Humanities desk
< August 26	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 28 >

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.

August 27

Saint Mary Lake, Montana

In your article on "Saint Mary Lake Montana" you mention (and show photos of) Little Chief Mountain, but there is no mention of Mount Saint Mary. This mountain shows the face of Mary when viewed from the right angle and should be mentioned in your article. After all, the town of Saint Mary Montana as well as the lake, were named after this face on the butte north of town. I'm told that there is even an interesting legend that goes with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.104.215 (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you any relevant material backed up by reliable sources, please feel free to add it to the article yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

income amount and number of persons

I'm looking for a table of number of persons having the same income within sequential steps from minimum to maximum number of persons and amount of income. I need the data to build a two axis x and y graph. I prefer gross income upon which taxes are calculated. So long as all other parameters are the same for the group the other parameters do not matter. Where can I find such data in a list or table form. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See The L-Curve: A Graph of the US Income Distribution.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must have read the word "income" and the word "graph" and instantly thought of the comparison between your income and that of Bill Gates. However, my purpose is not to compare incomes. If it was I would note that if Bill Gates diverted all of his income to poor people he could only afford to give $40,000 to one million two hundred fifty thousand. Now please concentrate on helping me find the data I have requested. --DeeperQA (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your question about 20 times now, but I still have no real idea what you're after. Can you explain it some other way? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar (below) is only incorrect in that the orientation of the data does not matter, ie. either axis may represent people or income. If it helps think of a two column table. --DeeperQA (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we are looking for a chart with gross income amounts on the X axis, and numbers of people on the Y axis. You can also point to tables or lists of income amounts or ranges of amounts in the first column with the number of people in the range in the second column. Very simple. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you after something like the table here, with average incomes per quintile (data from 2005, so something more recent must be available)? Warofdreams talk 14:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The summary tables are probably as close as I am going to get. --DeeperQA (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what you want can be found through http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Economics/Econometrics/.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO, I have all of the math tools. Just need the data. --DeeperQA (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has not specified any particular country or jurisdiction, or any particular time period. It might help if these basic items were spelt out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinpointing may be somewhat pointless by adding further restriction. Lets say the income of each individual from minimum to maximum in the US for 2010 or 2011 in steps of say $10,890.00 with numbers of people for each step. --DeeperQA (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it, I'm afraid. If we go by your first sentence, you ideally want this data for all people at all times, from the beginning of recorded history and in all the countries of the world. Do you seriously believe such data exists? To your second sentence, why did you choose a step of $10,890? You must have had a reason for not choosing, say, $10,000. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last stands etc

Can folk help me identify the places/events represented by the seven images at this page. I think #2 is Modadishu/Black hawk down; #5 is the Alamo; #6 is Iwo Jima. The others I haven't sussed yet. TIA. -- SGBailey (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 is Leonidas I. —Kevin Myers 09:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe #7 is the Little Bighorn Battlefield. —Kevin Myers 09:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4 is the Rorke's Drift Zulu memorial. —Kevin Myers 09:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah 2 is Battle of Mogadishu (1993) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:S64-Crew.gif. ny156uk (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No 3 is the "Rats of Tobruk" memorial in Mackay, Queensland, commemorating the Siege of Tobruk in 1941. Do we win a prize? Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So to summarise: 1 Leonidas; 2 Black hawk down, 3 Tobruk, 4 Rorke's drift, 5 Alamo, 6 Iwo Jima, 7 Little Bighorn. Sadly no prize, but I can now progress in solving a puzzle in order to find a geocache. Thanks. -- SGBailey (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syphax

In the article on Syphax it says: However, Scipio's ship managed to make harbor before Hasdrubal's seven triremes could make out to intercept them, and in a neutral harbor... How many men were on Hasdrubal's seven triremes? How many men were on Scipio's ship? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The present day Greek Navy has its very own trireme; the Olympias built with the assistance of the Trireme Tust. It has 170 oars, so my guess would be in the region of 200 plus or minus 50. Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on ancient triremes also says 200. But it's also possible that they were carrying infantry on top of that, ready to fight upon landing. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

acting in the 16th century

during the 16th and 17th centuries in England, amongst other artists, each acting group would be under the patronage of a particular noble or senior government official. However, what I am trying to understand now is why that had to be the case. The impression I have gotten is that at least some of these acting groups made a decent profit, so what other reasons might there have been to require that? Or was it just the way things were done and people could not imagine doing it otherwise

79.66.99.126 (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A look at our article on the English Renaissance theatre might be helpful. I wasn't aware that every acting group needed a patron, but it is generally true that there was a lot of political hostility toward acting in those years, and protection from somebody powerful would have been very useful. Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The reason actors might be unpopular with rulers is their tendency to satirize leaders or otherwise insult them or their beliefs. StuRat (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One reason perhaps, but the English theatre enjoyed remarkable freedom for much of the period (compared to other European countries that is). I think it's rather more likely that:

a) As now, theatre productions needed advance funding before a profit was realised; a rich patron would be their principal investor.

b) Having a powerful patron would be a way of getting things done. Easier to get credit and less likely to be stalled by petty bureaucrats.

c) It was rather like having a celebrity endorsement today. The best form of advertising.

Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Company X offers to buy company Y - company Y's shares go up?

Hello.

Often, when it becomes known that Company X wants to buy Company Y, the latter's shares rise significantly in price. Why is that so? Is it because investors think they'll be able to sell their shares to Company X at a higher price than the market price? Or is it for some other different reasons? Thanks! Leptictidium (mt) 15:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain, but AFAIK it's largely a matter of supply and demand. If company X wants to buy and truly control company Y it has to own 51% of the shares. So it will buy all available shares in the market. We have a major buyer who is buying a lot of shares; i.e.: the demand of the shares is going up and the supply is going down. Other shareholders will consider selling them but obviously only for a very good price. The articles takeover describe some issues. Flamarande (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a purchase is made of another company with the intent of combining the two to make a stronger combined company (for example, one company makes glasses and the other makes contact lenses). This could help both companies improve their market positions and reduce cost via combined advertising, sales and management staff, so should theoretically bring up both stock prices.

And note that this is common when the target company is distressed in some way. Presumably the company which plans to buy them also plans to fix this situation. If the target is well managed but low on cash due to market problems, they might just provide the injection of cash which is needed. If, on the other hand, the target company is seriously mismanaged, then a new management team may be put in place.

There's also the case where the target company is beyond saving, and the purchaser is only interested in breaking it up and selling off it's assets. However, in this case, the stock price may be so depressed that even this would make the stock worth more than it's current value. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying reason is that once company A owns 51% of company B, it can hand-pick the management of company B and therefore has total control over how company B is operated. This has a couple of consequences. First, the current management of company B is usually hostile to such a deal, because at best they will have new bosses and at worst they will be fired -- it takes generous money to the shareholders to overcome that hostility. Second, anybody who continues to hold minority shares after the deal is in danger. Most publicly traded companies try to operate in a way that maximizes their stock value, but when company B is majority-owned by company A, it may be operated in a way that benefits company A but harms itself. The rules say that shareholders have to be offered a way of avoiding that danger without being forced to accept a stock price that they might see as too low. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hostile takeover. That's only one type. StuRat (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The actual reason is that outside investors believe they will be able to make a few percentage points of profit in a matter of weeks because they expect Company X to offer a slightly higher price for the shares than the current price. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find the article on merger arbitrage highly relevant; although I don't understand why that redirects to risk arbitrage - in fact the risk arbitrage article seems to be more or less entirely about merger arbitrage, but merger arbitrage is merely one form of risk arbitrage. But whatever

And it hasn't explicitly been stated above but a majority of shareholders (to the first approximation) have to agree to the takeover - and they will only rationally do so if the amount offered for their shares is higher than the current market price. So the offer price has to be over the prevailiing market price. Then said merger arbitrage will take the current price near to, but not over the offer price (assuming no other offers are expected). Egg Centric 17:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, buyers have to pay much more than the market price when seeking to take over another company. Think about it this way: The assessed value of your house may be $250,000. But if someone were to drive up to your door and ask to buy your house right away, the person would probably have to offer a lot more than $250,000. After all, you like your house, you've lived in it for a long time and you weren't planning on moving. Similarly, the people who run Company Y aren't likely to want to give up control of their company for market price. Also, the market price of a stock is based on what it costs to get one owner to sell his or her shares. While one person may be willing to part with his or her shares for $50 each, it will take a lot more to convince the owners of a majority of the shares to sell them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artist search

I recently purchased two paintings on board dated 1896 and signed "yeldarb a". Searching for this artist proved fruitless and then I realized that the signature was written backwards. It reads, of course, A Bradley. The scenes are of Scottish lochs and when I reframed them this was confirmed on one. Behind the mounts were old newspapers of the same year so I don't doubt there authenticity. Now, does any one know who A Bradley was ????

Keith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.98.54.147 (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only possible A. Bradley I could find was Arthur Granville Bradley (son of George Granville Bradley), he authored a book on Scotland in 1912 with illustrations, but the paintings themselves were by a certain A.L. Collins. Nevertheless, check out the book (it's public domain): A.G. Bradley (1912). The Gateway of Scotland : or East Lothian, Lammermoor and the Merse (PDF). Ballantyne, Hanson, & Co..

In case the 'A' might mean some other thing than a first name, another British artist from the same period is Basil Bradley, he usually did pastoral scenes (see examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]). It would probably help if you took a picture (in fact I encourage you to donate a picture of them, they're public domain anyway).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geography/GK question

Bikini Island and Bikini Atoll location - Micronesia

Which place is located between two large landforms where currently no one is allowed within two miles. It is once part of a massive empire. Would appreciate any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this another one of those stupid online quiz things? Looie496 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we tell you, will you share the prize with us? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be Bikini Island within Bikini Atoll, because it is approximately two miles long and noone is allowed to live there yet because of radioactive contamination. The two large landforms would be the continents of Central America and Asia. It once belonged to the Empire of Japan. You can send my share of the prize money to P.O. Box ________ in the state of ___________ in the USA. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted is a map location of Bikini Atoll.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key is "no one is allowed within two miles". There are countless places "between two large landforms" (whatever that is supposed to mean) which were "once part of a massive empire" (the word "massive" left vague--we talking Mongol Empire or more like the Holy Roman Empire?). But how many places are there where no one (whatsoever, if one takes this literally) is allowed within exactly two miles? Of course, these quizzes usually play with words and should not be taken so literally. In that case the answer could be any of hundreds of possibilities. Pfly (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an example of a specific place "where currently no one is allowed within two miles" and "between two large landforms" and "It is once part of a massive empire" - all parameters at the same time. That should be easy since you are indicating "hundreds of possibilities."--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody can come up with a better answer, does that mean I win the prize money?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Korean demilitarized zone. About two miles wide; formerly part of both the Chinese and Japanese Empires, and situated between the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the part: Soldiers from both sides may patrol inside the DMZ, and Tae Sung Dong and Kijong-dong were the only villages allowed by the armistice committee to remain within the boundaries of the DMZ. Sounds like to me a lot of people are allowed within the 2 mile zone.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close to the factual liberties the website takes. How anyone at all gets them, I have no idea. It'll probably turn out to be one of the thousands of minefields or something. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than Bikini - which is pushing "between two landforms" a bit - at least one of the Aleutian islands is a former nuclear test site (and thus inaccessible) and some others may be restricted nature reserves. And, of course, all are formerly part of the Russian Empire... Shimgray | talk | 23:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little Googling turned up another version of the question at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110826064327AAiX5SZ. The post is only three days old and has too many similarities to be a coincidence but some of the description is different, mainly replacing the empire part with "This landform used to produce a wide variety of products, but has since been abandoned." PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's Hashima Island (Battleship Island) of Japan which was off-limits (not anymore though), once part of the Japanese Empire, and situated between Japan and China.

There's Poveglia in Italy. Off-limits and abandoned. Once part of the Roman Empire. Situated between Venice and Lido.

There's also some islands of the Tuscan Archipelago. Some islands are uninhabited and are off-limits nature reserves. Once a part of the Roman Empire. It's between mainland Italy and Corsica (France).

Diego Garcia and the Chagos archipelago, right smack in the middle of the Indian Sea, is a military base (thus inhabited) but off-limits to the general population. Once part of the British Empire.

And yeah, there are probably hundreds of possibilities. Islands, parks, mountains, closed to the public due to conservation, cultural reasons, nuclear test sites, or former military bases. Almost every place was once part of a massive empire or another. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish views on working on the Sabbath

Hello everyone. I have read your article Sabbath but I had a few question about it (specifically among American Jews), since parts seem to conflict with what I have observed in real life I have two close friends who are Jewish, one orthodox and the other I forget, but my orthodox friend considers it OK to airsoft and paintball on Saturdays, and the other is willing to do non-synagogue-affiliated volunteering on Saturdays as well as give instrumental and vocal performances, even though neither is needed as part of membership of the groups that run them. As I understand it thus far, doing almost any kind of work and many sorts of play are prohibited unless absolutely necessary on the Sabbath. This is supposedly strictly observed in the Orthodox community and more laxly so in the Reform communities. My question is, are these typical views? Any guesses on the sect of my other friend (I could just ask her but this isn't the first time I've forgotten, I'm a Nazi, I know ;) I would especially appreciate the personal views of a Jewish respondant, if that's not too much to ask. Thanks profusely. 201.73.204.178 (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'official' view of most Orthodox movements (eg. the United Synagogue) is that Jews shouldn't work or play sports or anything like that on Shabbat. However, many people who are members of Orthodox synagogues don't necessarily endorse this view: there is a phrase "parking round the corner" to describe families that will drive to their Saturday morning service, against the rules, but park round the corner so that the rabbi doesn't see.
The official view of more progressive movements (eg. Liberal Judaism) is that such activity is perfectly fine, as Shabbat should be a day of recreation and enjoyment.
I hope that makes the situation slightly clearer to you at any rate! ╟─Treasury Tag►contemnor─╢ 19:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tut tut tut. Considering the number of fires ignited and quenched by the spark plugs on even the shortest trip that really is a no no ;-) ~~Shabbat says more about these injunctions.~~ Sorry see you've read that and I'm not a Jew. Dmcq (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Car engines don't have spark plugs! Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... ... but the battery certainly has to work hard to move the Leaf! Dbfirs 07:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I guess it could even be left switched on before the Shabbat. And how much work is it doing if it gains energy back when stopping? I can see them selling quite well for this! Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that excuse wouldn't cut it. One isn't allowed to ride a bike on Shabbat in case it broke (because then one would have to carry it) and I guess the same would apply to a car engine left on overnight. ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 09:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism has more shades of grey than a black and white TV does. People who call themselves "Orthodox" range from people others call "ultra-Orthodox" to people who ultra-Orthodox people would consider pretty irreligious. It can be a descriptor of behaviour, but it can also be a descriptor of synagogue movement allegiance. Many members of Orthodox synagogues are not particularly scrupulous about their observance. In short, your friends may be describing themselves as orthodox, but that's just their POV. I'd probably call them "traditional", because in my POV the activities you describe (eg paintballing, using musical instruments) are totally forbidden on Shabbat and put the person who considers them OK outside of the norm. Note I also distinguish between someone who lapses (I do something and it's wrong) and someone who legitimises behaviour (I do it, but there's nothing wrong with it). The latter is a good sign of not being Orthodox. --Dweller (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scipio Africanus and the mutiny at Sucro, 206 BC

Apparently Scipio got seriously ill near Sucro in 206 BC. There were even rumors of his death which caused much havic. What were the reasons of the mutiny? Is there a list of grievances? Who were the instigators that organized the mutiny? How was the mutiny eventually quenched?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the most complete source of information would be this paper, which I cannot access though. Apparently most of the information comes from Polybius -- here is a freely accessible link to his account. It looks like the primary grievance was not having been paid their wages. Looie496 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Paper in Historia linked suggests that Polybios version was biased, since he had personal connections and sympathy towards Scipio, however that is also the only source we have, all later sources being based on his account. Polybios claims the soldier were debauched and needed money, preferably in the form of plunder. However, Chrissanthos shows that he has no understanding of the conditions of the ordinary soldier at the time and one must look further for an interpretation, for example it was not because of debauchery that the men needed pay. They simply hadn't been paid their wages for years, and supplies was also lacking. On p. 174 Chrissanthos states: "On careful investigation, three causes emerge. The first was complaints over money, both pay and plunder [....] Upon inverstigation it becomes apparent that Scipio, and his father and uncle before him, had not paid them [...] The second major cause was the length of service. Many of the man at Sucro had arrived with Scipio's uncle Gnaeus back in 218, or with his father Publius in 217 [...] The third and maybe most important reason was the lack of supplies at Sucro. It will be demonstrated that the shortages at Sucro first drove the men to steal from the countryside at night and then to mutiny. Scipio's prompt provision of supplies during and after the crisis proves that he realized that fulfilling these needs of the men were vital to his command and the termination of the mutiny." Regarding who and exactly how the mutiny played out you will need to read Polybios in the link Looie496 provided above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Looie496 and Saddhiyama. Much help!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro to Sufism

What book should I read as an intro to Sufism? I want something that might be used as a textbook in a university class on the subject, something with thorough citations, not a New Age coffee table book. :) Thanks! --63.131.6.24 (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources listed in the Sufism article on Wikipedia may do the job. Alternatively, here's a course module listing from SOAS, University of London on "Sufism: Texts and History" which has a recommended reading list. They also have a lower level Introduction to Sufism course. Another good course book listing is linked from this University of Cambridge Continuing Education course page (the PDF link titled "preparatory material" has a list of books about Sufism in the modern world). —Tom Morris (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have had the following recommended to me: Douglas-Klotz, Neil. The Sufi Book of Life: 99 Pathways of the Heart for the Modern Dervish. Penguin (Non-Classics), 2005. Chittick, William C. Sufism: A Short Introduction. Oxford, England: Oneworld, 2000. Baldick, Julian. Mystical Islam: An Introduction to Sufism. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 1989. Valiuddin, Mir. The Quranic Sufism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1977. Kalibadhi, Abu Bakr al-. The Doctrine of the Sufis. Translated by A.J. Arberry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. My source recommends the first two to start with. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Gaddafi?

Is it true that Gaddafi was killed by an angry mob of rebels sometime during the fall of Tripoli? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to any news service I've seen or heard. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or any Google search, or his Wikipedia article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then that would mean that my classmate was lying. And Wikipedia is not a source. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you did no searching of your own before you asked your question here. We ask you to search first, particularly for easily-found information, as this would most certainly have been if it were true. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't apply to the RD, particularly not when the article is referenced. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I recall some online sources briefly reporting it, before quickly realizing that they didn't have any clue what was really going on. The Wikipedia page did briefly mention his death on 21 August, before quickly being removed again [5], [6]. Buddy431 (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, it was also reported by the rebels that Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam was captured, and then he proceeded to show up at a government-held hotel the next day. I think that a lot of people, even those present in Tripoli, really have no clue what's happening, but our 24 hour news cycle demands that we get constant status updates, no matter how accurate they really are. Buddy431 (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of Gaddafi's sons, Khamis, has been killed 9 times already. Count Iblis (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 27

Contents