Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 March 18

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.

March 18

i want to know the company in US who can supply Battery separator production line

which company in US can supply Battery Separator (PE) production line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur312 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A Google search on "battery separator manufacturer" comes up with several companies. The only one we have an article on at present is Hollingsworth & Vose, but this should not be regarded as an endorsement of their products. Tevildo (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

History and Rhetorical Analysis

In my English class we are assigned to write a rhetorical analysis and evaluation. Our prompt is to "choose a problematic question or arguable issue". Everyone is my class is writing on gun control, abortion, gay rights etc. I love to try to surprise my teacher and so I thought it would be really cool to choose a topic in history to analyze. I have to have two articles, speeches, essays etc. on the issue and they have to be strictly for or against the issue. It doesn't matter whether the two viewpoints differ or not. So my question is this, is there a time in history where two speeches or whatever were made arguing something that would fit this? And where might I find them? Any information would be appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.145.208 (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There's free silver and the Cross of Gold speech--you'd have to find a second but that shouldn't be hard. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thousands of historical event would qualify, and be a lot more fun than the perennial topics your classmates will choose. Any subset of argument you'd be interested in? Political, theological, scientific, mathematical? Any time-frame in mind? Any particular subtopic that strikes your fancy? You could get a lot of arguments from around the time of the founding. The debate over a national bank is an interesting economic topic. So's the currency related topic Medeis notes. Shadowjams (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The legitimacy of Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was a good one. It hinged on apparently contradictory biblical verses about marrying the wife of your brother (Catherine was previously married to Henry's brother, Arthur, who predeceased him). The argument is notable because it's a prime cause of the English Reformation. (NB our article omits the topic of levirate marriage, Deut 25:5-6, which had been used to justify the marriage in the first place). The argument had a massive impact on English and European society then and subsequently. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Munich Agreement in 1938, by which the western powers used appeasement in an attempt to pacify Hitler. It was largely seen as a good thing at the time, but in the light of subsequent events came to be regarded as a very bad thing. However, I'm struggling to find two keynote speeches that sum-up the arguments. Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The speeches made in Parliament by Chamberlain (for) and Churchill (against) would probably be good starting points. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well done, I probably would have got there in the end. Alansplodge (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• The debates surrounding the writing and ratification of the United States Constitution were historically significant, there were the Federalist Papers which were organized and written to argue in favor of the Constitution as written, while there are also the Anti-Federalist Papers which are a bit of a historiographical invention; while not so organized as the Federalist Papers were, it provides a good organization to the various arguments against the Constitution. --Jayron32 13:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You might enjoy exploring the Calculus_controversy, or List_of_scientific_priority_disputes in general. Lots of letters, and some speech sources are provided. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

US aircraft carrier naming

Just reading your artical on the USS George H.W. Bush. You stated that " USS George H.W. Bush is the second United States aircraft carrier to be named after a naval aviator (Forrestal was the first) and the second, following Ronald Reagan, to be named after a living former president (Reagan was christened in 2001 while President Reagan was still living). It is also to date the only aircraft carrier to be named after a president who only served one term in office." I wondering if the USS John F Kennedy(CV-67)was not included because JFK didnt conplete a full term? Not sure when "to date" is but what about the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.43.62.145 (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

(Added section heading) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. There's no specific reference attached to that sentence, so it's presumably the work of someone thinking through various "firsts" and making a mistake. I've removed that sentence from the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) article. — Lomn 15:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

From this side of the Atlantic, it seems a bit odd to name naval ships after politicians. Do they try to strike a balance between Republican and Democrat ships? Or does the party in power try to name as many ships after their own people as possible? Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense when the politician has made significant contributions to the military from a legislative standpoint; you can't fight if you can't get someone to pay for your ships. The best examples of this are Carl Vinson and John C. Stennis, both of whom chaired armed services committees in their respective houses and who both have carriers named after them in recognition. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't always that way though, and is rather a break from U.S. naval tradition. Traditionally, carriers were named after notable battles fought by the United States (e.g. Yorktown, Saratoga, Midway), ship names with a very long pedigree (e.g. Hornet, Enterprise) or aviation topics topics (e.g.Kitty Hawk, where the Wright Brother's flight occured or Langley, an aviation pioneer.) Morgan Riley (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't think the tradition was that strong, as it was violated right and left throughout history. The more famous WWII carriers definitely followed it. But there were 40-something Bogue-class carriers in WWII that were named after bays and sounds. James Forrestal (whose naval renown, I will argue, came almost entirely from his political role, as he spent his naval career flying a desk) got an entire class of carriers named after him in 1951. Out of ten Nimitz carriers, eight are named after people known mostly as politicians (with Eisenhower swinging both ways). At the very least I'd say that politicans-as-namesake has become part of the tradition rather than breaking it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

List of US cities with population of 75,000 or more.

I would like to know if Wikipedia could generate a list of US cities with a population of at least 75,000. There is a list of cities with 100,000 or more, but I need to go a little further for a project I am working on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjeroh (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this (Excel file) is what you want - Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places over 50,000, Ranked by July 1, 2011 Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011 (SUB-EST2011-01); a list of all places with over 50,000 people (2011 data). It's an easy job to trim it down to 75,000+ people: I get 436 cities when doing that. The file is from http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html - there are further datasets that you might find useful. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Security features on Bangladesh identity cards

Hi,

According to [1]: "He said that the new [smart] card with 10 years’ durability and eight or nine security features would be hard to fake." But what I'd like to know is whether there are any security features in the current Bangladesh ID card.

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what you call a security feature. The cards are detailed here - there's a barcode, a coded ID number, a photograph, signature and various personal details. But they do not appear to have any electronic or magnetic security features. Warofdreams talk 14:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I was rather expecting non-electronic security features, like watermarks or holograms. But if there were any, I think it would have been mentioned in the IRB document you provide. Apokrif (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Employment Opportunities

What type of employment opportunities are in Denmark, if a person wants to relocate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.39.198 (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

First up, you probably need to deal with getting into Denmark for residence purposes. Denmark appears to have particularly strict immigration guidelines (though somewhat relaxed since their implementation in 2011); here is the portal for foreigners which includes a page on jobseeking in Denmark. As for what jobs, Denmark has a diverse modern economy with virtually anything available. — Lomn 20:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

To be more complete, Lomn, if you have a passport from one of the EU countries, you can be a resident without any limitation and can find any job you like (as long as an employer will have you). --Lgriot (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

@Lgriot: you are wrong on this one. Not every European is allowed to reside and work in Denmark without restrictions. Read the links above for the concrete regulations. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I went to the portal for foreigners linked, and I read this sentence "EU/EEA citizens and Swiss citizens can reside in Denmark under the EU regulations on free movement." Do you have another quote that contradicts this?--Lgriot (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the point: it doesn't say "can reside and work ." They cannot "find any job [they] like (as long as an employer will have [them])." You can see in the same source that different rules apply for citizens of Nordic countries, who do can reside and work without limitations. Borders still exist in the EU. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, there are countries outside Europe from which one might wish to relocate to Denmark. What advice are they given? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I read too fast, I though residence implied work (how are you supposed to pay for your rent?). From the "Work" page: If you are an EU/EEA citizen or Swiss citizen seeking residence in Denmark based on the EU regulations on freedom of movement, you may be subject to special rules'. Where can one find the special rules? This web site is difficult to use, I couldn't figure out if I qualify to be allowed to work as an EU citizen. --Lgriot (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

As an EU citizen you are entitled to go to Denmark, with any dependants, to seek work. If you have a profession or skill you will be particularly welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

While the conditions are more relaxed for Nordic citizens, it seem to me the emphasis on work by Osman is a mistake since I don't see any mention of substantial restrictions on work. I also don't see any mention of special rules for work [2] here. I presume some jobs (lawyers, doctors, etc) have registration and other requirements which may not automatically transfer and in some cases may even be difficult to transfer. Similarly certain jobs like the armed forced or police may be restricted to nationals only [3]. However these could potentially also apply to Nordic citizens and are somewhat distinct from the issue of residence and the right to seek work in Denmark. The actual restrictions seem to be on residence i.e. the reside part which Osman did not emphasise. In particular, as outlined in that source, you can only stay for 3 months unless you are either looking for work (in which case you can stay for 6 months or longer if you can convince them you are genuinely seeking working and have a genuine opportunity for employment), have work, are retired or can convince the Danish authorities you can support yourself (whether in general or while studying). There are obviously people who are rich enough to support themselves including rent without needing to work. Note that the original EU policy is on the free movement of workers, see Freedom of movement for workers. While there is a policy on the free movement on people in general, it's more limited, see Free movement of people, Citizenship of the European Union and Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely. Note both the article on the free movement of workers and the Danish source have some discussion on the definition of 'worker', a key point since I don't think it was the intention that someone can work an hour a week in Denmark (or wherever in the EU), spent the rest of the time partying and take advantage of the free movement of workers (this may come under the broader allowance for the free movement of people if they can support themselves). This doesn't mean you can't take up such a job, simply that you need to either have another job or some other means to support yourself. The Danish source also mentions the obvious possibility people may be excluded if they've been deported or committed a crime. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)