Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 April 20

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

April 20

An Unpopular or Discontinued Manga

I was browsing a bookstore one day, and there was a sale rack full of books. The manager said the books hadn't sold well, or were being discontinued, like "Space: Above and Beyond", but that's a different story. So I picked up this one manga, there was this blonde chick on the front with really big breasts, some sort of pistol things, and it was EXTREMELY graphic on the mature level. It was really sexual and violent. I can't recall the name, and I can't find it anywhere. I'm not sure if it was discontinued, it wasn't popular, or I'm not very good at searching the internet for books. It has to be one of those things. Has anyone ever heard of anything like it? <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well there's a whole pornographic genre called Hentai, which has lots of particular sub-genres. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And try a Google Image Search, rather than a regular Google, since you don't know what the name is, but seem to remember what it looked like pretty well.--Levalley (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Err, search for what? Pornographic manga? That's going to turn up a LOT of unrelated hits... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There's probably hundreds of mangas that fits that description. Seinen manga lists a few popular ones. If you have a lot of time on your hands, you may also want to sift through these. decltype (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Grenadier comes to mind, but I doubt it's it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Paladium manufacturing companies

Can anyone tell me of any companies that are major paladium refiners/manufacturers? The reason I ask is simple. Given the reports about the nuclear effect, if you believe them, then those companies may become very good investment vehicles indeed. I am not asking for any investment advice. My risk is my own.—70.19.64.161 (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

According to our article Palladium, the world's largest producer of the element is MMC Norilsk Nickel, a Russian company. They're also large producers of gold and nickel. For more exposure specific to Palladium, you might invest in the Canadian company North American Palladium (AmEX ticker: PAL; Toronto: PDL). Their website says they produce 4% of the world's supply.

You also might consider buying Palladium futures options or bullion. I highly recommend talking to a financial adviser before making any of these investments, especially if you have never invested in commodities before. —D. Monack ^talk 07:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If by 'nuclear effect' you mean this Cold fusion I suggest you read the article first. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - definitely don't bet the farm on anything relating to cold fusion - even the very few remaining serious scientists who think it might be real will generally agree that we're not expecting it to deliver useful amounts of power generation. If you're looking for something like that - check out Lithium mining in Bolivia. It's looking promising because Lithium is relatively rare and it's an important ingredient in modern battery technologies (think: Electric and Hybrid cars) and something like 50% of the world reserves are in one spot...and almost all of the remaining 50% are in hard-to-extract places like a few parts per million of ocean water. The Bolivian government have just begun to realise what the mud at the bottom of this particular lake is worth and are negotiating contracts to exploit the stuff. SteveBaker (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at our article on Palladium - it seems that it might have a valuable future if hydrogen fuel cells take off. It's not clear how much palladium a fuel cell needs though. The stuff is already used in catalytic convertors for cars - but in such minute quantities that it's not a significant fraction of the palladium that's produced. SteveBaker (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Soldiers' helmets

The level of astonishment at this story makes me realise that people don't generally expect soldiers' helmets to stop bullets.

So, what's the point of them? There must be a reason; armies wouldn't spend all that money and encumber their troops if there wasn't some good reason. I'm just too stupid to work out what it is. --Dweller (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They stop shrapnel and protect the head from falling debris. Also like motorcycle helmets they protect from impact, say a soldier throwing himself to the ground and bumping his head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Shrapnel's a good answer on its own, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The article on combat helmet mentions this and glancing bullets too, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be rather disappointed if my armour piercing bullets couldn't pierce armour. (I'm not sure if the bullet in question, apparently a 7.62x39mm, is defined as armour piercing, but I think most rifle ammunition is, to at least some extent, these days.) --Tango (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that even a piece of tissue paper is bullet-proof at a sufficiently long range! SteveBaker (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Curious, but i would think that the range of possible distances where the bullet would hit the tissue and not penetrate would be extremely narrow. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You could test that by placing tissue paper across some open space, weighted at each end, and then taking an actual bullet, or object of comparable size and weight, and dropping it onto the tissue paper. Start at one inch, then two, then three and so on, until you get it to break. Then go back to your Physics textbook and figure out what the speeds were for the last one that landed safely and the first one that broke it, and somewhere between those two is the speed a bullet can be traveling and not break through. As regards the helmet, a fully bulletproof helmet might be kind of heavy to wear all the time, unless they've got some lightweight polymers that could resist a bullet fired at relatively close range. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

But the point is that any kind of helmet (even one made of tissue paper!) would stop some bullets - or at least reduce their energy enough to let your skull do the rest. So the fact that the helmet won't stop a particular kind of bullet at a particular range doesn't make it useless. After all, even an utterly impenetrable helmet would only be fairly limited protection because the bullet might well hit you in the face or neck where there is no helmet. So, you do the best you can in terms of compromise between weight, comfort, cost and protection and realise that you'll prevent some head injuries and not others. Weight matters because a heavier helmet would mean that the soldier could carry less ammunition or less communications gear - and that could save his life more effectively than a better helmet. Comfort matters because if the thing is uncomfortable, the grunts will take them off! Cost is not a negligable factor either: Is it better to spend limited military funding on better helmets or on improved air support? It's not obvious which will produce a better outcome. And always remember:

1. War is inherently unsafe.
2. All design is a compromise.
3. Money is not limitless - even when human lives are at stake.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Some other uses for helmets:

1) Camouflage.

2) Identification. Helmets can bear the name, rank, division, and medic/chaplain symbols.

3) Helmets also work as a bowl/bucket, being used (not during combat, of course), to hold soup, hold water for washing and shaving, and as a chamber pot, hopefully not all at the same time.

4) German WW1 helmets had a spike on the top, so that enemy soldiers jumping into their trench would risk being impaled. This could also turn a head-butt into a deadly attack. I would guess that the number of their own troops accidentally injured by these spikes is what led to them being removed. Being more visible due to the spike (when peaking out of a foxhole) may have been another negative. StuRat (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

According to our article Pickelhaube, The spikes were only for decoration, not too impale people jumping into the trench. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Some British cavalry regiments had the spike as well (and still do for ceremonial reasons), and it would be silly to suggest they were meant for impaling people when you are six foot up on top of a horse with a sword or a lance.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Sir Alan choose who to fire in The Apprentice?

I'll admit this is a somewhat low-brow question, but I'm in an argument with my sister. She claims to see a pattern in the firings this series (UK) that boring candidates are going, presumably to ensure a more interesting second half of the competition. She claims that the BBC must be pressuring him into who to choose, and that I am naive for disagreeing. I insist that he is unpressured and even unpaid in his role, so the BBC must play no part in the decisions (he would leave if they did). The Apprentive site vaguely says they are his choices, but does anyone have any better evidence than that, even if it is just anecdotal or original research? Thanks 217.206.155.146 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the early dismissal this season of Majid disproves this theory, as he was anything but a boring candidate. You've got to remember that Sugar's reputation is also on the line. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Majid not boring? How do you figure that one out then? Sralan was right that he hadn't contributed much, but that wasn't (IMHO) a good enough reason for firing the chap. (James should have gone instead.) And how is it that Sralan's reputation is on the line? At least one previous winner left his employ shortly after the show was over. He can find any number of decent people to work for him – better, by and large, than the muppets on the show. FWIW I kind of agree with the OP's sister, I think the firings are being made with an eye to the ratings. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere useful. I haven't watched the show, but I think it's clear some people may not find Majid boring and some people may think Majid deserved to go more then James. Also, while I don't watch the show, I did come across some discussion a while back and looking again I confirmed that Majid was who I thought. Boring or not, it appears he attracted a fair amount of interest due to his appearance and religion and some allegedly sexist comments (which I personally expect would not have attracted so much attention were it not for the two former things), so from a 'ratings' standpoint it seems likely keeping him on the show would have been a winner. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is one quaestion we can ever answer. Whatever goes on behind the scenes, it's very likely secretive enough we'll never really know. Also I would point out the firing of 'boring candidates' doesn't definatively indicate Sir Alan is being pressued, it's his show so he likely cares bout the ratings and in any case, his inner and internal reasoning is unknown, perhaps he doesn't like boring candidates for reasons unrelated to the ratings Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It may never be conclusively answerable from WP:RD, but I was hoping for 'weight of evidence' to use against my sister. I like the theory about ratings putting Alan under pressure without the BBC saying so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.155.146 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that there is any real evidence, only speculation that could easily be argued in either way as with the above (which the RD isn't really the place for). I don't think Sir Alan or anyone high up in the show is likely to come out anytime soon and comment on this which would be the best evidence from a RD standpoint although perhaps there is some reliably sourced speculation about this which would be suitable to mention, but I doubt it personally Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out that often, participants in shows like this are made to seem boring because the producers choose to edit the show in that way. I don't know how long there is between the actual firing and the program airing, but I'd bet it's long enough to choose exactly how they want to portray the guy being fired. If they choose to portray him as boring, less people will stop watching when he's sacked. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The show is filmed in late summer early autumn of the year before transmission. This can be quite precisely dated from a letter the camera saw in the previous series. For anyone as pedantic about this as I am, the letter that the interviewer had from Thames Valley Univeristy that confirmed Lee McQueen had dropped out was dated 11th September as I recall, thus dating that 'challenge' as taking place within a couple of days of that. Since that immidiately preceeded the final task we can reaonsable assume the whole thing was over by Fri 19th Sept 2008. Since the entire process takes about 2 months (challenges performed back to back, not weekly as shown, this causes extreme tiredness due to all the 5:30 wakeup calls and is responsible for many of the mistakes in later weeks) we can assume it started round about the 7th or 14th July (these being mondays).

To get to the point, they have plenty of time, approximately 6 months. 217.206.155.146 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Information lost when only passed down verbally?

At my workplace, and previous ones, there's a lot of information that isn't written down anymore, but instead is just passed on by someone else that's been around longer or in an otherwise higher position. Has there ever been a study done to evaluate the accuracy of information if it is only passed down in this manner, instead of recorded, referenced, etc.? Also, is there a convenient term for this overall concept (information lost/incorrect when passed down verbally/from memory only)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.115.56.2 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You can find a nice analogy at Oral law and also at Chinese whispers --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about organizational storytelling? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The concept of institutional or organisational (organizational) memory is what you might be lookign for -- try googling for those terms. It is a notorious weakness, and lots of management studies have been written about it. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My father used to be a training sergeant in the British Royal Air Force in the 1950's - he said that the policy at the RAF at the time was to take the top 1% of students from each training class and to use them to replace teachers who retired from the RAF or returned to active duty or whatever. They soon realised that test scores were declining because the top 1% of the class were only understanding about 90% of what they were taught. Hence, each 'generation' of teachers only understood about 90% of what the generation before them understood - so that the quality of the exam results decreased every year! This is a real problem. The way to prevent that is to have your experts write down everything they know and make sure that each succeeding generation of learners read what was written. That way, you get one generation of decline - but the rot stops there. SteveBaker (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that problem is caused by the fact that in order to teach something you need to understand it better than you do just to use it. That greater understanding usually only comes from taking your learning to a higher level (that is why school teachers generally have to have a degree even though they aren't teaching anything near degree level stuff). Teaching something you have only just learned yourself is never going to go well. The RAF should have been taking their teachers from people that had spent most of their career on the front line and now wanted to retire from that and take up something less physically demanding, then they would have developed the greater understanding required by using the skills on a regular basis for years. --Tango (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is related to the sociology of knowledge. See explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. There are some things which we can never write down how to do (e.g. ride a bike) this presents problems to scientists trying to replicate the work of other scientists on the other side of the world. Smartse (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Einstein quote? Else who?

Hi everyone, I was wondering if anyone could help me with this quote please? The general jist of it is:
"The reasonable man is content with the best evidence that can be obtained when a perfect proof is not available."
I thought it might have been Einstein, but after going through lists of his quotes I can't see anything similar. Googling it hasn't helped either, so I'm hoping someone here might know it. If so, I also need to find a source for it please?
Many thanks! Duke Of Wessex (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Book of Quotations, 3rd edit p314.7 has: We must never assume that which is incapable of proof. G H Lewes 1817-1878. I doubt any scientist would accept your suggestion, since one cannot be content until proof is found. One may accept a partial proof for the time being, but the search for total proof would continue. Such is the nature of science.86.197.44.151 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)DT

To the contrary, there is no such thing as "total proof" in science. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was taught that any scientific theory can be entertained, and even accepted by the scientific community, based on being un-disproveable, instead of being proveable. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "un-disproveable". Do you simply mean that the theory has not been disproved (through contrary evidence)? To me, "un-disprovable" suggests there is no way in which it could be disproved; to the contrary, it is generally accepted that scientific theories must be falsifiable. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to cut off the discussion here, but you should consider checking out the Science refdesk, and also Wikiquotes. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I do mean "Has not been disproved, despite rigorous testing", yes. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is believed that there is no such thing as total proof in science then how does any scientist know when all the available proof has been discovered ? Of course there can be total proof, it is just that it may be impossible to attain (at this time).90.0.2.141 (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)DT

You don't gather proof, you gather evidence, and from that evidence you create or improve a model of how the world works. As the model makes correct predictions, you may grow more and more confident of its correctness, but at any time, you may discover a counterexample that falsifies the model. As long as there is a future ahead of you, there is no "last bit" of evidence that will prove a theory. See, for example, Karl Popper#Problem of Induction. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant evidence.90.0.2.141 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)DT

That's my understanding too, Coneslayer, which is why I've never understood why some theories get promoted to laws, eg. Newton, but others don't. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Only creationists promote theories to laws. Scientists don't. In science, a law actually comes before a theory. Laws are generally just simple formulae or statements, empirically derived. A theory is a complex model which provides an explanation for the law (and makes further predictions than can then be tested, and could be considered new laws, I suppose). Newton only came up with laws of gravity, never a theory of gravity ("I feign no hypothesis" or whatever the quote is - it was in Latin, I think). Einstein came up with a theory of gravity, explaining it as a curvature of spacetime - that theory explains why Newton's laws hold (approximately, anyway). --Tango (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypotheses non fingo. Algebraist 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a counterintuitive use of language, then. Normally, a theory would be considered less definite and more open to subjective interpretation than a law; but this usage has them with the opposite meanings. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The normal situation also holds here, I think. Newton's law of universal gravitation is a single extremely precise statement, while Einstein's theory of relativity (or Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, or whatever) is a much wider and less well-delineated body of material. Algebraist 00:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that distinction. However, Newton's Laws, Faraday's Law, Boyle's Law etc are often quoted as if they're immutable and incontrovertible set-in-stone ways the universe works. I'm not suggesting otherwise; but if they're really at the same level of "truth" as Darwin, Einstein or anyone else, and potentially subject to counterexample sometime next week, why don't we acknowledge that by referring to them as "Newton's Theories", "Faraday's Theory", "Boyle's Theory" etc.? -- JackofOz (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But we already know Newton's Laws aren't quite correct we know that from Eistein's theory of relativity and practical experience even if they are close enough for most purposes Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In physical sciences, a "law" is a generalized statement of observations, and nothing more. It is a summary of observations—a description; it does not purport to explain anything.173.49.18.189 (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Then, as I said above, it's a counterintuitive use of the word "law". I wonder why that word was chosen rather than something that does not necessarily suggest perpetual, universally ubiquitous unchangeability. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It was chosen because it was thought to be unchangeable, a "law of nature." It just turns out that some of those are actually approximations. The problem is that we're trying to go back after the fact and re-do a few hundred years' of terminology. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Methinks I sense some confusion here between technical and vernacular senses of theory. In vernacular usage, theory is a synonym for hypothesis; presumably this is why creationists sniff that "evolution is only a theory." In technical usage theory is closer to paradigm. There's nothing hypothetical about number theory for example. —Tamfang (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

code

Does anyone know how I can solve this code?

202601309024090-5080270120-1017019023080

0024011012017090230-40160210

70180140100330140240-003017060

50230220-4011070260280150

3014021025060270150210

30270140100200-003022070-10702308040170250

80260160-20140190-50340230300270

00190110120150180230180190110290

So far, I know that:

The language is English

words are separated by dashes or a new line

That capitalization makes no difference in the coding

There are no numbers in the encrypted message

The first and fourth words have 5 letters and both start with "t"

Thanks 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If the first and fourth words begin with t, it's a complex code, as the first and fourth batches of code do not have front or back ends that replicate each other. Unless, of course, the whole thing is backwards. In which case the last and fourth last both begin (if reading backwards) 09. --Dweller (talk)

Oops. Sorry, that's the last and third last. Back to the drawing board. --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong about 5 letters in the fourth word. It says 'there are more things in heaven and on [sic] earth horatio then [sic] are dreamt of in your philosophy'. Algebraist 15:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How the devil did you get that?217.206.155.146 (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Each word is encoded as a single digit, followed by a string of numbers separated by spaces. For example, word one is (2,26,13,9,24,9). The inital digit is an offset which has to be subtracted from the other numbers, so word one becomes (24,11,7,22,7). Then change the numbers into letters in accordance with the following simple scheme:

3	4	5	6	7	8	9	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	31
a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j	k	l	m	n	o	p	q	r	s	t	u	v	w	x	y	z

Of course, some of those letters (especially z) are just guesses based on the pattern, since they don't occur in the message. Algebraist 15:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

<- That's very clever. How did you work it out? --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds good. And it took you under an hour too. I will have to ask the guy who gave me the coded message, but I imagine that the odds of it being different from what Algebraist gave is minuscule. How did you do it so fast? I must have spent an hour on it and had not gotten anywhere. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It was obvious that all the zeros were divider marks, and since the first number in each word was always single digit (single digit numbers being rare elsewhere) it seemed likely to have some special purpose. Then I realized that if the initial digit was a simple offset, that would make words 1 and 4 start with the same letter. Since that guess proved right, the rest was just a monoalphabetic substitution cipher with word divisions, and therefore easy, especially since it's (a slight variant of) a well-known quote. Algebraist 15:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

<tips hat> --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

heads of state

Consider a single elimination, UFC tournament. Which head of state (king, PM, president etc...) would most likely emerge victorious? I am going to disqualify Putin of Russia. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference desk is a place for asking factual questions, not engaging in fantastical speculations. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase then. Which head of state has the best combination of physical fitness including strength and endurance, combined with experience with unarmed combat or martial arts? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Putin isn't Russia's head of state anymore anyway. Do you mean head of state in the literal sense or just "country leaders"? For example, with Canada would you consider it to be the Queen or Stephen Harper? This List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence gives the candidates if you mean the former. TastyCakes (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Albania's president looks pretty tough, but I base that on appearances and general fear of Albanians alone. Doesn't appear to have any military service/training. TastyCakes (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: Stay away from Albanian president. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 12:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Never quite a head of state but during the early 1990s the 3rd party in the UK were led by Paddy Ashdown who was a former SAS member. I'd back him. 91.85.138.20 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he ever had much chance of being head of state. Head of government perhaps... There have of course been heads of state and heads of governments who were active soldiers, after coups for example. Frank Bainimarama is the current head of government of Fiji for example. Most of these of course were very high level commanders by the time so may have been out of touch with any training they had Nil Einne (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Paddy Ashdown was also the International Community's High Representative in Bosnia for several years, which is substantially closer to being a head of state than leading the Liberal Democrats. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still fantastical speculation. How do you combine all the features to give a meaningful result? Nil Einne (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the original poster would be satisfied with names of heads of state which have had military training, especially those with hand-to-hand combat training - perhaps any who were in their country's special forces. I browsed a bit on List of current heads of state and government, but didn't find anything really applicable. The best I did was that Ueli Maurer of Switzerland was a Major in the Swiss bicycle infantry. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There must be plenty of heads of state with military experience. In terms of hand-to-hand combat training, Amadou Toumani Touré of Mali, Denis Sassou Nguesso of the Republic of the Congo and Blaise Compaoré of Burkina Faso all spent time as paratroopers, and presumably had hand-to-hand combat training. I'm sure there are more - I've just looked at some African presidents who I thought had a military background. Giving an arbitrary answer to the original question, I wouldn't mess with Joseph Kabila - at only 37, he's been President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for eight years, but before that he spent several years as leader of a guerilla group and has had extensive military training in Tanzania and China. Warofdreams talk 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not Dropping an in-text citation of Wikipedia

Not sure how to do this...

When i am using a direct quote/paraphrase from a wikipedia article, would i say, "The Wikipedia article on x says that..."

Would that be an acceptable thing to say to avoid a dropped quotation?

 Buffered Input Output 21:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you're asking about a Wikipedia article (and not answering a question on the reference desk). If so: No, I don't think that we're supposed to quote a Wikipedia article by saying "The Wikipedia article on x says that...". Instead, find the source of the Wikipedia quote and just repeat/paraphrase the quote and attribute the source. For example, instead of saying "According to the Wikipedia article on The Beatles, the band sold over one billion records", say "The Beatles sold over one billion records." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Wikipedia does not consider Wikipedia itself (or any other wiki, for that matter) to be a reliable source. If someone insists on citing a source in article A that's already cited in article B, go to article B and copy-and-paste that citation in. It seems tedious, but it satisfies the guidelines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, unless you are copying the EXACT same cited text between the two articles, unless you read the text yourself, you should probably not cite it. Its bad form for many reasons to cite a text you are not currently using. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32, I'm sorry but I read your reply several times now, I still don't understand what you're saying. Can you please rephrase? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of Jayron32's comment is that if you find referenced text in the Wikipedia article on X which you want to re-use in the Wikipedia article on Y, but do not have access to the document which is being referenced, you should stick to the exact same text used in the article on X, to avoid accidentally changing the meaning to state something which the reference doesn't support. Warofdreams talk 12:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There are formal guidelines on this, and an explanation of the principles. See WP:Academic use, WP:Citing Wikipedia, and WP:Researching with Wikipedia. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One more: WP:REUSE. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's not JUST direct quotations, guys. There's also the matter of the PARAPHRASED citation. For example, i want to tell people that there are two types of wind turbines by citing wikipedia. HOWEVER! i must introduce this fact as its-not-my-stuff before i put the in-text citation into the paper. How would i do that? Or alternately, should i use the references on the wikipedia article instead of the article itself?  Buffered Input Output 12:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to use the following format: "There are two different types of wind turbine: X (give reference for X here) and Y (give reference for Y here)". How do they know it's not your stuff? You could have come to that conclusion following your own independent research! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit confused here. If our OP is talking about writing FOR Wikipedia then quoting one Wikipedia article inside the other is strictly forbidden. You can copy the text verbatim - and the references that back it up - or you can use a link to do that - but you can't use one article as a reference for the other. On the other hand, if you are talking about writing outside of Wikipedia - then the only thing Wikipedia requires is that if you quote us then you acknowledge the source of the quote under GFDL or the newer CreativeCommons licensing. Of course the advisability of quoting Wikipedia in other contexts depends on the context. My wife asked me whether there were any American armed forces in Liberia yesterday - and I had no compunctions in quoting Wikipedia at her...but if I were writing a policy paper for the President about US armed forces in Liberia, I'm 100% certain that Wikipedia would not be quoted! In that case I'd follow the references from the Wikipedia article and track back to the ultimate sources of the information. In that situation, Wikipedia is useful only as an intermediary - as a "collection of links" (one of the things that many people claim Wikipedia is not!). Somewhere between those two extremes lies your position...we can't tell you what's right for you. SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

BufferedIO, I think we need to clarify what kind of article you're writing. Is this article a Wikipedia article or is it something else (such as a term paper)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)