Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 14

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.

September 14

Finance fraud- - bank account fraud not located

Hello.

I'm looking in your fraud directory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Finance_fraud and trying to find something. But I cannot find this category.

Can you add - or point to a page regarding bank fraud. I know its a scam of some sort, but I cannot find it easily.

A possible title will be "deposit money into bank fraud" ??

Summary of fraud: "I have a friend/business that is giving me money, but i need to to open a bank account, so it can be deposited. can you open a bank account for me."

I think this has a special name of a fraud, but i do not know what it is called. If it exiss, can it be named (or linked from the bank frauds page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonisnz (talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like a Nigerian letter... 192.51.44.16 (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

More likely the initial stages of a money transfer fraud, where fake cheques will be deposited and the funds withdrawn before the fraud is discovered, leaving the account owner responsible for the resulting overdraft. The various types of scam listed at Internet fraud may contain your answer. - Karenjc 11:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Has al Qaeda ever threatened Canada or not?

I read about the Toronto 18 and the terrorist plot they were planning and would like to know whether those attacks were ordered by al Qaeda or not and whether al Qaeda itself has ever threatened Canada. Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article itself says directly and unambiguously that the Toronto 18 were an al-Qaeda affiliated group. I'm not sure what more you need than that. --Jayron32 13:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I mean, they were al Qaeda members or they were just following their orders without being al Qaeda members? Timothyhere (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the al-Qaeda website has a list of members on it, you could check that maybe. </sarcasm> --Viennese Waltz 13:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Viennese Waltz's joke answer). I think you misunderstand how al Qaeda operates. It isn't a military command structure that provides orders for people to do things. It is more of an umbrella organization that provides funding, support, and training for groups that wish to spread their agenda. That is, al Qaeda doesn't order anything. It does support groups that are interested in spreading a particular type of islamist fundementalism through a particular set of tactics, but it doesn't organize and order anything. Al-Qaeda#Command_structure explains this quite well, and I quote "When asked about the possibility of al-Qaeda's connection to the July 7, 2005 London bombings in 2005, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said: "Al-Qaeda is not an organization. Al-Qaeda is a way of working ... but this has the hallmark of that approach ... al-Qaeda clearly has the ability to provide training ... to provide expertise ... and I think that is what has occurred here."[47]" and later in the same section "The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander." So, you see, al Qaeda isn't really an army that organizes and orders things, it is a term (probably largely invented from the outside, and not by themselves) that is used to signify a particular brand of islamist militantism that uses particular tactics, but that it isn't really all that "organized". --Jayron32 13:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought I read someplace that bin Laden himself had come up with the term, and later regretted it because it was misunderstood and misused by the western media. In any case, forgetting the horrific nature of their activities, it sounds like an amazingly forward-looking business plan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

And in this case, the "Toronto 18" were "affiliated" in the sense of being inspired by them. Our article states directly at the beginning that they were al-Qaeda members but who knows where that comes from. Later on there are sourced statements denying any specific link. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, its something like Wikipedia, but without ArbCom / admins. And its about spreading Jihad instead of building an encyclopedia.--Robert Keiden (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any knowledge here, but are you sure you're not being taken in by a story? I mean, lots of groups claim to be leaderless but it turns out to be a major exaggeration - Wikileaks, for example. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks is leaderless in the sense that anyone, not just the founders, can contribute leaked material, but in what other sense has it claimed to be leaderless? --140.180.247.208 (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. --Robert Keiden (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a nice line in our article about the group: "centralization of decision and decentralization of execution." It's clear that some parts of it are definitely centralized. It's also just as clear that it devolves down into cells which may or may not actually be part of the command structure at all — for the Toronto 18, "al-Qaeda" was just a flag to raise, not a connection to bin Laden. To say that al-Qaeda is not an organization is I think wrong; to say that it's an organization that is centralized in a few nodes and diffuse elsewhere is I think a bit more correct. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What keeps homeschooling parents in the US honest when grading kids' work?

Obviously, something like the SAT or ACT is reliably proctored, but as far as the buildup of one's transcripts, what keeps a parent from checking off that their kid got perfect scores so they look better on college applications? Do most colleges not accept the transcripts of homeschooled children as indication of their academic performance, or do homeschooled children in most states take verifiably proctored tests so that it is known that they were the ones who took the test and that their parents were not the ones who graded it? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe most states require home-schooled students to take standardized tests (typically annually) in order to verify that they are being taught the required curriculum. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this would differ from European countries or any other country, and why the US was chosen specifically. However, generally, being homeschooled isn't necessarily about grades in a report card, as it would be the parent - or the child himself (many high schoolers will simply teach themselves the material) - making up the grades. Clearly, that would be taken with a grain of salt. What's more important are the standardized tests the student has taken, such as the SAT, SAT IIs, APs, PSATs, any state-wide exams, etc, as well as the activities that the student has engaged in other than the core curriculum, for example joining a math club and learning number theory, which isn't part of most high school curriculum. Hope this helps! --Activism1234 18:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I only said US because that is the one I have personal experience with (not having been homeschooled, but having gone through public education in the US) I know that colleges take GPA into consideration, and was unsure how or if an equivalent to GPA is kept in the case of homeschooling, since it seems to me that having that in the hands of parents or the student themself would be unacceptable, while a school would seem to be more likely to give accurate, impartial GPAs. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously homeschooled students face a challenge when applying to many universities for exactly the reason the OP describes. Many homeschooled students reenter regular schools when they reach highschool, which solves the GPA issue. I'm sure there's some standardization of some aspects of homeschooling, but I can't speak to what those are [hopefully someone else knows]? I would also note that most homeschooling regulations (if not almost all) are state based, so will vary. Shadowjams (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The article Homeschooling in the United States#Testing and assessment says:

States also differ in their requirements regarding testing and assessment. Following the general trend toward easing requirements, fewer than half the states now require any testing or assessment. In some states, homeschoolers are required either to submit the results of a standardized test (sometimes from an established list of tests) or to have a narrative evaluation done by a qualified teacher. Other states give parents wide latitude in the type of assessment to be submitted.

Again, using California as an example, students enrolled in a public program are encouraged to take the same year-end standardized tests that all public school students take, but students using tutors or enrolled in any private school, homeschool or not, are not required to take any tests. Texas also does not require standardized tests for any student outside the public school arena, and absence of such tests cannot be used to discriminate against enrollment in higher education.

Duoduoduo (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that in general most admissions departments don't pay much attention to the grades for homeschooled students. They are automatically going to fall into the "requires a human being to evaluate, cannot be done by just punching in GPAs and test scores" category, anyway, so presumably the admissions officer is going to be looking more at standardized test results and the other materials (e.g. the essays) to try and figure out what level the kid in question is at. This is a standard part of admissions office procedure in general for kids who are not obviously in or obviously out. (Source: A family member who used to do admissions at a number of American universities.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Growing up in Ohio, I had two choices according to state law: either I could take a standardised test, or I could be evaluated by a certified teacher. My parents always chose to go the first route (it was always the Iowa test until I got to high school, when my parents decided to use my PSAT, SAT, and ACT results instead), but we had plenty of acquaintances in our homeschool support group who arranged to have certified teachers examine the children. My grades were a bit of a problem when I tried to do community-college-type classes at the local OSU branch campus, but they dropped their opposition to my grades once we submitted SAT and ACT scores as proof that I'd actually been doing something. I didn't know anyone in our support group who transitioned to the local public high school after eighth grade, but I had many friends in Indiana who did that. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I was homeschooled through High School in a state where no standardized tests or evaluations of any kind were required. I had little problem getting into college. I got a good score on the ACT, and was accepted to both schools I applied to, one of them with a full ride. I will admit, though, that I took some courses during my last two years of homeschool at the university in my hometown just to show that I was legit. When you're homeschooled, you just do what you gotta do. Wrad (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Tax laws and system in Canada

A book explaining in simple language the taxes and taxation system in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.123.209 (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

We do have an article on Taxation in Canada. Or perhaps this book would be helpful? - Karenjc 19:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Remarriage to the same person

I've looked over remarriage and can't find any information on how often divorced couples end up remarrying each other. I'm sure this will differ greatly based on context, but any information will help satisfy my curiosity. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about this but at least I can tell is I know for sure remarriage between divorced couples did indeed happen. Well in most cases, they didn't actually have a wedding in remarriage. So legally, they are still divorced but they are living together still as a couple with their children of course. (I know this from people I know and on some movies based off from real events).Pendragon5 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This Telegraph article says "statistics on remarriage to an ex are not routinely recorded" but the journalist did find three example couples to profile. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

All I'm finding are blogs of one sort or another. This one has a few links that may be of use, including this one, where, in the comments section, the writer asserts (without reference to any kind of statistic) that 10% of divorces end in re-marriage. I must say, it's difficult to find anything substantive out there; everything I'm coming across are either mentions of any kind of re-marriage or bible interpretations about whether it's okay to get married again. There's a book called Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage by Andrew J. Cherlin that might have more, but it's hard to tell because the Google Book preview is quite limited. Perhaps you could find it at your local library and see if it pans out. Matt Deres (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Who's a stronger ally of the U.S. in the Middle East

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or Israel? Timothyhere (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Define "stronger". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I mean stronger ties, for instance, militarily, and politically speaking. That's what I mean. Timothyhere (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This is largely a matter of opinion. Just looking over the ledes of Israel–United States relations and Saudi Arabia–United States relations, I'd have to say Israel. As you can see in the former, Israel was one of the first nations designated a major non-NATO ally by the United States. Also, I'd say anecdotally that many Americans perceive Israel to be a stronger ally. Critics of the US's relationship with Israel generally find it to be too strong. By contrast, there have often been whispers of Saudi support for the September 11 attacks, especially since most of the hijackers were Saudi.[1] As you can imagine, this is a rather contentious claim. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, given that Saudi Arabia has never been given major non-NATO ally designation, I think we can fairly objectively say that Israel is a stronger ally. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Why was Saudi Arabia never been given this status? Also, for this reason, I'd also say Israel. The U.S. gives more aid to Israel and Israel has much closer values to the U.S. than Saudi Arabia, such as support for democracy, women's rights, gay rights, and peace. Futurist110 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. Timothyhere (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia does have a history of giving money to Muslim extremists, in order to buy them off so they don't attack the kingdom. Add to that that some of the Saudi views are rather extreme (or at least non-Western) themselves, such as being non-democratic and not believing in equal rights for women or homosexuals. And the bin Laden family is Saudi (with Yemeni roots), to boot. I think of the alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia as like the WW2 alliance between the Soviet Union and other Allies, one of necessity only. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to support this unreferenced violation of wikipedia's policy. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

BDD provided a reference. Do you even read these before you hat them ? StuRat (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Coptic/Ethiopian Church

A lot of documentaries talk about the Jewish traditions of the Ethiopian Church. But the Ethiopian Church was a part of the Coptic Church in Egypt and was in continuous contact with it until the Muslim invasion of Egypt in the 700s and even somewhat after that, via the Patriarch of Alexandria appointing the Abuna, so does that mean the Coptic Church also have some of these traditions or had them until very recently or are these traditions exclusively Ethiopian. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You might want to start with the article Oriental Orthodoxy and follow on from there. The History section has a link to an expanded history article which has some good information. --Jayron32 23:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure that the Ethiopians are unique in this respect (and if not, they probably share only with the Eritrean church); nothing is ever said, as far as I remember, about the Egyptians following the Book of Jubilees or venerating the Ark of the Covenant at the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion. Have you read the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church article? Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Innocence of Muslims

Where can I watch the entire movie, instead of just the trailer? --140.180.247.208 (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It's likely to be highly censored, since watching it apparently inspires people to murder others. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That is precisely why I want to watch it. Long live free speech, and long live the Streisand effect! --140.180.247.208 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried Google? --Jayron32 23:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

And it has been highly censured. Were the boot on the other foot, it certainly would be. No excuse for murder, though. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody in the press has seen it. They've been reduced to reporting an eyewitness account from one of "less than 10" people who saw it at its one and only screening, who didn't watch it long enough to know it was about Muhammad. The best guesses of many is that there was never anything but the trailer. For those (there are two versions almost exactly the same) see [2] Wnt (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So the reaction to a trailer showing Muslims as blood-thirsty and violent is rioting and violence ? Not a good way to fight the stereotype. I also noticed the whiteboard scene used "BT" as the abbreviation for "Islamic Terrorists". They couldn't even afford to hire somebody who can spell ? StuRat (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That could also be the effect of the alleged heavy editing of the film: Originally the actor said something that could be abbreviated 'BT', but that was then dubbed to 'Islamist Terrorist'. V85 (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been following the story, like many people, on the news. Some commentators on a radio program today discussed how what is being called the "trailer" really is all there is. There were a few scenes shot with some actors (many of whom claim to have not known what the final product would look like) and these were cobbled together into the 13-14 minute clips that have been seen on youtube. The supposed "full film" that may or may not have been seen by as many as 10 people in one viewing may have not even been the same as the trailers, from our Wikipedia article, the only direct attestation to that version seems to indicate that it didn't even directly deal with Mohammed at all; instead it seems to have been about Osama bin Laden. It seems that the two YouTube clips, from July 1 and 2, are likely a complete reworking of the earlier bin Laden parody to instead parody Mohammed, so while the scenes and actors are the same in both the "full film" and the "trailers" significant editing and overdubbing has made them completely different. Of course, more may come out, and a copy of the mysterious "full film" may yet surface, but as now, all we have are the shorter "trailers". --Jayron32 05:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the dubbing is so poorly done (the person doesn't even sound the same and it suddenly changes) it's extremely obvious it was done. That largely includes this example (if you watch the earlier scene with the same guy it's even more obvious). Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please seek elsewhere for non-encyclopedic material.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

As is obviated by the link in the title, Innocence of Muslims is an encyclopedic topic. Asking where the subject of an article can be found is a perfectly reasonable question. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Where one can watch the movie is simply not an encyclopedic topic. We don't give movie listings for any movie so far as I am aware, even the ones we do have articles on. Note also all the unsourced speculation above. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, you may wish to actually read the article, as well as the sources it cites. Journalists have spent substantial amounts of time trying to find out how and where this movie can be seen, and reported on their efforts. This is not someone asking where the latest Hollywood movie is screening. In this case - this movie - where it was published and whether it was published are significant issues. Context is everything. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So what exactly is your point, that the refs in the article are hiding some big secret out in the open? Has no one suggested the OP read them? All I see above is speculation. I await your criticism of the unreffed remarks above before you return to criticizing my suggestion we keep this encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't care what your opinion is of the responses. In fact, almost no one does. The problem is that every time you dislike the responses, you take it out on the question. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's not uncommon for a articles to mention stuff like when or whether a movie is available in DVD/BluRay/legal streaming sites and in what regions. Nil Einne (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. First time I've ever encountered "obviate" used with that meaning. It's logical enough - is it common among some speech community? --ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Just my personal tendency to use words in ways they are not meant to be used. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Then I shall add you to my List of Rebels and regard all your future posts through that prism.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Ghost stories

Hello! Two part question: Who are, historically, some of the most critically acclaimed ghost story writers? And to what extent did they differ at the time from the most popular ghost story writers? 114.75.12.14 (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edgar Allen Poe ? He seemed to be a master of suspense. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Was he well received at the time? I seem to remember reading that his stories were criticized as being "too constructed", and some contemporary author (can't remember who) referred to him as "the jingle man". Is this still the critical opinion today? 114.75.12.14 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If so, he wouldn't be the first artist to go unappreciated in his own time. In my American Lit class, he and Washington Irving (The Legend of Sleepy Hollow) were the only two ghost story writers on the curriculum, so he seems to be appreciated now. Were you looking for somebody who was lauded while still alive ? StuRat (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Through most of his fiction, ghosts haunted the ravings of a distracted human mind, and not the "real world".

'He could dream with the best, as ghost stories (fake) go,

But it seems that for Poe it was all a mistake(o)'.--Robert Keiden (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, what I'm looking for is the difference between the criticism of today and that of past ages, as well as the popularity of today and of past ages. 114.75.12.14 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Going back further, Shakespeare had some ghosts rattling around the old castle: [3]. I think he was more appreciated by the public than the critics in his own day, whereas now it may be more of the reverse (although the difficulty in following the language is part of the problem now). StuRat (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Homer, Dante, and Shakespeare are hard to top. Zoonoses (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• If you're really interested in this topic, I recommend H. P. Lovecraft's essay Supernatural Horror in Literature, freely available at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Supernatural_Horror_in_Literature. It will give you lots of names that haven't been mentioned here, such as Algernon Blackwood and M. R. James. Looie496 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you count Frankenstein as a ghost story, as it involves a revived being, but Mary Godwin Shelley must be regarded as a pioneer. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I wrote a long response to this last night but then decided not to post it, because I'm still unsure what exactly the OP is asking. From the beginnings of the short-story form in the early 19th century until the relatively recent total genrification of literature, many top-notch writers (Charles Dickens, Nikolai Gogol, Rudyard Kipling, Robert Louis Stevenson, Henry James, L. P. Hartley, tons of others) included ghost stories among the things they wrote; but although they were both "critically acclaimed" and popular, it wasn't primarily as ghost-story writers. They simply handled that particular type of story as well as they handled everything else. Of the writers who might be said to have in some sense specialized in the ghost story (broadly speaking), on the other hand—H. Russell Wakefield might be taken as a representative example—most were neither wildly popular nor paid much attention by the critical establishment in their own day.

If one considers those who are now thought by critics (the few who are interested in such things) to have been masters of the ghost story in English, prominent on most people's lists would be such writers as Sheridan Le Fanu, Vernon Lee, the aforementioned M. R. James and Algernon Blackwood, Walter de la Mare, and Robert Aickman, who had varying degrees of popularity in their own day, but none of whom were exactly critical darlings (with de la Mare perhaps coming closest). The most acclaimed contemporary ghost-story writer may be Ramsey Campbell, but he's hardly a household name and has at times lacked a U.S. publisher.

In short, trends in literary criticism have obviously changed over the years, but never have mainstream critics paid much attention to ghost stories per se; and seldom have writers who have focused primarily on the ghost story been best-sellers. I don't really see what significant information about either literary criticism or literary popularity the OP can glean by focusing specifically on the ghost story. Deor (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)