but really only a couple of people who own anything semiautomatic and no one who owns anything automatic (and I live in a red state).

I would also point out that, weaponry aside, obesity is a problem in the nation (soldiers work out a lot for a reason), and attitudes of antifederalism and greed/"self-reliance" areextremely common among many of the heavier gunowners (preventing the sort of cooperation required to halt an invasion). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that assault weapons would be more useful for a guerrilla fight. But think about all those people who can deal with a weapon. They are a step ahead of a group of people who has never shot at anything. Anyway, Iraq and Afghanistan are also anti-federalist states, and there are a lot of people willing to shoot at the invaders. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Define "assault weapon". Shadowjams (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Assault weapon. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're apparently going down this rabbit hole, a few points. First, this question could be asked as "what effect does civilian armament have on foreign invasion" or something similar, of which there is some academic and historic literature. That would make it into a much better question. So assuming the questions's something like that, consider that small (by population and size) nations can extract huge costs on the most powerful militarilies in the world (Russia and U.S.); an armed populace is certainly a disincentive... if I was invading a country and could choose between one where its civilians were armed and one where they weren't, all else being equal, I'd choose the unarmed one.

The other point, to Ian's, is yes, fully automatic weapons are, despite what you might get the idea from in the news, unheard of even in "red state" America. The licensing requirements to possess NFA banned weapons (which includes silencers, fully auto weapons, and many others) is arduous, expensive, and those weapons are almost never used in crimes, and are very very few. Semi-automatic weapons however are much more common, and you might not even recognize them, since the majority of them are wood stocked hunting-rifles or shotguns. And before you think fully automatic is necessary for defense, most of WW2 was fought with semi-automatic standard issue rifles.

IMHO, all else being equal, a civilian armed populace would make it much harder for an invasion force. However, that point alone doesn't answer the two other questions: 1) how much harder, and 2) is it worth the other cost. This question need not delve into that kinda detail... unless you want a silly full fledged gun control debate at the reference desk. Shadowjams (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, Afghanistan has a horrible geographic advantage, obesity isn't an epidemic there, and the civilians were flooded with military gear thanks to US support during the Cold War and then Soviet surplus after. The US and Afghanistan really don't compare. Also, note that I specified that most of the guns I can find are bolt-action or pump-action. As for WWII, most of the fighting was done with semi-automatic weaponry, on both sides. If one side has automatic weapons, and the other only has semiautomatic weapons, the side with the automatic weapons is at a serious advantage. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US has also a horrible geographic advantage in its own way. Occupation troops would need to be supplied somehow.

I don't see a huge obvious disadvantage of semi-automatic weapons, unless to run a shooting spree. There are other things to consider like range and precision. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Ian, this kind of underlies why this question in such a general way is so silly... the U.S. has a lot of geographic diversity, more in fact than Afghanistan I'd venture. And your personal experience, while interesting, I don't know if it's relevant. Shadowjams (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No references have been offered in response to this request for a prediction, and links to "Red Dawn" and "Assault Weapon" do not count as such. μηδείς (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want a phone interview with the Governor General of Canada, did I make it wrong?

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I mistakenly left two messages into his voice mail. Is that too much? Or will he answer back? Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should call him and ask him. --Jayron32 18:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Wait and see.

But this is an exquisitely inappropriate question for a reference desk, Keeith. What book do you imagine we could consult to get an answer for you? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove it Jack, I am tired of your all "inappropirateness". Keeeith (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop asking inappropriate questions. Show a tiny ounce of self-restraint. And please indent your responses appropriately, to make it clear who you're responding to. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate or not, we're just curious how you expected anyone here to have a better guess than you own guesswork could provide? Personally, I don't think two messages is bad. A hundred and two? That could be trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I found a valid reference. See This instructional video which should help enlighten the original question. --Jayron32 18:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent clip Jayron, I LMAO. Keeeith (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell did you ask him? Whether Canada is planning to invade the US? Or why the US has more gun crimes than Canada? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he still wants to know about military bases in the north Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fun, but probably best not to feed the trolls. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syria (moved form the Science RD)

Why is the US giving (or giving by proxy via Saudi Arabia) surface to air missiles to the Syrian rebels many of whom are terrorists and they may use these missiles against us after the war is over?--Wrk678 (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Science Reference Desk. You may get a better answer in other forums devoted to political questions. Floda 120.145.184.236 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was the same in Afganistan, this is politics. The Russians have a base in Syria which they will lose when the rebels win. This is the same cold war game played since 1945. The other thing is the Saudi dictatorship is death enemy to the iranians (close friends of syrian regim). So by giving a favour to Saudis will earn the US help in the region. --Stone (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source to that? I mean, both that the rebels are getting missiles and that the US is playing a cold war game. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the US is. The rebels are getting them from other sources, such as raiding government bases. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A source to StuRat's belief. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, our FIM-92_Stinger article has a reference stating that that particular SAM has a complicated battery that only lasts 4 or 5 years. Tarcil (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The battery lasts for 30 years actually --Wrk678 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To bad. When the US does supply weapons to such groups, they ought to self destruct in a few years, so they don't get passed on to others. StuRat (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} particularly as this contradicts the source mentioned above (although it's referring to Stingers from the 80s). Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A battery that last 30 years would be exceptional. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, the Syrian military has MiG's causing death and destruction against the rebel forces. Now, where, pray tell, did they get those MiG's? At some Russian flea market? eBay? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and mobbing

This is not the place to seek moral guidance

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is it OK to taunt a real good Buddhism? He is immune both to criticism and to praise, so calling him names, making fun of him and such stuff won't cause any damage. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to steal $20 from Bill Gates? That there is no injury to the other party does not change your desire to cause injury. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Bill Gates goes around saying take this $20, then it won't be stealing, would it? Note that I mean a real good Buddhist, not just some hippie kid who's into meditation. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good Buddhist (or Christian, or Hindu, etc) would not be bragging about his tranquility and humility, for in doing so he loses them. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to brag about humility. It's enough if we know that someone is immune to offense. Would offending him be offensive? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If Bill Gates goes around saying take this $20" only works as a comparison to a Buddhist bragging about tranquility. A Buddhist simply being Buddhist would only compare to Bill Gates continuing to be rich. Once again, even though there is no injury to them, your intention to injure remains. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a serious question, it was like asking if you can slap a Christian on both cheeks, or whether he will punch you after the first slap. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, OsmanRF34, I know that you're bored this weekend, but maybe it would be a good time to take some time off from the Reference Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next weekend, maybe. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz question...Connect

Please don't post the same question on multiple desks. This question will be answered (if at all) on the Miscellaneous desk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can anyone please tell me the connection between Tata Nano, Maruti A-Star and Honda CBR 250cc motorcycle? It's a quiz question and I'm looking what connects those three. Thanks for your help!! Linkinfloyd (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can an LLC be tax-exempt?

In the United States, if an LLC elects to be taxed as a corporation (instead of a partnership), can it be a 501(c) organization if it meets the requirements? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk has rules against legal and medical advice in order to (among other things) protect volunteers against issues arising from false advice, whether or not the person who takes the advice is the original asker of the question or a later visitor. I think the same rule really ought to apply to this question too, sorry. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster is not seeking legal advice, but is asking a factual question about US law, which is fine for us to answer. With references, of course. Tarcil (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article 501(c) organization is silent on this. However, the IRS website step-by-step guide says here that "For the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) to recognize an organization's exemption, the organization must be organized as a trust, a corporation, or an association." A company that is formed as an LLC has by definition been organized as an LLC, regardless of how it chooses to be taxed. Tarcil (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]