March 25 Information

Is there a website where it tells information about mineral industries in the Arab World like which minerals does Algeria have, Saudi Arabia mines which minerals and etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.107 ( talk) 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Our articles can answer your question. See Mining industry of Algeria. As for Saudi Arabia, in Economy of Saudi Arabia, you will see that petroleum is the main geological resource for that country, but a government-owned mining firm called Ma'aden has been mining a number of minerals. Marco polo ( talk) 02:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

What type of minerals does Canada mine besides iron ore, coal, and gold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.107 ( talk) 02:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm sure there are many. Uranium, diamonds, and rare earths come to mind. Deor ( talk) 02:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This table from the Canadian Minerals Yearbook lists a bunch for 2006-08. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Resolved

 – Asked and answered. Further discussion probably not needed. Alexius Horatius 04:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

What's the definition of currency manipulator? How a country be listed or defined as a currency manipulator? Thanks. roscoe_x ( talk) 00:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Question moved here from the Science desk. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 04:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

According to [ |the US Treasury], “authorities of an economy could be said to manipulate the exchange rate if they intentionally act to set the exchange rate at levels, or ranges, to prevent effective balance of payments adjustments or gain unfair competitive advantage in international trade such that for a protracted period the exchange rate differs significantly from the rate that would have prevailed in the absence of action by the authorities. However, such a significant difference could also arise from the interplay of economic forces or other factors. Hence, in making assessments, a wide range of economic data and policies must be reviewed . . . ” How a country is listed is simple: Treasury sends a report to Congress declaring that Iceland (whoever) is guilty. DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

And could China be equally guilty?-- ProteanEd ( talk) 17:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

China actively manipulates their currency, yes. They don't deny it. -- Tango ( talk) 17:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Personally, I agree that China is a currency manipulator according to the definition of the US Treasury, but the Chinese government would most certainly deny that they manipulate their exchange rate "to prevent effective balance of payments adjustments or gain unfair advantage in international trade". The Chinese justify their currency policies as a means to promote economic stability and recovery from the global downturn. If they prevent balance of payments adjustments or give them an advantage (of course not an unfair one!) in international trade, that is merely a side-effect, according to the official Chinese position presented to outsiders. The US Treasury department might decide to adopt the Chinese view and to refrain from labeling China a currency manipulator because labeling China a currency manipulator could lead to a dangerous spiral of adversarial measures, which could include China dumping its massive holdings of US debt, which would drive up interest rates in the United States and could lead to a collapse of the US dollar, both of which would have devastating effects on the US economy. Marco polo ( talk) 20:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

What I can’t figure out is why people are so anxious to drive up the cost of the daily necessities that people have to buy – the Wal-Mart stuff – at a time when we still haven’t fully recovered from the recession. It obviously isn’t about jobs (in the event China quickly raised the value of its currency by, say, 20%, zero new jobs would be created in America), so why is one side of the political spectrum so eager to kick the least well-off people when their down?

It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to recognize that needlessly jacking up the cost of just about everything the poor have to buy at Wal-Mart is an incredibly stupid thing to do to consumer confidence, personal consumption expenditure and the economy in general. DOR (HK) ( talk) 05:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I think the higher costs would be expected to be temporary, since the higher prices would encourage US companies to compete for the market. The increased competition would drive the prices lower again, only now the US would have some ability to make it's own supplies, creating jobs in the process for a net gain. In reality, I am not sure how well it would really work, but the US does have the power to effectively raise the currency of China in the US anyways by raising tariffs. Googlemeister ( talk) 13:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Nah, it’s a permanent step up in the cost of living. If the things people have to buy (e.g., at Wal-Mart) aren’t made in China, they’ll be made – at higher cost or lower quality (or both) – in Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh or somewhere else that is just a shade below competitive with China under the current circumstances. US companies are part of the equation only in so far as they are operating in those countries, and the only competition generated would be for market share taken away from China. Manufacturing in the US? Not part of the picture. And, having the power to do something has absolutely nothing to do with whether it’s a good idea or not. DOR (HK) ( talk) 03:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

...before the 16th century, china was the dominant world power, india second and the west third? if yes, that means the rise of china and india may be just restoring the natural order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.216.77 ( talk) 14:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I would have to say no, those assertions are not very accurate. While China and perhaps India were able to exert a great amount of power, it was on a regional scale and not global. That is not to say they were not the most powerful of the time, but their influence on a global scale would probably not be sufficient to be considered a global power in a modern sense. Additionally, one can not really consider the West to be a power because the West would have consisted of separate entities such as Spain, Portugal, Venice etc. These entities were not really working together, and were often working at odds with each other. Googlemeister ( talk) 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't think India was unified at that time either. -- Tango ( talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It is further incorrect to make a claim that there is a "natural order" to world powers. Just because something existed in the past does not imply that it is natural. -- kainaw ™ 16:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Why is the 16th century special? There were other powers before then. The Mongol Empire was very powerful, for example. -- Tango ( talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

(e/c) prior to European colonialism, there was no such thing as a 'world' power. there were a number of very large empires in various regions (at least three in the Mediterranean region, a couple of different ones in the indian sub-continent, a long-lived one in most of what is now China, the Mayan and Aztec empires in the New World), but they were all regional empires. world powers were not possible at all until advances in ship technology made long-range bulk transportation of material and people possible, and not fully realizable until advances in weaponry reduced the military presence needed to secure a region (a single knight with armor, weapons and steed had an equivalent weight to to a small squad of musket men with a good quantity of shot and powder, and that small squad of musket men was a far more effective fighting force than an armored knight).

the 16th century is special because that's when the technological advances I mentioned above came into full play. -- Ludwigs2 16:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It might be interesting to note what has "held back" China and India in recent times. In the case of China; colonialism, civil war, communism (and specifically some idiotic leadership under Mao) were the problems. In India; colonialism, civil war/war with Pakistan and maybe assassinations/terrorism were they problems. While many of those problems have been addressed, the remnants of communism (like refusing to have an open Internet) may continue to plague China, while political problems between Muslims and Hindus (and other ethnic or religious groups, like Tamils and Sikhs) continue to limit the growth of India. StuRat ( talk) 16:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

yeah, though (IMO) that really all comes down to colonialism. India never would have had it's current structure if it weren't for the Europeans arbitrarily imposing a geo-political superstructure over the region (Pakistan would be larger, and large sections of western india would be under its rule or under separate muslim states; the main body of india would probably be divided into at least three different states, based on historical, linguistic, and religious distinctions). Communism would never have gotten much of a foothold in China if China had remained as simply a dynastic bureaucracy. the chinese revolution (which was inevitable, I think) would have focussed on anti-imperialism rather than anti-capitalism, and may have leaned towards democratic/republican forms rather than Marxist forms (the same ideas that are creeping out now in the Chinese political underground). who knows, though... -- Ludwigs2 17:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

China briefly dabbled with overseas exploration in the early 15th Century (see Zheng He) but then decided it wasn't worth the effort. Perhaps if they'd have persevered, they would have taken the role that Spain and Portugal adopted a century later. Alansplodge ( talk) 17:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

that would have put the fox in the henhouse. by all accounts, Chinese civilization of the period was more advanced than that of the equivalent western nations, it just lacked some of the technological advances. -- Ludwigs2 17:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually it is widely believed that China had better technology in a lot of areas earlier then European countries did, at least until the Renaissance period. Googlemeister ( talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

yes, generally. however, they lagged behind the west in the development of firearms (possibly because of metallurgical issues?) and in seafaring tech. I don't think the Chinese had anything approaching the deep sea vessels the Europeans had at the time the Europeans were engaged in the major 'voyages of discovery'. Part of that is happenstance, of course - The primary threats to the Chinese throughout most of their history were land-based enemies like the Mongols. Japan was an issue, but the Japanese were never great sailors and Japan is a bit far away from the chinese mainland to mount a determined invasion. Europe, however, had Britain just a few scant miles to the west and the Mediterranean and Africa to the south, so they had a significant competitive incentive to develop navies and superior ships. Being able to get from point A to point B is a big part of conquering point B. -- Ludwigs2 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There's the idea that Europe developed sea-faring technology, skills, and knowledge capable of reaching all parts of the world (you don't just need good ships and sailing technology but understanding of large-scale wind patterns and so on) while China certainly could have but didn't, was because China produced lots of things Europeans wanted while Europe produced very little that the Chinese wanted. Europeans had the incentive to figure out how to get to the place that had the stuff they wanted, while China didn't want anything from most of the world and so little incentive to undertake the expense and risks of long-distance ocean sailing. In short, China had the luxury of staying home and letting other people come to them. As late as the early 19th century trade with China was hard for Europeans (and Americans) because there were few goods desired by China. Imports at Canton consisted mostly of furs and hard cash (specie). Of course it wasn't long before the East India Company turned to opium. In time the inflow of specie to China reversed to an outflow as massive amounts of opium were imported--illegally at first, until.. well, the Opium Wars of course. Anyway, I've seen the notion of China not needing to go anywhere much and Europe really really wanting to get to China playing a factor in European seafaring. It's an oversimplification, of course, but makes some sense. Pfly ( talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

(Responding to Alansplodge above) If you accept the thesis of Jered Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, the reason that China "fell behind" Europe was that it had no immediate competition to encourage its peoples to innovate & improve their livelihoods. As a result, until the 20th century China remained a powerful pre-industrial power, depending on the backs of millions of toiling peasants to produce its GDP. (Zheng He's voyages are of an example of what China could do if one man -- the Emperor -- wanted it done; when a new Emperor came along who wasn't interested in that accomplishment, funding dried up & further advances would not be forthcoming.) In contrast, the geography of Europe led to the formation of numerous nation-states which were chronically in competition with one other -- militarily, economically & culturally; their inhabitants were all stumbling towards the Industrial Revolution & world domination exploration. If one European country lost interest in an area, there were several others that would take up the slack. Which would be an explanation at odds with what Pfly wrote above. -- llywrch ( talk) 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Studies that have been done on the size of various economies and their share of global GDP prior to the 20th century have all concluded that China was the first or second largest economy for most of the period between unification (212BCE) and the mid-19th century. Moreover, all of China’s neighbors regularly sent tribute to the emperor, unless they were engaged in a war with China (generally, for not sending tribute). Admiral Zheng He’s early 15th century voyages were as much about reminding South and South-East of their responsibilities to pay tribute as it was about exploration. In the absence of any other power even seeking to challenge China’s supremacy (unlike constant internal squabbling among Europeans), that one-third of the world was under China’s power, if not direct rule. Still, I agree with kainaw that there’s nothing “natural” about any world order. DOR (HK) ( talk) 05:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

While I'm willing to concede that the economies of what is now India & China were each larger than the economy of what is now Western Europe, the Wikipedia article you linked to is basically a recap of the findings of one scholar -- Angus Maddison -- which is considered, based on the Talk page of that article, very controversial. Which is not a surprise: the raw statistical material needed to produce the economic information is notably reduced prior to 1900, & becomes attenuated prior to 1800. In other words, one is reduced to making estimates based on assumptions before 1800 on an increasing basis as one goes further back in time & records dwindle in number & quality. The economic investigations of Gregory King may be useful for England circa 1690, but England is only one part of the British Isles, let alone Europe. I have no knowledge of the state of the government archives of China, Japan & India, but except for papyrus finds in Egypt European archival records effectively end at AD 500; anything before that is based on the subjective opinion of upper-class historians or investigators. It would be foolish to consider any statistic before 1800 a solid fact without careful investigation. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

How many innocent children stories have been discovered to be indeed racist? Like “Snow White,” who insisted on being the “fairest of them all.” ProteanEd ( talk) 17:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

They aren't discovered to be racist, people just make nonsense claims that they are racist. The story uses the first, not the third, definition of fair (in the order used on that page). -- Tango ( talk) 17:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's that simple. Lighter skin was considered prettier (hence "fair" meaning both), probably because princesses, who never had to go outside to work, had it, while peasants had tans. Later, the term "healthy tan" was used because people who worked outside were more likely to be healthy than the sedentary. But now we know that tans aren't that healthy after all, so perhaps pale will come back into style. StuRat ( talk) 18:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Skin lightening cream is massively popular in India [2]. Not sure if that means they're all racists, but if so they are at worst frivolous racists motivated by vanity. 213.122.7.193 ( talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I believe Skin whitening and skin lightening cream is popular thoroughout much of East and South East Asia as well. In fact from our article "The whitening cream industry is estimated to be worth around $432 million in India and $7 billion in China" Nil Einne ( talk) 10:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Absolutely everything that exists is racist if you want it to be. Therefore, every story ever written is racist to some degree. -- kainaw ™ 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Little Black Sambo may be the foremost; the story itself has no racist overtones, as our article states; but the illustrations of most versions are taken to be racist caricatures, and over time Sambo became a racist term in some places. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 18:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

OP's clarification:I chose a wrong wording for my question. I should have said "stories which were accused of being racists" or "stories which were 'discovered' to be racist". I know that there is some conceptual and semantical twisting in labeling Snow White as racist.-- ProteanEd ( talk) 18:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

(e/c) You have to be careful with interpretation. I once heard Robin Williams (as a comedy routine) give a scholarly interpretation of "goldilocks and the three bears" as an allegory for 20th century European politics, and the hilarious thing about it was how well it worked. Some stories are racist because they were considered cute in times when racism was commonplace; some are made racist by an overly-particular analysis. -- Ludwigs2 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

No small part of the problem is the slippery term "racist", which means many things to many people. Is the movie Blazing Saddles racist? Well, it throws the N-word and other ethnic slurs around quite a lot, but the white people are depicted as morons, in general. (As noted by The Waco Kid in the movie's script.) For example, is sterotyping in the same category as actual racial discrimination? Then there's Huckleberry Finn, Twain's biting commentary of the times in which he lived, which ironically found itself being banned in some places in more recent times, because of its alleged racism. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't see how depicting white people as morons means a movie isn't racist - it could well be racist, just against whites. (I'm not saying Blazing Saddles is racist against any race, I'm just commenting on Bugs' comment.) -- Tango ( talk) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It's a comedy, so there's a lot more latitude. And it's actually a statement against racism. Bart wins everyone over, through his leadership and resourcefulness. The point is that some folks who lack perspective will zero in on something specific in a work and say, "That's racist! Ban it!" When I was a kid, I never thought of "Little Black Sambo" as being racist. It was just a story about a kid dealing with a tiger, or some such. But as someone implied earlier, if you go looking for racism (or anything else, for that matter), you're sure to find it. That doesn't mean there isn't racist stuff out there, or maybe a better way to say it would be "stuff that's embarassing by today's standards". That's the real issue with "Little Black Sambo" and parts of "Huckleberry Finn", or "Amos and Andy" for that matter. What's needed is better education, to explain these works as a product of their times. For an editorial reference, Whoopi Goldberg's disclaimer at the start of some of the WB cartoon DVD's shows excellent perspective on the matter. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Some would say, Tango, that racism is racial descrimination plus power (i.e. systemic) so that Blazing Saddles may exhibit racial discrimination, but since it's against the power group (whites) it's not "racist" in that regard. Moot clarification of your point, I suppose, but it shows how what Bugs is saying about slippery terminology can get in the way of the discussion. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That's it exactly. True racism, or racism "that matters", is suppression of one race by another. Name-calling may be racist in nature, but unless it's part of the greater aspect of suppression, it's really of no consequence. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"True racism"? Where's that definition from? -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

American Heritage dictionary, definition 2. It's not the only definition, but it is a valid one. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Marginally. Mostly I've heard it used by people claiming it's impossible that they are racists because they are a minority, forgetting that it's possible to be simultaneously oppressed and an oppressor. -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I've seen it often in academia and particularly amongst those who make a distinction between racism and racial discrimination. I believe popularly most people do not make such a distinction. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The problem with finding racism everywhere is that one waters down real racism to the point where it cannot be recognized. If everything is found to be racist, then we can't differentiate. There is real, harmful, damaging racism in the world, and so much of it there's no point in inventing it in places where it doesn't; and doing so hurts, rather than furthers, the cause of ending it, because filling our awareness with frivilous claims of racism clouds our ability to combat real racism. -- Jayron 32 18:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Well-stated. :) Ray Charles also provided some perspective, quoted on p.95 in Lynn Sherr's book about his recording of America the Beautiful, a quote from the early 70s or so, taken from another book: "I'm the first to say this country is racist to the bone. But that doesn't mean I can't be patriotic. For all the B.S. about America, I still work and live here in comfort." ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The Annotated Brothers Grimm, aside from being a beautiful and fascinating work, shows quite clearly how these European folk stories often had values that are more than a bit out of touch with modern sensibilities. Some of the Grimm stories are simply not translatable to modern ears— The Jew in the Brambles, for example, shows its heritage a little too starkly. People adapt stories to fit the values of their times. Sometimes that means rather obviously nasty things. Sometimes it involves less obviously nasty ones—a focus on princesses, for example, which has only magnified in the last few years, has been the subject of a lot of critique for what it broadcasts as being the appropriate values for women, for example.

In a more general comment, Bruno Bettelheim was famous for reading Freudian values into many classic short stories. Estimations on how accurate his analysis is vary quite a bit. -- Mr.98 ( talk) 21:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

What's to stop a US President from using recess appointments to permanently fill a position?

For example, say the Chief Justice resigned, during a Senate in recess. The President, faced by an opposition Senate could make a recess appointment. As the Constitution limits such an appointment until the expiration of the next session of the Senate, why couldn't the President simply re-appoint said Chief Justice as the Senate is once more out of session? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Congress has the option to properly fill the position. If Congress chooses not to properly fill the position, they are choosing to let the recess appointment stand. It is a situation where choosing not to do one thing is a choice to do another. -- kainaw ™ 18:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

But, of course, Congress can only vote to approve those people who are nominated by the President. So, if the Congress is absolutely opposed to anything the President does, then that deadlock is addressed with a recess appointment. The broader lesson here is that a division of powers doesn't function any more if those in the various branches of government refuse to ever cooperate. StuRat ( talk) 18:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

So in answer to the question: nothing. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

However, if you're the president, you'd want your appointments to be in office as long as possible, especially if you fear that your successor will be from the other political party. Consequently, you may want to try to compromise with the Senate at some point to be able to get a permanent appointment, since unfilled positions (especially on the Supreme Court) are a significant political advantage for the party in power. Combine that with the fact that the most likely reason for wholesale opposition from the Senate is that it's controlled by the other party, and you're in an even worse situation: a successor from the other political party would be very likely to have an easy time getting appointments confirmed. Nyttend ( talk) 17:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

But, if you need 60 votes in the Senate for confirmation, as now seems to be the case, you may not get that with either party in charge. Therefore, we could eventually end up with all Supreme court seats filled as recess appointments. This would result in the Supreme Court alternating between all liberals and all conservatives whenever the Presidency changes party. That would make for some rather chaotic rulings, and effectively kill the concept of an independent judiciary. StuRat ( talk) 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Executive recess appointments in the U.S. can only serve for up to two years without needing to be confirmed by the Senate. [3] [that's a PDF file, you may need to rename it from .cfm to .pdf to view it after downloading] However, controversial recess appointments usually have a pretty good chance of being reconfirmed. Time heals controversies. 99.27.201.226 ( talk) 22:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

So what happens after 2 years if no confirmation happens ? Can the President then do another recess appointment or is the office just left vacant ? StuRat ( talk) 03:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure -- it might just be that the title changes to "Acting ____" but the appointee stays in place. 99.27.201.226 ( talk) 19:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It's not a matter of "2 years"; it's a matter of the end of the current Senate session, at which point the recess appointment expires, and the position is again vacant. -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 19:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Then what ? Can the President just reappoint the same person to the same position ? StuRat ( talk) 13:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes. Unsuccessful recess appointments to United States federal courts (I love Wikipedia!) mentions Taft using a recess appointment to reappoint a couple of judges who'd been recess appointed by TR and then rejected by the Senate. -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 03:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

How does bankruptcy work? I am not looking into it personally, but am working on an idea for a short story. Say an individual buys $50,000 worth of stuff (furniture, car, star wars collector glasses or whatever) with a credit card, and gives away the money from selling the merchandise, or gives the merchandise itself to a third party. When the bill comes due, the individual declares bankruptcy. Would the credit card company be able to get money or goods from the third party, or would the CC company just be SOL? After the bankruptcy, is there no obligation to pay back the CC company? So the third party could give the original purchaser back the merchandise, which is now free and clear? Googlemeister ( talk) 18:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Have you read our article Bankruptcy? DJ Clayworth ( talk) 19:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Those portions that appear relevant (seemingly Chapter 7 in the US). It does little to address my questions though. Googlemeister ( talk) 19:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

First, intentionally hiding assets like that would be considered fraud, and jail terms could result. Second, you stay in bankruptcy for years, so your friend would have to keep those items a long time. Third, your friend could refuse to give the items back. Fourth, bankruptcy puts a permanent mark on your record, leading to an inability to get good credit, jobs, etc., for years. So, considering all this, is it really worth it ? StuRat ( talk) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Strictly speaking, chapter 7 bankruptcy "only" stays on your credit report 10 years. And in some cases, the fact that you aren't carrying loads of debt can actually improve your credit more than the fact that you filed for bankruptcy hurts it. I'm curious about a slightly less contrived and bad faith situation in a similar vein: what if a guy declares bankruptcy, but his wife (with separate financial accounts) is doing well? Could the creditors go after her assets? What if she divorces him quickly before bankruptcy is filed, and keeps the lion's share of the assets (bad faith yes, but not quite as blatant)? Buddy431 ( talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

A few points. First, I think it's 7 years, not 10. Second, some bankruptcies don't last for years (mostly just chapter 7's) and are open and shut affairs. If the court doesn't have to administer a plan (again, mostly just 7's) then they won't necessarily take all that long. Moreover, the length of the case doesn't affect how long you would need to keep the goods. What is part of the "estate" is determined at the order for relief. Shadowjams ( talk) 20:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Our article says it is 10 years (7 for Chapter 13). US bankruptcy is very different to UK bankruptcy, it seems. In the UK, when someone is declared bankrupt they are considered bankrupt for a certain period of time (a year, usually, it used to be longer). During that time, your assets are vested in a trustee and you are under certain restrictions. The main ones are that you can't be a director of a company and you have to inform anyone about to lend you more than a small amount of money about your bankruptcy. You are also usually required to pay as much as you can towards your debts during that time. That will be a portion of your salary and also any windfalls you may have in that time. After that time, your bankruptcy is "discharged" and only then do you cease to be liable for your debts. It stays on your credit report for 6 years (I'm not sure if that's from the date of the order or the date of the discharge), and even after that time you still have to declare it on mortgage applications and similar. -- Tango ( talk) 21:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

A deliberate bankruptcy petition as you describe, would likely be considered to be in bad faith, (see here) in that the debtor did not earnestly intend to repay the debt when he incurred it, and hasn't made every reasonable effort since to repay it. . Simply the splurge-give-bankruptcy cycle you describe would alone seem like obvious bad faith. If a court feels the bankruptcy petition is in bad faith, it will deny it - individuals don't really "declare bankruptcy", they ask to be declared bankrupt, a process that creditors frequently oppose. With the petition denied, the person's credit is still ruined but they still owe the debt, and the interest accruing, and hefty collection fees, and the costs of the failed bankruptcy petition, and lawyers, bailiffs, and collection agents can still purse them, often by any number of unpleasant means. As StuRat notes, the addition of the deliberate concealment and you've got a strong case for criminal fraud or deception. Creditors and bankruptcy courts are not idiots, and will not fall for amateur shenanigans like this. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

(Assuming the U.S.) There are good faith provisions in a a few parts of the bankruptcy code, (search title 11 for "good faith" and you'll find them). In addition, some of what you're describing is also fraud which is criminal and also would bar a discharge itself. Concealment itself is a separate type of fraud and crime. As far as credit goes, ironically in some cases people's credit improves somewhat after bankruptcy, at least for limited purposes (non-debt related reasons, like car insurance); generally, creditors don't like the idea of lending to people who didn't pay their last creditors.

Finlay's made a few errors in describing the situation, at least in the U.S. (I suspect he's referring to U.K. bankruptcies, something I know nothing about). In the U.S., a petition is what you first file to create the case. It's the equivalent of filing a complaint. Simultaneously (in most cases) there is an "order for relief." Then the case begins. Depending on the type of case (Chapters 11, 12 and 13) there may be a plan "confirmed" by the judge. The confirmation may be opposed by creditors, but there are specific rules for this; it's not as though a bankruptcy requires the consent of a creditors. Again, depending on the type of case (actually depending on the type of debtor and case), there may be a discharge of that debt. Technically a discharge is just a federal order from the bankruptcy court forever prohibiting creditors from collecting enforcing those debts (people can pay discharged debts after a bankruptcy, and there are strange provisions for this all over the law; for example, article 9 allows payment of a discharged debt as consideration for a security agreement). Finally, the case may be closed and the matter dismissed (when the plan's complete). This also doesn't even mention lots of helpful things for the debtors and creditors along the way, things like avoidance actions, the automatic stay, and lien testing.

There are also dollar restrictions on the consumer purchase of luxury goods.

Our bankruptcy article needs some updates I think, but if you're curious about any other pieces, we'd be happy to help. Shadowjams ( talk) 20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Though I am not the believing type and have never seen a ghost etc. I am nevertheless troubled by a small entity when I am about to fall in sleep or on brink of wakefulness. It pulls off the bed-clothes etc or presses my limbs here or there and even pulls me back to bed when sometimes I get up and try to run. I am totally unable to cry or speak at such moments  Jon Ascton   (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Incubus would indeed be the article you're looking for. There are many internet forums for discussing paranormal experiences.-- Wetman ( talk) 20:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Also Sleep paralysis and Night terror. From "sleep paralysis" article:

In addition, the paralysis state may be accompanied by terrifying hallucinations (hypnopompic or hypnagogic) and an acute sense of danger.[8] Sleep paralysis is particularly frightening to the individual because of the vividness of such hallucinations.[7] The hallucinatory element to sleep paralysis makes it even more likely that someone will interpret the experience as a dream, since completely fanciful, or dream-like, objects (often described as looking distinctly demonic by those who experience the paralysis)[citation needed] may appear in the room alongside one's normal vision. Some scientists have proposed this condition as an explanation for alien abductions and ghostly encounters. This description seems to match your situation.
Do you actually see it? Can you describe it? Maybe you should try to find a way to get a picture/video of it. Does this happens regularly?-- 151.51.45.45 ( talk) 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I have read incubus article. But in my case I am not a woman and the thing does not do any sexual act. It seems to be a small child trying to stick to me desperately  Jon Ascton   (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The opposite gender equivalent of an incubus is a succubus, although, as indicated, incubi/succubi are usually considered to be sexual in nature. Poltergeist is a term used for mischievous spirits, which has no sexual connotation. -- 174.31.194.126 ( talk) 05:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The hypnagogia article might have some useful info for you. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

succubus and incubus date from pre industrial times. Modern famous hypnogogia of the same kind are aliens of whichever kind are popular in that time and place. I find my hypnogogic entities (usually ghosts, people or spiders) act nicer if I talk to them, and often go away if I ask them if they're real. -- 203.202.43.54 ( talk) 06:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The good folks at the Reference Desk are not permitted to provide any medical advice at all. Advice and commentary from random people on the internet is not a substitute for medical/psychological/psychiatric help if something is happening which troubles you. Your primary physician would be the first person to see if such experiences trouble you. (Original research) It is certainly alarming if one has the sensation that there is some intruder and one is unable to get up and respond appropriately. This may occur (very rarely) in the sleep of anyone. There is motor inhibition which normally prevents people from running around responding to dream experiences, for obvious reasons. This system can sometimes get a bit out of order, so that one is aware of the inability to move. Another out of order condition can lead to sleepwalking. Edison ( talk) 05:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

once when I was 14 or so I had a very convincing moment where I could have sworn that a coven of witches were surrounding my bed chanting something, while I was completely unable to move. snapped out of it in a bit, but it gave me the complete and total willies for a day or two. This happens (as best I understand the psychology) when you wake up quickly but incompletely: body movement is still suppressed as in sleep, the semi-awake mind tries to move, can't, and quickly confabulates a dream-like sequence to explain your inability to move. what it dreams up (like any dream) is a codified representation of your current anxieties, but without a much longer discussion of the experience I couldn't say what those are. Suffice it to say it's not abnormal unless it's consistent and recurring over a fairly long period of time (in which case you should consult a therapist).

incidentally, deep breathing will usually dispel it quickly, if you're present enough to remember. the extra oxygen wakes up both the body and mind. -- Ludwigs2 04:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Can anyone please help me and tel me what is the citation style used when writing an online article? for instance what citation style is used in this article (when it makes a list of sources used with the heading of NOTES)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_pollution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.81.123 ( talk) 20:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Have you read WP:CITE? Gabbe ( talk) 21:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

citation help

Can i use MLA format List of references at the end of my online article about environmental or health sciences? is MLA suitable for articles about science or it suits for subjects like philosophy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.81.123 ( talk) 21:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

If it's for Wikipedia we have a whole page of citation guidelines, WP:CITE. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 21:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

thanks. but the answer isn't of much help...Anyone else, plz help me out..

WP:Cite says that MLA (among other formats) is acceptable, but it should be consistent throughout an article. Therefore, if MLA is used in the article, that's what you should use. If not, use the style already there. If this is not a Wikipedia article, our article, The MLA Style Manual, says that it is used for publications related to literature and culture, but I think it would be acceptable for science also. If you still are not sure, I would suggest using a style that is acceptable for any subject, such as Turabian. PrincessofLlyr ( talk) 03:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Can you give me any examples of a book which takes its title from a fictional book (or poem) within the book? -- Lazar Taxon ( talk) 22:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

A Perfect Vacuum and The Neverending Story are the first two that I thought of. Fictional book lists some more. Story within a story might have some too. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 22:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Note that, in the Neverending Story, there is a two-way interaction between the characters from the book and the characters from the book-within-the-book.. StuRat ( talk) 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The Book of Three comes to mind because I'm familiar with it. Also Inkheart. Similar to Neverending Story, there is interaction between characters in both books. PrincessofLlyr ( talk) 22:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Taking some liberty with the question, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy might also be an example of this. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"The Princess Bride" is an entire book written as though it is only the "good parts" of a fictional book. -- kainaw ™ 00:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Two examples of books which take their titles from a fictional play within the book: The King in Yellow and The Flying Classroom. --- Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

A Clockwork Orange springs to mind. If you mean books which are supposedly written by one or more of their characters, and so the book itself exists as a fictional book within it, then there are many examples, of which The Lord of the Rings is the first the occurred to me. Algebraist 10:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't follow that. The Lord of the Rings is written in the third person, and Tolkein's narrative mode is that of the omniscient narrator. In what way is it "supposedly written by one or more of its characters" ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I think he's referring to the Red Book of Westmarch. Zain Ebrahim ([[User

talk:Zain Ebrahim111|talk]]) 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Or The Hobbit, whose full title is The Hobbit, or There and Back Again. According to the story, Bilbo Baggins wrote the book There and Back Again as a memoir of his travels. Kingsfold ( talk) 15:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

A bestseller from a few years back, The Shadow of the Wind, is an example, as is Nabokov's Pale Fire (which actually includes the entirety of the eponymous poem). I'm sure there are quite a few of these. Deor ( talk) 13:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

My daughter's favourite Charlie Cooks Favourite Book is a nice children's example ... the book itself is being read in the book. -- Q Chris ( talk) 15:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

As I was sitting around woolgathering, another example occurred to me: The Land of Laughs. If the original querent had asked, in addition, for short stories that take their titles from fictional books within the stories, the list would have no end. I hope no one is planning to write a WP list article on this concept (and hope even more that no one has already done so). Deor ( talk) 15:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Wouldn't that be quite the list?! There's also One Man's Horse by Marguerite Henry. PrincessofLlyr ( talk) 16:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

If on a winter's night a traveler. Recury ( talk) 16:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"It was a dark and stormy night, and the crew were huddled round, and the Captain said "Tell us a story Jim", and Jim said "All right, I will", and this is the story he told - "It was a dark and stormy night, and the crew were huddled round..."". DuncanHill ( talk) 16:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That book could have been the documentation for Dilbert's project whose acronym was "TTP". ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"In Ed O’Loughlin’s first novel, one correspondent – the kind who “made a fortune by turning his three-week assignments into epics of suffering and hope” – writes a book called Not Untrue and Not Unkind. That book contains an emotional account of the correspondent’s friendship with a murdered photojournalist (though he barely knew him) and caricatures of the tough-but-vulnerable journalists he met in Africa. Given that O’Loughlin himself has previously reported in Africa for The Irish Times, and that the journalists in this novel are mostly tough-but-vulnerable, the real author seems to be having some knowing fun." An excerpt from The Telegraph review of Not Untrue and Not Unkind here BrainyBabe ( talk) 20:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The OP asks about a fictional book or poem, but would a fictional TV show be OK? Gore Vidal's novel Duluth plays off a TV show in the book (a parody of Dallas and Hill Street Blues) called "Duluth"; and his novel ''LIVE'' From Golgotha features a TV show of the same name. 63.17.63.71 ( talk) 23:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The title of Kafka on the Shore by Haruki Murakami was taken from the title of a song written by one of the characters, and that song turned out to be a one-hit wonder. -- Kvasir ( talk) 20:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Is there any form to recognize them? -- SouthAmerican ( talk) 22:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The article Psychopathy#Characteristics might help. PrincessofLlyr ( talk) 22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The Hare Psychopathy checklist is the clinical standard, if I remember correctly.-- droptone ( talk) 11:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Its worth noting that psychopaths are not just gun-toting maniacs, but can exist in everyday life. I've known at least two people who had a very good chance of being classified as psychopaths. I do not know what percentage of the population would be considered psychopaths. 84.13.34.56 ( talk) 14:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

One might say a surprising number of salespeople are psychopaths/sociopaths. Especially in the fields where any high-priced items are sold, e.g. automobile sales, financial services, housing, large appliances, etc. Not all, or even most of them, but clearly more than in any other field of employment. (And if this impression is true, better that they are salespeople than murderers.) -- llywrch ( talk) 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It is also worth noting that psychopathy does not exist in a vacuum. Certain behavioural and personal characteristics elicits 'bad behaviour' in otherwise latent psychopaths. Vranak ( talk) 19:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, being elected or appointed to a high-ranked public or corporate office being the most dangerous trigger. John Z ( talk) 05:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Passport control, on entry to Israel, hand-wrote, next to the stamped visa, "ביד קטין". What does this mean (translation of the words, and import of their being there)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.108.20 ( talk) 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

If you can read Israeli handwriting (which is very different from the print forms of Hebrew letters), then I would think you could probably use a Hebrew dictionary, but anyway, the basic meaning is "by an underaged person, minor". AnonMoos ( talk) 00:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"ביד" usually means "by, through", yes, but that makes it sound like the stamping official was a minor, which makes no sense. And what's the point of writing "by a minor" (even if it means the passport is a minor's) if anyone looking at the data page can tell it's a minor's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.119.82 ( talk) 13:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Random guess here, may be it meant a child was travelling with the parent under the parents passport? While a lot rarer nowadays then in the past, it's still allowed in some circumstance I believe Nil Einne ( talk) 11:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Maybe, but the natural way of saying "with" or "accompanied by a minor" would probably be עם קטין ... -- AnonMoos ( talk) 15:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, and anyway the notation was on a minor's passport, not an adult's. (I'm the same IP-based poster as the previous two.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.119.82 ( talk) 17:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Another way to understand "ביד קטין" is "Given to a minor", However, this still doesn't make any sense as this sounds incorrect grammer-wise. My guess would be that the asker didn't read well for what the passport control wrote. It would be very helpful if he can upload an image of the relevant text. Tomer A. 19:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Tomer, and those others who tried to answer also. I cannot now upload such an image. If that becomes possible in the future, I'll try this again. Thanks again. (I'm the same poster again.)

I am not following this page so in case you're uploading such a file give me a call in my talk page on the he wiki ( he:user talk:תומר א.) Tomer A. 06:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply