Miscellaneous desk
< February 26	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 28 >

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

February 27[edit]

Slovenian ski jumpers[edit]

Is the Slovenian ski jumper Jure Bogataj related to the compatriot of his, the famous ex ski jumper Vinko Bogataj? --85.78.132.230 (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vinko Bogataj says he has 2 daughters. No mention of any sons, but they could be uncle/nephew perhaps, or something like that, or maybe totally unrelated. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, finally a Slovenia question and I can't find a decent enough answer... Well, I got this much: the statistics for that particular last name - as you can see, there are about 1300 people with that surname in Slovenia and it also bears pointing out that both Vinko and Jure stem from the Gorenjska region, where half of the people with the surname live and it is the 8th most common surname. In fact, there is ten Vinko Bogatajs and ten Jure Bogatajs living in Slovenia, respectively (you would need to enter the data here, the result is not linkable). So while there certainly may be a connection between the two (whole families seem to go into ski jumping, not just in Slovenia but worldwide - every generation you get offspring of former jumpers jumping, and I just recently saw a women's jumping match, and a surprising amount of familiar surnames pop up there as well - but then, as your IP geolocates to Finland, I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new :), but they may also be completely unrelated. Not very helpful, I know. Sorry. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that surnamed "Bogataj" have any significance or meaning? (And don't tell me it's Slovenian for "agony of defeat".) :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golan Heights[edit]

Legally, who has sovereignty over the Golan Heights, Israel of Syria? Also, the West Bank and Gaza, if the Palestinian authority is not a sovereign nation, then who has sovereignty over these lands? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.238.155.27 (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, our article says "Internationally recognised as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Currently under Israeli civil administration. Claimed by Syria.", although the text mentions that not all the Golan heights was occupied during the war(s), so I assume some of it has always been under Syrian administration. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see West Bank#Legal status and Gaza Strip. Ultimately if you don't recognise Palestine nor Israel's right to govern such areas that does for the most part leave you without an easy answer. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whose perspective you mean. From the perspective of Israeli law, the Golan Heights is under the "law, jurisdiction and administration" of Israel, according to the 1981 Golan Heights Law, but has never been formally annexed. Israel has never passed such a law for the West Bank or Gaza. The West Bank remains under Israeli military occupation, with the exception of those areas under the control of the autonomous but not officially sovereign Palestinian Authority. Jordan formerly claimed sovereignty over the West Bank but gave up its claim in 1988. So the West Bank and Gaza are kind of diplomatic no-man's lands. The exception is the area that Israel annexed to Jerusalem, which it treats as part of Israel proper. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This question hits at the heart of the conflict, which is that the relevant definition of "legal" depends on who makes the law. Syrians and most Lebanese consider the occupation of Golan illegal; the United Nations considers the occupation illegal, per UNSCR 497, but differs in its definition of "The Golan Heights." Meanwhile, the Israeli government and many Israeli citizens consider the occupation legal. My comments below apply specifically to the Golan. The current de-facto reality on the ground is that the Israeli civil government controls most of the Golan, with some regions (the "heights", though that term is also ill-defined) fall behind military-checkpoints. (Some may argue that those regions are under the jurisdiction of civil government, but when you must pass a military station to proceed into a region, it is fair to call it "military zone.") There are a few very lonely roads that course up toward the Syrian border, and tourists are made to feel quite unwelcome beyond a certain distance. On the other side of the border, there are a few lonely roads that course toward the Golan, from Damascus, or from South Lebanon. Few people live in the occupied zone; if you look at photographs of Quneitra, you will understand why this is the case. The residents include permanent civilian residents, seasonal kibbutz-dwellers, IDF and Israeli special forces operatives stationed in the area, and in some areas, Arab civilians who do live in scattered encampments throughout the occupied zone. Few non-Israeli civilians have chosen to remain in the occupied regions, and though the Israeli Golan law does not specifically exclude Israeli Arabs from living in the region, it treats Palestinians ("without papers") very differently than Arabs ("with papers"); Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, and "Israeli Arab" are all separate categories, irrespective of actual place of origin or current resident status. (See Confessionalism (politics), or the potentially-more-inflammatory article about Israel and the apartheid analogy. Ironically, the demilitarized zone in Golan is the most heavily militarized; certain areas can not be entered by any party (without triggering a helicopter gun-raid or an artillery volley). Within the Israeli-controlled zone, in certain areas, civilians live in various towns right up to the border. In the Chebaa Farms and Ghajar, individual civilians may identify as one or more of "Lebanese", "Syrian", "Palestinian", and/or "Israeli." A particular individual's (or village's) self-declared ethnicity or legal immigration status is as much a political choice as it is a matter of national or ethnic descent; the self-declared status may not match the effective ethnic/immigration-status decision by the Israeli government and the IDF. Ghajar was recently in the news, because the United Nations has decided to enforce a map line that cuts the city's main street in half. To briefly summarize that town's issue:all parties recognized that the Israeli military had occupied the city; the dispute was whether it was occupied Lebanese or Syrian soil. The United Nations coerced the Israeli military to withdraw such that it only occupied Syrian portions of the town, receding from Lebanese soil. Here is a New York Times article, Straddling Political Fault Lines in the Middle East, from earlier this month. To "completely" understand the situation, you may want to read the journalistic reports from multiple involved countries; the Jerusalem Post tells a different story than the New York Times; and the Arab press, including Al Jazeera, show a different story. This November article, Israel approves Ghajar pullout, shows a fascinating photograph of the road checkpoint. (An Israeli Defense soldier is inspecting what appears to be an Israeli vehicle, in what is ostensibly reported as a "United Nations" zone. The Lebanese Resistance claims that the 2006 border operation, which triggered a war, may have taken place entirely on Lebanese territory (a claim that is disputed). The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) publishes maps of the region and provides status updates at their website, UNIFIL; the disengagement force along the Syrian portion of the Golan DMZ is managed by a completely separate United Nations task force, the Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF). They maintain a website, UNDOF, which is not updated as often. It has been my experience that there are few reliable sources that provide clear, accurate, correct, unbiased, apolitical information on the status of this region. The most hotly contested zones are exactly those areas where newspaper reporters and outside observers are unwelcome; even the United Nations peacekeepers will not enter certain areas, to avoid "stirring the pot." Nimur (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Desert roads, how to keep sand off them[edit]

Hello

I've been thinking a bit about the roads in eg. Saudi Arabia and other places. Great dunes of sand rise on hilly terrain, and winds will carry much of this sand onto the roads. How do the Saudis and others keep their roads clear of sand? Thank you in advance. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reliable source but these people seem to think that they know what they're talking about. And according to them, it's plowed. I would have thought that it would be brushed off the road using a street sweeper though... Dismas|^(talk) 10:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is exactly what I had in mind. Dismas|^(talk) 10:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sealed roads tend not to be built in areas where there is a risk they would constantly be covered by sand. People get themselves around using 4WDs or camels. When any appreciable quantity of sand does cover a sealed road, it needs to be dealt with the same way as snow. An urban street sweeper is not going to have much effect.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One method which would certainly work would be to build the roads up high, on something similar to a railroad trestle. To further reduce the accumulation of sand deposited up there by sand storms, you could make the road a steel grid with holes large enough for sand grains to drop through. Sand dunes might tend to accumulate at the base of the trestle, but if it was, say, 500 feet high, that would prevent the dunes from reaching the top any time soon. However, such a project would be extremely expensive, so I suspect just clearing the sand off as it accumulates is better. StuRat (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddhafi clothes[edit]

The clothes the Muammar Gaddhafi wear-are they available on the internet or I have go to Libya (once the violence is over) to get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.110 (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Gaddafi does not appear to have been reduced to selling his old clothes on eBay yet, so if you want the genuine article you may be out of luck. If you would just like something similar, it depends which of his many and varied looks you wish to adopt. There's a rather good slide show on this page that gives you an idea of the variety available. There are plenty of online sellers of middle-Eastern and tribal garments; I put "bedouin robes" into eBay's search box and came up with a few possibilities. Ka renjc 17:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what about his Michael Jackson outfit? --Soman (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might have just seen the 1970s SNL episode where they had a fashion advertisement parody about "The Kadaffi Look". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Miliband's accent[edit]

As an American, I can't tell. Does Ed Miliband sound like that because of some regional accent (if so, which one?)or does he just have a lisp? 24.215.229.69 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fairly standard middle-class London accent, without any noticeable defects, lisps, or impediments. If he deviates from standard English it's in that accent, and only mildly so, e.g. saying "brovah" for "brother". -- 87.112.131.9 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Milliband does have a lisp, certainly to my (and many people's judging by google) ears. Accent wise he has (as noted) a quite standard non-regional middle-class accent (sometims called Received pronunciation). ny156uk (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

after a bit more listening to him I realise it's possibly not technically a lisp, but certainly a softness/elongation of some 's' sounds. Perhaps a former lisp? ny156uk (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F-5E Tiger II Spec[edit]

What is the max load (in kg or lb) for the wing-tip missile rails on the F-5E Tiger II aircraft? What source did you derive this info from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.209.143 (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15,745 lb (7,157 kg) --GlennRichardAllison ^{Mr. 900 Jr.} bowling —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Rating of Wikipedia articles[edit]

I just noticed that True Grit has a page rating section at the bottom of the page. When did this norm of rating pages start in Wikipedia? Or is it merely a stray incident? Are there going to be more pages with rating features in the future? Was this the result of some kind of general consensus that Wikipedia pages need rating by its readers? Thanks in advance. 117.97.183.6 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Don't know. But, more information here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's... unusual. For what it's worth, I think this is a futile experiment - imagine a stubby article that, say, 10 people vote on with all 1s. Then a user spruces the article up, making it essentially a, say, 3-rate article, but it will now take far more than 10 people to vote 3s on the article before the actual state of the article is expressed. And that's if no changes occur to the article afterwards. Really, I see no point in this. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Test Pilots being best pilots in the Military?[edit]

I heard somewhere that test pilots are recruited from the best pilots in the military because flying an aircraft that no one has ever flown before requires the most skill. This is further cemented by the fact that virtually every space shuttle commander and pilot are former military test pilots.

Is the US military sacrificing a tactical/strategic advantage by taking their best pilots away from combat and asking them to test planes instead? If not, does this mean then, that aerial combat is, comparatively, easier than test piloting and is a job that doesn't require the best pilots?

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What combat? There is no air combat going on anywhere in the world. If any started, the best pilots would be flying it -- in fact, most of the top test pilots of yesteryear gained their skills by flying combat in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. In the absence of combat, test-flying seems like a pretty good way of keeping up skills. Looie496 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1990s, we know of perhaps 17 modern fighter jets shot down by other modern fighters - but it is possible none of them were shot down in traditional dogfights were pilot skill might make a difference. (See Fourth generation jet fighter#Combat performance) In the 2000s, we have zero records of shootdowns - by any country against any country. The flying ace era may be over, certainly the unmanned drones are rapidly gainly. Rmhermen (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there aren't any dog fights going on, skilled pilots are still required to land in places like Afganistan without getting shot down by rockets. --Tango (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter pilots, maybe. --Sean 19:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Best" is perhaps too broad a category here. While both roles obviously require advanced piloting skills, the qualities that make a good combat pilot are not identical to those that make a good test pilot. Test piloting often requires boringly extended repetitions of more or less routine manoeuvres made with small and precise variations in given parameters, in order to gather reliable data, in an aircraft whose performance and structural integrity is not yet wholly reliable (hence the inherent danger), and also the ability to make intelligent analyses of unexplained, often minor, anomalies. Fighter pilots are generally operating aircraft whose performance capabilities and limits are better understood, where the overwhelming dangers come from external factors (i.e. attacks), and a degree of aggression and risk taking is required. Different personality types are probably best suited for the two, although in a less than ideal world there will be considerable overlap of the available candidates for either. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarette box[edit]

I have a silver-plated box for cigarettes manufactured Abercrombie & Fitch Co., New York, made in 1947. The box has an inscription ROUNDHILL CLUB FALL 1947. I would like to find information about this product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.169.27 (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The The Round Hill Club is a golf course in Greenwich, Connecticut. I suspect this would have been a prize in a competition. Alansplodge (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]