Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 17

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.

July 17

City of London, Aldermen and the Lord Chancellor

On the website for the City of London government it has this paragraph explaning how Aldermen must be approved by the Lord Chancellor:

All Aldermen are a Justice of the Peace (JP). If not already a JP when an aldermanic post is available for election, candidates have 20 days to register their interest as a candidate. If they do so, a further period of 100 days is undertaken whereby the Lord Chancellor vets whether the candidate is suitable to become a JP and, as a result, stand in the forthcoming election.

However, there is no other explanation on the site of who the Lord Chancellor of the City of London is. Does it mean that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom must approve the potential aldermen for the City of London? --CGPGrey (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. 77.101.85.213 (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, our article on the Lord Mayor of London suggests that he's also the Lord Chancellor of the city, stating that he's Lord Chancellor of the City University and suggesting that Lord Chancellor of the City is the same office as Mayor. It would be very unusual for a national official to have veto power over the seating of local officials. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article says that the Lord Mayor is Chancellor (education) of the university, a ceremonial position, and I can see no mention of a position of lord chancellor of the City. And "very unusual" is what the City of London constitution is all about. Sussexonian (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this job advert for an alderman, the appointment seems to be made by approval of 'the Lord Chancellors Advisory Committee on London'. This would appear to be the same format as is used in appointing magistrates; see Magistrates of England and Wales#Local advisory committees - Cucumber Mike (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The article the OP wants is Lord Chancellor.

The OP was unsure if the reference to the "Lord Chancellor" was a reference to an officer of the City - it is not, it is a reference to the officer of state.

The first anon reply got it right.

The second anon reply confused the Lord Chancellor with Chancellor (education), and then somehow equated the Chancellor of the City University London with the "Lord Chancellor of the City of London".

To the second anon's query of "very unusual" - it is not at all. The "veto" comes not from a direct provision, but because Aldermen are required to be JPs and the Lord Chancellor happens to have the power to appoint JPs. A large company might require its managers to have university degrees, that does not mean universities have a veto over appointments to the management of that company.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but in what sense are you using the word "veto"? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

An informal sense, as in by refusing a person's application to be a JP the Lord Chancellor could, in effect, thereby exclude that person from being an Alderman. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Atamu Tekena

There are two busts on Easter Islands of Atamu Tekena and Policarpo Toro, shown here. My questions are when and by whom were they made by. And I know who Atamu Tekena, but who is Policarpo Toro?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Does our Policarpo Toro article say ? StuRat (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Forgot the second question. How about when and by whom were they made?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Anybody?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Moroccan Wall

After reading Moroccan Wall, I'm quite confused: why was it built? A not-exactly-massive earthen wall in the middle of a desert should be rather easy to get over, and the presence of massive minefields (which themselves should be a very good separation barrier, the only purpose for the wall mentioned in the article) would seem to me to make it absurdly difficult to get to the wall in the first place. Does Morocco think that the Polisario have tanks or other equipment that can get through mines but can't get over walls and ditches? Because the Reference Desk is not a forum or place for disputes, please be careful in your responses. I'm only trying to understand the Moroccan government's opinions and don't want a discussion of why they're right, wrong, or both; the only issues of right and wrong I'd be interested in hearing about is whether Morocco thinks that the wall is doing what it was designed to do. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be more of a line in the sand than a fortification, meant to decide when to investigate nomadic caravans: when they cross it. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It does reasonably well in its intended purpose -- to mark an unpoliced zone from a policed zone, and make it somewhat difficult (but by no means impossible) to cross between the two. This function is rather different from Operation Desert Storm sand berms, though there may be a physical resemblance... AnonMoos (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And it would protect their soldiers from attack, since their position can't be known behind the wall, so they can't be accurately targeted with small arms fire (which the berm may block anyway) or artillery. Blocking the enemy's line-of-sight is fairly important in war. (Presumably they have viewing ports in the wall so they can observe enemy movements.) StuRat (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

After reading the article, I think 71.212 and AnonMoos are closer to the function, given what the wall is. It isn't a defensive structure so much as a border marking. It isn't a masonry structure with "viewing ports" so much as it is a long pile of sand (it is even called a "berm" repeatedly in the article), with regular observation posts (little fortified garrisons) and occasional actual "walls", presumably where they would be useful. But mostly, its just a big pile of sand (and the ditch from where said pile was dug), and as such seems to signify a defacto border between the areas that Morrocco has direct control, and those that it concedes that it does not (though it claims sovereignty over the whole area. The wall doesn't even appear to be a static structure, as it seems to have been moved frequently as the Morroccan authorities have established control over more and more territory. --Jayron32 05:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also point out the OP mentioned 'mines'. Anti-personnel landmine usage tends to be controversial and putting them on some arbitary border (which isn't even the border you claim as your territorial border) when that border is unmarked and the area frequented by nomads likely even more so. So if they did mine any part of it (I can't be bothered checking and the OP's statement isn't clear), they'd still need some sort of border marking. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well as is turns out I did read the article and it confirms it's mined, in fact supposedly the longest continous minefields in the world. And unsurprisingly, the article attests the wall is controversial. In other words, the wall seems hardly surprising even ignoring the other advantages, it may be controversial but surely much less controversial then some random unmarked minefield. Even from a military standpoint, actually giving people an idea of where they're not supposed to go generally works better with such things then letting them find out for themselves the hard way. (Not to mention it tends to be beneficial to your own side too, particularly if you may have to clear the minefield in the future which evidentally was done in the past as they expanded the area covered by the wall since people can screw up and maps can get lost or read wrong.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Didn't Israel Complain More About Pakistan Building Nukes in the 1980s?

I mean, I know that Pakistan has never fought a war with Israel, but it still does not recognize Israel's existence even today. Israel panicked a lot when Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria were building nukes, but when Pakistan was building them Israel just stayed quiet. Futurist110 (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Pakistan manage to keep it secret ? StuRat (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Pakistan was not being governed by a fundamentalist Islamist theocracy when they developed nuclear weapons, so that's probably a large difference between the two cases. Also, if I remember correctly, Pakistan's nukes weren't common knowledge until the early 1990s. I could be wrong about that. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes and No. They didn't tell anyone that they were building nukes, but Western intelligence agencies suspected Pakistan of building nukes for at least several years before it actually got them. This was (and with Iran, still is) the same situation as it was with Iraq (pre-1991), Iran, and Libya. Pakistan probably got nukes in 1987, but if you do a Google News Archive search you'd find some articles on Pakistan building nukes that were written in the 1970s and early 1980s. Futurist110 (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, while Iran is governed by Muslim fundies, Iraq, Syria, and Libya were not, and Israel still panicked a lot about their nuclear programs.

Also:

http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,904099-2,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,920461,00.html http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,957761,00.html Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan is more concerned with India and China (and their nuclear programs) than with Israel. The others were (either explicitly, or were perceived as) a more direct threat to Israel. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

To OP. Israel did fought a war with pakistan. For why Israel did not complain Pak getting nukes is because there is a theory that US itself helped Pakistan in developing its nukes when they both were part of Central Treaty Organization.--nids(♂) 08:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

To say thought Israel "fought a war with pakistan [sic]" is a massive exaggeration. There were a few Pakistani pilots attached to the Egyptian Air Force, but that's about it. Direct hostilities between those two countries have never taken place. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm sure that Israel did complain to the U.S. a little bit behind the scenes; however, Israel has to prioritize its efforts to the things which are most directly threatening to Israel, and where Israel has a chance of making an impact. Pakistan is located outside of the direct middle-east arena. Also, during most of the 1980s, the U.S. and Pakistan were strongly aligned, and A.Q. Khan's activities were not fully known... AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan and Israel are very far apart. Pakistan and WMD#Delivery systems states that Pakistan has ballistic missiles with a range of 2500 km, with a source update this month, so the range might have been shorter in the 1970s and 80s. So, the threat from Egypt, Syria or Iran would've been far more immediate. Also, as AnonMoos says: since both were allies of the US, it's possible that the Americans held them both in the ear and told them to play nice, even if they didn't really want to. V85 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Just on the "did they know" issue: it was pretty well known that Pakistan had, as one US official put it, a "big problem with nukes". The US looked the other way, because they needed Pakistani support for their covert role in the Soviet-Afghan War, but it was pretty common knowledge. It was widely discussed in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, for example, and the Pakistanis did very obvious and weird things like try to get John Aristotle Phillips to sell them his home-made bomb design. They were widely considered to be a de-facto nuclear state by the late 1980s.

Anyway, as for Israel, I suspect that they were just not as worried about Pakistan. It's far away, and it's obvious that it's nukes were meant to counterbalance India, not Israel. Israel–Pakistan relations are complicated but not necessarily directly antagonistic. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. For the record, though, Iran's nuclear program before 2003 was primarily meant to counterbalance Iraq, not Israel, and vice-versa for Iraq's nuclear program (before 1991). However, Israel still complained a lot about the Iraqi and Iranian nuclear programs in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, and even implemented the Osirak raid against Iraq in 1981. Futurist110 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing--the fact that Pakistan did not recognize Israel even by now shows that it has at least some antagonism towards Israel. Of course, you're right that Pakistan worries much more about India than about Israel, considering India's proximity to it. Futurist110 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is one thing to have private antagonisms, it is another to have public. I suspect the government of Pakistan does not have deep antagonisms with Israel, though its leaders would be foolish not to join in the anti-Israeli chorus for populist reasons. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that plenty of Pakistani leaders (including the long-standing unreconstructed Taliban supporters and al-Qaeda sympathizers in the ISI) have some feelings of personal antagonism towards Israel, but when they make concrete decisions, they're generally much more pre-occupied with local matters. Pakistan already has plenty of issues and problems on its plate without seeking out long-distance quarrels with Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Many people have listed explanations above, including what type of government it was, secrecy, etc... The threat of an Iranian nuke is obviously much greater than far-away Pakistan, which would have a tougher time of firing it at Israel and is much more involved in its own foreign policy affairs with India. Still, you are right to think that it should make Israeli officials nervous - and in fact, it does today. For example, see this news item in 2004 about the foreign minister (currently the vice president) worrying about Pakistan's nukes falling into the wrong hands while in India (this fear is also shared by much of the international community). I have heard rumors that Israel did in fact plan for a raid on Pakistan's nuclear facilities, much like the 1981 raid on Osirak in Iraq, but it was either thwarted or India feared retaliation from Pakistan and didn't sign off on it. I don't believe it too much, and don't recommend you should either, as I'm not familiar with the sources and seems like fantasy. I personally don't believe they had the necessary capability to fly that far in the 1980's and attack Pakistani nuclear reactors - their 1981 raid on Osirak required creative thinking and they cut it down to the last minute in regards to fuel. But who knows, maybe they sounded alarms in the international community? It's tough to say. But make no doubt about it, the Israeli government is full aware of the threat and probably monitors it - but right now, the Iranian threat is much more important, and it's unlikely Israel would ever get invovled in Pakistan to begin with. Plus the Pakistanis are too embroiled in their own affairs with India to be concerned with attacking another country far away. Hope this helps! --Activism1234 05:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, you may want to ask why Israel didn't worry about Iran building nukes when their program first started, which was decades ago? It may surprise you, but Israel and Iran actually had very good ties with each other before the 1979 Islamic Revolution - and hopefully they'll be restored one day. --Activism1234 05:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

When the Iranian Shah had a nuclear program, I'm not sure if it was a purely peaceful program or if it had elements of nuclear weapons development. However, even if the Shah tried building nuclear weapons, he didn't get very far. Also, Iran under the Shah recognized Israel's existence, unlike Pakistan. And yes, I fully agree with you that I hope that Israeli-Iran ties will eventually be restored to their former good status. Futurist110 (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

European cities undamaged in World War II

In those parts of Europe where fighting took place in World War II, what were the largest cities to escape all structural damage by bombing or artillery? A list categorized by country would be very much appreciated. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Paris might be one of them. It might have had some damage, though, but nothing major, like, say Warsaw. Futurist110 (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You're going to need to explain "parts". Does that mean nations ? I believe many British cities were out of range of German bombers. StuRat (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the only British cities that didn't experience heavy bombing were Inverness in Scotland and St Davids in Wales. Both are rather small, Inverness had only 59,000[1] inhabitants in 1940 and St Davids has about 1,800 even today (it boasts a post office, a grocer's shop and an enormous church). Belfast and Glasgow got quite a pounding - see Clydebank Blitz and Belfast Blitz, although they fared a lot better than German cities later on. A number of provincial British cities were targeted only because of their architectural heritage in the Baedeker Blitz of 1942. Alansplodge (talk)

No, I don't mean nations. I mean areas which were actually attacked or invaded with resistance. I mean to exclude cities out of bombing range, and also those in distant parts of countries which were surrendered en masse merely because fighting hundreds of kilometres away caused the whole country to capitulate. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Cities that were quickly occupied by the Germans, say Amsterdam and then which weren't really in the way of the Allied invasion, were more or less undamaged structurally.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In terms of "percentage of buildings damaged", of major cities Copenhagen and Oslo probably got off lightest - Norway and Denmark surrendered before the Germans reached the respective capitals, weren't bombed by the allies, and remained in Nazi hands until the surrender so weren't damaged in the allied offensive. (As StuRat says, plenty of major cities in the Allied nations were totally untouched as they were out of bomber range.) Of the major Axis cities themselves, Vienna got off lightest - it was out of bomber range for much of the war, saw no ground combat, and had very little strategic significance. Mogism (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

At least Copenhagen saw some Allied bombing during Operation Carthage, but of course you are correct that relatively speaking that is but a drop in the ocean compared to cities that suffered from deliberate bombing campaigns. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Vienna? No ground combat? Don't think so. St Stephen's certainly lost much of its roof... -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Open city article has a few more examples, although many open cities only opened after they had already been battered by air forces or artillery. --M@rēino 22:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Which Countries with Nuclear Weapons Programs Came the Closest to Building Nukes Without Actually Building Them?

I think Argentina, Libya, Iraq (in 1991), and Iran (as of July 2012) are some of the correct answers to this question. Futurist110 (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

South Korea apparently had a program at one time. See South Korean nuclear research programs. Given the nukes on their border, I couldn't blame them if they started it back up again. StuRat (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The concept your looking for is called Nuclear latency, i.e. having the capability to produce nuclear weapons, but without having done so. Given that "we" know how to make a nuclear weapon, I suppose making a nuclear weapon isn't so much anymore about researching and finding out how to do it, but having the know how and technology to simply make it. I recall that when I was in the 8th or 9th grade, one of our school textbooks said that Norway had the capability to make a nuclear weapon, if need be, but hadn't done so yet. And we all felt very patriotic after reading that.

There are other countries as well that have the know-how to build nuclear bombs, but haven't done so for political reasons (pacifist attitudes, adherence to the NPT etc.), and these countries might not have had nuclear weapons programmes, they might simply have some nuclear physicists employed at some of their universities. A map of nuclear proliferation is available from the PBS website: Yellow countries are "abstaining countries", i.e. they are industrialised countries and therefore (assumed to be) capable of producing a nuclear weapon, but haven't done so.

As for specifically which countries have had nuclear weapons programmes, you could have a look at this map. Basically: red countries have nukes, the rest don't. However, when I look at the different country profiles, it is difficult to ascertain anything about whether they've actually had programmes (or if it was just something that was discussed but never implemented), and it doesn't say anything about how advanced they were.

• The profile page for Norway states that 'The Norwegian Defense Research Establishment considered' starting a weapons programme, but that 'there is little indication that Norway actually pursued' one.
• Spain and Argentina are listed as 'No Evidence of a Nuclear Weapons Program', but they are still coloured as 'Programs that ended after 1970'.
• 'Sweden had a nuclear weapons program which essentially ended by the time it signed the NPT.' How close were they to making a bomb? Absolutely no information about that...

The BBC has a similar overview, but again doesn't present much information on how much progress was made, for those countries that had programmes in the past, but don't anymore. (The exception is South Africa that did manage to build them.) V85 (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The South African nukes never achieved "deployable weapons" status. The six "warheads" they had were not ready for installation in bomb casings by the time the programme was stopped. Roger (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Could that be the answer to the OP then? South Africa got the closest, i.e. they had warheads, but they couldn't be deployed. V85 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

One other thing needed to build a nuclear weapon is access to the raw materials, or perhaps a breeder reactor where they can be created from other elements. StuRat (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan's program would have likely succeeded without US intervention — they had a research reactor, uranium, and were developing hot cells (reprocessing). Basically anyone who gets reactor and hot cell technology can make a nuke if they want to, and nobody gets in the way. South Korea's program was very advanced as well. Sweden also got quite far, as I understand it, ditto Yugoslavia. When trying to assess success, look primarily towards fissile material production. The rest is pretty straightforward. Do they have a reactor and reprocessing? That's pretty close. Enriching uranium in quantity is a lot harder than that, though there have been states in the late 20th century who managed to do that "on the cheap" as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Burma.
Sleigh (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What's your source for Burma? Also, not all "nuclear latent" states had nuclear programs in the first place (or not when they were "nuclear latent"). Futurist110 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Myanmar lacks a big enough reactor, lacks reprocessing, and lacks enrichment technology. That puts it far behind many of the others listed. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Focussing too strictly on technical artefacts may be missing the point. You need more than just pieces of uranium to get a useable nuclear weapon. You also need funding, a fairly broad industrial base, governance that helps the project more than hindering it, a practical delivery method, and so on. Many inputs could be imported, depending on how well a country gets on with potential suppliers. If a country like Australia / Japan / Canada changed policy and decided to develop nuclear weapons, they could do it fairly swiftly: They have plenty of cash; competent government & military; lots of clever graduates in a flexible labour market (and the same goes for businesses); and easy access to foreign suppliers of anything which can't be made at home. On the other hand, for a badly-run pariah country like Burma (or, until recently, Libya), they may well have started a nuclear weapons project but they'll never finish it as long as they're starved of resources. North Korea took far longer to develop a usable nuclear weapon than the USA did, even though much of the latter's basic research was already readily available to the former. Nuclear sharing allowed several countries to have nuclear weapons without actually building them domestically. bobrayner (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In regards to nuclear sharing, those nukes might be stationed in specific countries, but they are still the property of the country that built them. As for South Africa, they still built six nukes, even if they didn't have a proper delivery system for them yet, so technically speaking they were still a nuclear-weapons state. Also, I was under the impression that Libya was actually pretty close to building nukes when it gave up its nuclear program in 2003. Am I wrong? Futurist110 (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Is earlier episodes of The Flintstones in public domin?

Is erlier episodes of The Flintstones in public domin?--王小朋友 (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, though the precise date at which they would enter (if ever) varies depending on exactly how the work is classified. For example, if considered as work for hire and without other mitigating factors, episodes would begin entering the public domain in 2055. — Lomn 13:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My theory is that the OP is asking because the early, pre-1964 episodes would have had to have had their copyrights actively renewed to still be in copyright.[2] But it's very hard to research renewals with much assurance — you usually hire a lawyer for this sort of thing unless it is very obvious. I don't know how serialized television show episodes are handled, for example, or whether the fact that sound recordings are handled differently matters. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Google Books may have the list. [3] Does it mean that it is renewed? --王小朋友 (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Cartoons fall under US Trademark law, which means that they do not enter the public domain as long as they remain an active trademark. The earliest case I can think of that recognizes this is Fisher v. Star 231 NY 414 (1921).[4] Gx872op (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not strictly true -- the Fleischer Superman cartoons are widely recognized as being in the public domain now... AnonMoos (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think that's right at all. Trademark and copyright law are quite different in any case. The Superman cartoons are a good example of this — the character of Superman is still covered by trademark law, but that doesn't mean copyright law still extends over the original cartoons. It just changes what you can do with them. The issue of trademarks and copyrights when applied to cartoons is complicated, as this legal paper discusses. Again, I wouldn't try to make sense of this sort of thing without consulting an actual lawyer. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Several Bugs Bunny cartoons are widely considered to be in the public domain, even though the character isn't, because nobody renewed copyright on them. Lots of companies have used non-renewed cartoons such as Falling Hare in VHS and DVD releases, apparently without royalty, so it would seem that their copyright lawyers have judged it safe to consider them PD. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Spoon bending

Why do paranormal artists (?) strongly prefer to bend spoons, instead of forks, for example. Ochson (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No sharp points. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Because a spoon is spoon bent out of shape, while a fork takes a forking long time. --Viennese Waltz 13:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Total guess: because you can apply pressure to a broader area in a spoon. If the mark sees your flesh bulging out around the tines of a fork, he might start to get curious about why the chi does that to it. ;) Wnt (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But the way Uri Geller did it was by gently rubbing the handle of the spoon near the top. A fork would not have been any different. --Viennese Waltz 13:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the visible part of Geller's performance was to rub the handle gently. Many writers have argued that this was not "the way Uri Geller did it" (see references in the article). --ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that but I wasn't going to put "the way Uri Geller seemed to do it" because that would have been boring. --Viennese Waltz 16:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur it's probably because there are no sharp points. This makes you less prone to injury when carrying them on your person before, following, and between performances. Spoons are also probably more visible and recognizable at a distance than forks or knives, which is important for stage and street performances. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Forks are indeed used, it's just that spoons were the more famous of the original act. Google will actually auto-complete "Uri Geller fork bending" for you. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

...in the ancient days when sorcerous men first began to exert their divers eldritch powers upon the vast repertoire of cutlery, they were yet unable to conquer the glorious utensil that is... the spork! Then they looked at their spoons and said, eh, hell with it - this works fine, dunnit? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"French" Algeria colonised by non-French

Our article on the History of Algeria states that:

The borders of modern Algeria were created by the French, whose colonization began in 1830....French colonists (many of whom were not in fact of French origin but Italian, Maltese, and Spanish)...

Really? Why? How? More specifically, why did the French authorities go to the trouble and expense of setting up colonies which served neither as treasure troves to pillage (cf British India and Belgian Congo) nor as an escape valve for their excess population (cf much of the rest of the British Empire)? Who were these "Italian, Maltese, and Spanish" colonists - displaced peasants, or unemployed townspeople, or ethnic/linguistic minorities (e.g. Basques), or religious refugees? Why did they want to leave their homelands, and why did France want to accept them? What happened to them? Was the immigration largely of young men, who married local women and blended in after a generation or two? Or did they send home for brides and remain resolutely Italian, Maltese, and Spanish? Or did they use Algeria as a springboard to another country (as Russian Jews did/do with Israel, and Chinese did with Hong Kong)? How long did this immigration go on for? For the first few decades from 1830, Italy had not yet resolved itself as a country. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Many" colonies accepted Europeans from other countries than the motherland, but I suspect that they might have had a preference for the people of their own natinality. At the beginning of the 20th century, a Norwegian lawyer, Vilhelm Aubert, was a judge in Belgian Congo. He wrote several articles about his stay there, that were published as a book shortly after his death: Breve fra Kongo (letters from Congo). In that book, he recommended that all Norwegian graduates to move to Congo, where there were many job openings. Ironically, a century after his death, the tables had turned: in the city where he worked as a judge, judging Congolese, two Norwegians were now put in front of a Congolese judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V85 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

France invaded Algeria because the ailing Bourbon Restoration wanted a military victory to shore up support, and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire made North Africa easy pickings; they also wanted to prevent a post-Ottoman failed state becoming a haven for piracy within a short distance of France. The actual pretext was a ludicrous incident in which the Dey hit the French Consul with a fly-whisk during an argument about unpaid debts owed by France to Algeria. After the conquest colonists from Christian countries were invited in to provide the nucleus for a post-Turkish society, and in the hope that Algeria could be established as a cotton plantation to end reliance on unreliable US imports.

As an aside, you might want to pick a better example - I doubt there's ever been any colonial possession in recorded history that's been run less as "a treasure trove to pillage" than British India. Apart from looting during battle, Britain never took anything directly from India (all taxes raised in India were spent in India). The profit/exploitation element came from Britain's use of India as a pool of cheap labour (particularly of cheap soldiers), and of tariff barriers that crippled Indian industry and forced India to buy only British/Empire made goods (and thus give the factories of Britain, Australia and Canada a guaranteed market). 188.28.249.88 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting fact. I know little about this area and era, but searching a bit I found this, where among other things it is claimed that "The drain of wealth from Bengal began in 1757 when the Company's servants began to carry home immense fortunes extorted from Indian rulers, zamindars, merchants and the common people. They sent home nearly £6 million between 1758 and 1765", "Thus, through 'Investments, Bengal's revenue was sent to England. For example, from 1765 to 1770, the Company sent out nearly £4 million worth of goods or about 33 per cent of the net revenue of Bengal. By the end of the eighteenth century, the drain constituted nearly 9 per cent of India national income" and "The actual drain was even more, as large part salaries and other incomes of English officials and the trading fortunes of English merchants also found their way into England" and "Thus, for example, Lord Ellen borough, Chairman of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, and later Governor-General of India, admitted in 1840 that India was "required to transmit annually to this country (Britain), without any return except in the small value of military stores, a sum amounting to between two and three million sterling" etc etc. Of course this is completely unsourced, and probably biased and completely wrong, but out of interest I would like to hear if you know of any scholarly sources that states that India had been an expense or a general humanitarian effort for Great Britain since the colonisation gained ground in the mid 18th century. If your claim is true then the effort done by the British to keep that colony through all those centuries for purely humanistic reasons in a time of European colonisation and imperialism, and all that with no gain at all, seems well ... almost beyond belief. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My suspicion (and it is only a suspicion) from my recent studies of this era is that the British government made little to no money out of India directly - but that the East India Company made a fortune. The sources you cite seem to refer entirely to the period of the EIC's dominance, and mainly to the activities of the Company itself. I presume the British government made some money out of the EIC in taxes, but this is a period where the EIC had three whole armies in India and Britain only one. What the situation was like after the Mutiny, I couldn't say. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. However it just seems the British government outsourced its colonialism, and that it must still have gotten a lot of the pillage made by the EIC of the treasure trove, if only indirectly through the success of the EIC, and more than just in the form of cheap labour and a secure market. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

See article Pied-Noir... AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

However, I can't find in that article any rationale as to using Spanish people rather than French people to populate the colony. My guess would be that any 'white' person who came to the colony would be seen as being more loyal to the French state than resisting locals. Also, even if the colony was inhabited entirely by non-French, any goal of gaining revenue from the colony could still be attained by having non-French people working there: A Spanish person running a business would generate an income that the French administration could tax, just as much as if it were run by a Frenchman. V85 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• One other thing to consider is that the relationship between a people and a state was not as well correlated in the past as today. That is, the borders of a state change all the time, but the culture of the people living in an area does not change so rapidly. People of the dominant culture (i.e. of the culture of the state) are, rightly or wrongly, share a mutual trust with the state. People of a foreign culture do not. What do you do with a bunch of ferners you don't want around anymore? Ship them off to a colony, that's what! Just taking one example: The city of Nice had been a city of Italian culture until it was annexed by France in 1860. The people there didn't stop drinking Chianti and start sipping Bordeaux the next day. What do you do with a bunch of Italians who don't want to be French? Send them off to Algeria? Problem solved! The exact same thing happened with all colonial powers, who used the colonies as a place, among other things, to remove people who would be a thorn in their side. That's how the Scots-Irish arrived in America, as another example. --Jayron32 18:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Before or after, they drank neither Chianti nor Bordeaux. They had, and have, their own good wines. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously. It was meant to be illustrative of typical "French" and "Italian" wines, as this was a discussion over how Italians would come to be subject to the French state, not a discussion about Niçoise viticulture. The point was to illustrate that the citizens of Nice didn't stop being Italian in culture the day that the French State annexed the city, and to state it in an interesting and entertaining way, not to be scrupulously correct in terms of the local varieties of wine. --Jayron32 22:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't mean to nitpick but to endorse the more nuanced view you presented. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

About the Spanish immigration in Algeria, see the French WP. It relates the immigration from the Minorca Island. It also evokes immigration from Majorca, Valencia and Alicante. (Unfortunatly, this page lacks references). If you can read French, this document (from page 5 to page 18) is well-documented — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can read French, here is a book about Italian immigration in Tunisia and Algeria. — AldoSyrt (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the OP may be misinterpreting the passage, and the Spanish, Italians, Maltese, etc weren't refugees from those nations staying in France, but people who went directly from their homes in Spain, Italy, or Malta, to North Africa of their own volition (just as e.g. many Germans went to Australia when it was a British colony). This page talks about Spanish migration to North Africa, mainly workers from Galicia, Asturias, and the Canary Islands.

As for why they went, someone already mentioned combatting piracy, but more generally having control over the Mediterranean would be useful, for controlling sea-borne trade, troop movements, fisheries, etc. And related to that was the desire to stop the French/British/Italians getting it. There was also a growing interest in petroleum in the late 19th C, which may have played a part. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Following AldoSyrt's link, I've read a bit on the French Wikipedia about populating the Algerian colony. One statement that they cite seems to indicate that the main idea was simply to move more people there, regardless of who they were, although there was a preference for skilled people, and, apparently, Germans were to be desired, due to their work ethic. Although there apparently was tension between the French and other Europeans (and the Jews), the main fault line was between the indigenous Moslems and the Europeans. The White Europeans don't seem to have 'blended in' with the indigineous population as the OP suggests, but rather that they were integrated into the French population (from which one would assume that they brought their own wives along, rather than finding Algerian wives). In 1889, Europeans whose ancestors had lived in Algeria for two generations were granted French citizenship. This introduction of jus soli meant that the 'non-French' European population diminished, as they were counted as French.

It seems the only people who were 'refugees' were the people who moved to Algeria after Germany annexed Alsace and Lorraine, but I assume they were French to begin with, so they don't really qualify. My guess would be that the reason the Spanish, Maltese and Italian populations were large, was that they came from countries close to Algeria (and there were also Italian and Spanish colonies next door in North-Africa). So long as the French wanted foreign/European labour, if they didn't have good prospects back home, why shouldn't they go? V85 (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

OP here. Thanks all for your responses, especially the French ones with references. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Who generally gets the most credit for starting skyscraper booms in many cities today, especially in American cities?

Is it a city government that wants to change the skyline of their city more responsible than the big businesses and corporations from other cities that want to move in and make business or is it the big businesses and corporations from other cities that want to move into the said city that are more responsible for starting skyscraper booms than the city government? I live in Tampa, a city that doesn’t have a lot of skyscrapers. Who would call the shots first in both starting a big skyscraper boom in my city and where the skyscrapers would be build? Willminator (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there's a lot of interaction, there, but the person putting up the money — largely the developers — are going to be the ones trying to call the shots. A city can certainly block sky scrapers but I think it's a rare case where a city can convince someone to put one up where they don't think it will lead to a big payout (lots of renters, high resale value), assuming the city government itself is not going to be a tenant. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Local government can do things to increase the likely payout, though. That could be direct action with tax breaks and subsidies, or it could be less direct like improving transport infrastructure. --Tango (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

True, that. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Skysrcapers are built due to an expectation of return on investment, depending on expected sale and rental value. The World Trade Center was famously built by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey rather than private investors, and long stood largely empty, reaching 90% occupancy only in 1998. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

μηδείς's comment is not very informative. Expectation of ROI is a variable of many projects.

The real explanation: skyscrapers are usually situated in city centers where the price of land is high. Constructing a skyscraper becomes justified if the price of land is so high that it makes economic sense to build upwards as to minimize the cost of the land per the total floor area of a building. Thus the construction of skyscrapers is dictated by economics and results in skyscrapers in a certain part of a large city unless a building code restricts the height of buildings. Skyscrapers are rarely seen in small cities and they are characteristic of large cities, because of the critical importance of high land prices for the construction of skyscrapers. Usually only office, commercial and hotel users can afford the rents in the city center and thus most tenants of skyscrapers are of these classes. Some skyscrapers have been built in areas where the bedrock is near surface, because this makes constructing the foundation cheaper, for example this is the case in Midtown Manhattan and Lower Manhattan, in New York City, United States, but not in-between these two parts of the city. 88.9.110.244 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not only is the IP's answer rude, it's wrongheaded. Expected ROI in rent and sale income is by far the most important factor. Real estate is usually valuable (not "expensive") because of the rents or sale price people will pay to use it. Its merely being expensive (shore property) or close to bedrock (the Poconos) hardly makes it suitable for the construction of skyscrapers. The WTC project was an exception because it was a prestige project backed by a government entity able to use eminent domain and not subject to market constraints. In general construction booms are typical of the last stage of a real estate bubble. See United States housing bubble. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any rudeness in the IP's comment. On the top of that, I also believe that he's right. He's clearly given a reason as to why NY, Chicago and similar cities have lots of skyscrapers, but not Tampa. μηδείς is also missing completely the point when he brings the real estate bubble into the equation, which obviously was a boom of both skyscrapers and other smaller buildings. Ochson (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What the IP said is true regarding the relative locations of skyscrapers in NYC, but it has nothing to do with the question asked--the impetus behind building skyscrapers in general--which is either the expected profit of private investors (including miscalculations during bubbles, see Burj Khalifa) or the non-market decisions of quasi-governmental entities. If the IP's answer is literally true, that high land prices get skyscrapers built, not expectations of profit, the OP should encourage the city he lives in to put a huge tax on land (they can use it to import bedrock) and watch the skyscrapers spring up overnight. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• It should be noted that, through zoning and other means, a municipal government can have a big impact on the skyline of a city. Several major world cities have city centers devoid of actual skyscrapers, for various reasons. Paris's skyscrapers are concentrated at La Défense, a district locted some distance from and isolated from the historic center of Paris; it is basically on the ourskirts of the city. I have heard this is because of the unsuitability of the ground under Paris proper for supporting massive structures (supposedly the catacombs make it unstable, but I don't know how much truth there is to that story). Washington, D.C. also has no skyscrapers in its corporate limits; there are strict building codes which define both the height and setbacks for all buildings, to assure that no building is higher than the dome atop the Capitol. As a result, D.C. business district is actually in Arlington County, Virginia, where places like Rosslyn and Crystal City and other neighborhoods do have high concentrations of skyscrapers. And, occasionally you do get random skyscrapers in the middle of nowhere. I used to drive past Oakbrook Terrace Tower in DuPage County, Illinois daily. It was a bit of an oddity, located probably a 15-20 minute drive from any similarly sized buildings in Chicago. It's something a bit weird to see a random skyscraper sitting in the midst of a suburban village. --Jayron32 03:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A few people here said that skyscraper booms generally happen in big cities, but what about Miami, another city from my home state of Florida? With a population less than 400,000 and with the size being about 40 quare miles, it is a medium size size city, not that much bigger than Tampa and much, much smaller than New York City and Chicago. Yet, it now has one of the biggest skylines in the Western Hemisphere and the 3rd biggest skyline in the U.S. As recent as 10 years ago, Miami's skyline was average for its size. So, who gets the most credit in beginning Miami's skycraper's boom? Is Miami a unique case? Willminator (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Miami proper may have only 400,000 people, but its metropolitan area is somewhere around 5.5 million. It's not a small city by any means. --Xuxl (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. What gets defined as a "city" or "city proper" or "metropolitan area" varies so greatly from place to place it is hard to make definitive comparisons, especially with comparing "city proper" (i.e. places that get to elect the mayor and city council, for example) from one place to another. In New England, for example, the basic local government unit is the New England town, a concept unique to the area, and that has effected things like city size in terms of area and population. Boston, for example, has managed to annex some of the towns around it, but it is still very small compared to other cities of its caliber. New York City, by comparison, annexed the shit out of everything around it. Dozens of smaller villages and towns were absorbed into it as it grew, meaning that you can travel a long way within New York. If I drove from, say, the Bronx southeast to Coney Island, that's a distance of 20 miles, and I'd have never left New York proper. If I drove the same distance from Charlestown southeast through Boston, I'd end up along the border between Cohasset and Scituate, and have passed through the towns of Braintree, Quincy, Weymouth, and Hingham, each a distinct municipality. Miami is organized similarly to Boston: It has a small urban core which is Miami proper, but has dozens of other cities, towns, and unincorporated places that make the metro area much larger. In Florida, Jacksonville is much larger in area and population, officially, than Miami. However, that's only when comparing the city proper; Jacksonville is organized more like New York City, having itself annexed essentially all of Duval County. If you took the footprint of Jacksonville Proper and superimposed it over the Miami metro area, you'd have a LOT more people in Miami. The difference is an accident of political Geography; culturally and economically Miami is a much more "major" city than Jacksonville. --Jayron32 14:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I immediately thought of tourism (although the reasons given previously probably are more important): While the metropolitan area is large (5.5 M), there is also a large "transient population". According to Miami#Economy, >38 million people visit Miami every year, and they need to stay somewhere too. (And obviously, they can't all live in beach-front single-resident bungalows.) If we assume each tourist stays in Miami for a week, the calculator (38 M/52 weeks) tells me that Miami has an additional 730,000 inhabitants. Of course, these tourists don't come nicely spaced out, but there are sure to be a peak and an off-peak season, so you'd need rooms to accomodate them all, and high-rises, or sky-scrapers are a space-efficient way of doing that. Especially when tourists often all want to be in the same place. V85 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Other than the cadre of architects who all got in on the fad, reinforced concrete had the most to do with making it easy. Please see Skyscraper#History. [5] suggests that Frederick Ransome and Henry Louis Le Chatelier might deserve enabler credits, with the usual cast of thousands approaching their contributions, as in any substantive industrial society change. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So just to make sure I understand the answer, big businesses and corporations, private developers, etc. in general are usually the ones who are more responsible and credited in starting a skyscraper boom in some city with few skyscrapers than the city government itself, right?

But could a city government be considered to be the ones who are the most responsible when they themselves try to set apart many acres of land for sale or for lease for urban development in a city's urban center and then try to convince private developers, businesses amd corporations, etc. from other cities in the U.S or even overseas to come down and invest in their city instead? Is this how cities with a surplus of money that either want to or don't care to spend a lot of it, like Dubai, UAE, do it or is that not the way it is in this case? What about public developers (if there's such a thing)? Willminator (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You asked who should get the credit. Groups of people like governments, architects, financiers, landowners, consumers creating demand, laborers, etc., share the credit in ways that are impossible to apportion quantitatively without very complex models. Generally those models will assign higher scores to earlier actions, so you can often go back to the enabling scientific discoveries for a first approximation, which works in this case because a structure made of Damascus steel would not be anywhere near as strong or durable as the same structure made of reinforced concrete containing standard steel. The advances in concrete which enabled easy construction of 30 story buildings really are due to Ransome and Le Chatelier. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Governments do have important contributions. They can set up zoning to encourage or discourage skyscraper building. They can set up tax incentives or establish infrastructure improvements to encourage certain types of development. For example, cities with a strong public transportation system encourage high-density development, while places which have a greater dependence on cars and road network tend to encourage sprawl. If you run a city and want to encourage high density development (skyscrapers) you can invest in subways or trains, make downtown parking rare and expensive, establish toll roads and other disincentives to driving, give tax breaks to developers and tenants to encourage skyscraper building, etc. etc. It should be noted also that the local economy has a lot to do with why a skyscraper farm will grow: a city built on heavy industry is much less likely to support such buildings, than one built on a service economy. You can't smelt steel or build a car in a skyscraper, but you can push paper and program computers in one. --Jayron32 21:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Commercial and residential sectors can demand skyscrapers even in an industrial local economy. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

True, which is why Pittsburgh and Detroit have skyscrapers. But there is more demand for office space in local economies where a higher percentage of the population is employed in jobs that need more office space. Certainly the nature of the local economy has an affect on how many skyscrapers are built in any one place. It isn't a binary condition, "They have a steel mill, so they get no skyscrapers in this city". Instead, it is one of the multitude of factors that determine what a cityscape will look like. I was merely pointing to it as one of those many factors. --Jayron32 04:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)