Miscellaneous desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	February 1 >

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.

January 31[edit]

NOBEL PRIZE[edit]

Has wikipedia or wiki foundation ever been proposed for the Nobel peace prize ? 118.93.116.134 (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Nobel_Peace_Prize#Nomination, the prize can only go to people, and the names of nominees are held secret for 50 years. So, Wikipedia or the Foundation cannot be nominated, and there is no way to know if Jimmy Wales was. RudolfRed (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere there where it says it can only go to people. The committee's most recent lunacy was, in fact, giving it to the European Union, which, while it's composed of people, hardly counts as "people" — it's a political body. Now that they've started down the road of awarding the prize to abstract objects, I don't know what's to stop them from awarding it to the number 17 or the color blue. --Trovatore (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Misread the list in the section. I thought it was a list of eligible nominees, not nominators. RudolfRed (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Nobel Peace prize was awarded to an organisation or something similar many times before the EU, the first time in 1904. The EU was the first time since 1999 that it was awarded solely to an organisation (it has been awarded to an organisation a few times after 1999 but always together with a person associated with that organisation). Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, are you calling the EU an abstract object? Now i would find it amusing if they really did go abstract, as in, the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to "Peace", since the other nominees, 17 and blue, were considered unworthy. IBE (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am calling the EU an abstract object. --Trovatore (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question arises, which is more peaceful: The EU? Or Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The precise wording used by Nobel was that the winner "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.". It's not about how peaceful the nominees are - it's about how their actions have made the world in general more peaceful.

For example, in 1953, the award was given to General George Marshall because he was General President American Red Cross; Former Secretary of State and of Defense; Delegate U.N.; Originator of [the] Marshall Plan. However, Marshall was instrumental in many miliary actions - personally responsible for all manner of warlike events. You couldn't describe him as an entirely "peaceful" person...but he got the award because his actions resulted in much peace.

I'd say it's not much of a stretch to say that Wikipedia has aided "fraternity between nations"...but perhaps not sufficiently to beat out the competition. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nominations aren't revealed until fifty years later, we don't know whether Wikipedia has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. The Peace Research Institute Oslo notes a rumour that the site was nominated in 2012. Warofdreams talk 16:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, simply being nominated for the Peace Prize isn't all that special. There's a pretty long list (probably in the tens of thousands, if not more) of people eligible to make a nomination: members of national assemblies or governments; university professors of history, social sciences, or law; and a bunch of other smaller groups. Nominations aren't pre-screened, nominators aren't further pre-qualified, and it only takes one nominator to make a nomination. In other words, if you want to just be nominated for the prize you only need to persuade one doddering old professor, or one nutjob politician.

Looking at the database of old nominations, one can find a nomination for Hitler (in 1939) and two separate nominations for Stalin (1945, 1948). In the alternative-medicine field, there are a number of proponents of ineffective magical cancer treatments who claim to have been nominated for a Peace Prize, as if it were some sort of meaningful credential or endorsement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo[edit]

Does Mr. Jim Wales draw a salary from Wiki or wiki foundation ?

118.93.116.134 (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Jimmy Wales#Wikimedia Foundation says: His work for the foundation, including his appearances to promote it at computer and educational conferences, has always been unpaid. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geography[edit]

Why is the extraction of limestone so important to industry and agriculture in Pakistan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.204.25 (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. What does your textbook say? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could look at our Wikipedia Limestone#Uses article and let us know if you have any questions afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Fred Flintstoni Khan can't make a daiquarry without it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]