Humanities desk
< September 1	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 3 >

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 2

Crinoline staircases

Where are the surviving crinoline staircases in London? I am aware of the one in No 1 Greek Street (the House of St Barnabas) but I believe there are others. What is thought to be the earliest use of this style of staircase balustrade and when did this style fall into disuse? If they were, as I believe, used in the C18, why are they so called when the crinoline was not invented until the C19? I would be grateful for any related information.

--Dorset-life (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moor Park, Farnham apparently has one. Steewi (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Census - counting people on wagon trains?

Sorry, one more census query. It's just for curiotsity's sake. Though, it might tie in to my other query (which, BTW, I foudn the people - somehow "alternate spelling" doesn't factor turning a z into an s.)

How did the census takers count people on stagecoach routes? This actually could account for a good percentage of the missed, though I know they had assigned routes. And, supposing a census taker in, say, 1850 was assigned to travel a wagon train route looking for peopole; how did the counter figure the person's domicile? Just where they happened to be standing? (Oh, I'd be so tempted to stand in the Four Corner States with a foot half in each if that's true :-) Somebody or his brother (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the modern UK census, I believe you get put on the form for wherever you spend the night on that particular day (or, probably where are you at a particular time during the night, just in case people move around). I expect the old US censuses were similar. --Tango (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you spent six months on the Oregon Trail you might not get the paperwork. APL (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I say, it's not done by individual, it's done by place. The inn where you spend the night would have the form and would write you down on it. (I don't know if there were inns frequently enough to stay in one every night - if you sleep under the stars, you may well be missed.) --Tango (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice where I live is to ask "where did you spend the night of ____?" DOR (HK) (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all; I'll also mention for those who search later I did later find this link http://www.usgennet.org/alhnorus/ahorclak/census.html which sheds some light on how it was done with those who would spend months on the trail; looks like wagon train records were used then.Somebody or his brother (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1901 Anarchist Exclusion Act

Was the first Anarchist Exclusion Act ever repealed? Can you still be barred entry to the United States nowadays for "disbeliev[ing] in or... oppos[ing] all organized government, or [being] a member of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching such disbelief in or opposition to all organized government"? --superioridad ^(discusión) 02:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until January 21, 2009, anything is possible. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but of course the ACLU would have a field day. John Turner lost his case (where he said that the law was unconstitutional) because the Supreme Court said the Constitution didn't apply to aliens. Since various judges have said since that it does actually apply to aliens (including, iirc, Judge Hens Green in the case of the Guantánamo Bay detainees), perhaps things have changed around a bit since then? But again, I'm not a lawyer. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian politics and US politics

I want to know some facts about general US public attitude towards Indian politics.

For example, general Indian public and government attitude favors Democratic Party (United States), not Republican Party (United States). Similarly which Indian political party is generally favorable to the US public, Indian National Congress or Bharatiya Janata Party?
What is the overall US public attitude towards Hindutva (note I am talking about Hindutva, not about Hinduism)? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an American, so I may be out of line. I do know a goodly number of educated Americans, or, given what I am about to add, would I be better to say "schooled" Americans? I think your averge U.S. (or Canadian) citizen barely knows that India exists on any level beyond the Taj Mahal and the Kohinoor diamond. If they know anything of the politics, it would likely be limited to Ghandi and/or Indira Ghandi.This average person would not recognize the names of the political parties and is unlikely to know what Hindutva is. Even if you were to explain the concept of Hindu nationalism, I doubt one in a hundred would either understand or care. I say this in some personal embarrassment because I had to click on Hindutva myself to find out what it was about. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your average citizen also probably doesn't know how to spell Gandhi. --Anon, with a non-violent smile, 08:50 UTC, September 2, 2008.

By average American, I am indicating those who at least have a college degree. Also note I am talking about Hindutva, not about Hinduism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a college degree. Two of them, in fact, and working on a third. And I would have to echo Bielle's points. Most college educated Americans when asked about India would probably think of the tech support that they got the last time they had computer issues. India just isn't that much of a concern to most Americans to know that much about it. I'm sorry if this bothers you but that's the way it is. Dismas|^(talk) 06:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I am really curious about. Most Americans frequently discuss issues like Tibet, Palestine, Hamas, Iran etc. Even they regularly read news about small countries like Iran or Venezuela. But most of them do not know anything on issues like Kashmir, Ram Janmabhoomi, Babri Mosque etc. Many Americans have at least the basic knowledge on Jamaat-e-Islami, but they do not know anything about Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. What may be the reason behind this? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are greatly overestimating what the average college educated American knows about national politics of various nations. I had no idea what Jamaat-e-Islami was before clicking on that link and I doubt anyone that I know would either. I would probably have a hard time finding any American who could name even one political party of a foreign nation. We may be able to tell you the forms of government that are used in various nations such as England, Germany, Russia, Cuba, and China but as far as political parties go, we'd be hard pressed to come up with the names of any of them. And just because we discuss Iran, that doesn't mean that we know about the politics of the country. Dismas|^(talk) 08:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keep in mind that Americans don't view India as any sort of current or potential threat, as they do with China, Russia, and most of the Mid-East, and that the influence of events in India on the lives of average Americans is, to be honest, pretty minimal, with the singular possible exception of outsourcing. AlexiusHoratius 08:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is the issue how a particular event within a particular country will affect average American's lives. For example I can say what is happening in Chechnya has nothing to do with average Americans' lives, but they are concerned with Chechnya, but not with Kashmir. I will rather more or less agree with Alexius's first argument that "Americans don't view India as any sort of current or potential threat, as they do with China, Russia, and most of the Mid-East". Another fact is probably media. The American media, especially local American media outlets like The New York Times, Los Angeles Times etc give more emphasis on the internal issues of countries like Venezuela. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that the average American has any idea what's going on in Chechnya? Or Kashmir? I read the news on a nearly daily basis and listen to it while driving to and from work on NPR. Neither of those places have caught my eye/ear in months if not more than a year. I'm curious, what country are you in? Dismas|^(talk) 10:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not American, I'm British, but I consider myself pretty well educated and I follow the news quite closely, and I know next to nothing about Indian politics, and don't know what Hindutva is without looking it up. I can tell you a little about Indian economics, but that's about it. India gets mentioned as an emerging economy, but other that it doesn't play a major role on the world stage. I know what's happening in Pakistani politics, because that's all over the news lately, I know what's happening with Russia because that's in the news all the time too. I don't know much about Chinese politics beyond the human rights abuses that get on the news, since as far as I know there isn't all that much Chinese politics, it's a one party state. I know what Chechnya and Kashmir are, but haven't heard anything about them recently. The media generally reports on things they expect their audience to be interested in (that's what sells newspapers), and I don't think anything particularly interesting to the rest of the world is happening in India at the moment. --Tango (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir is in the news at present, as is the massive flooding, but Indian natural disasters don't get as much UK airtime as American ones for some reason. I am also British, and the last event I remember in Indian politics per se is Sonia Gandhi declining the primeministership four years ago. btw, China has plenty of politics, it just takes place within the Party. Algebraist 11:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tango has a good point that media reports on things they expect their audience to be interested in. Here a good question may arise what makes Americans more interested in Hugo Chavez, Falun Gong or Palestine than in Balochistan Liberation Army, Kashmir or Assyrian independence? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Americans have long been very anti-communist (with almost religious ferocity), which explains the interest in Chavez (I'm not sure he strictly qualifies as communist, but he's close enough to interest Americans). Are Americans particularly interested in Falun Gong? The British aren't, from what I've seen. Palestine is of interest because the US played such a major part in founding Israel. I don't think there are any particular reasons for Americans to be interested in the other 3 things you mention. --Tango (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive flooding during monsoon season isn't anything new. I understand that these floods are worse than usual, but are they as much worse than usual as Gustav is (or was potentially) worse than a usual hurricane season? Also, remember people are often more interested in things than are happening to people they can relate to - the US is much more like the UK than India is. --Tango (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and re. Kasmir - remember, war is more interesting than peace! --Tango (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the average college educated American knows about India: Gandhi, caste system, don't eat cows, lots of gods, sitar, Mother Teresa, poverty, curry, Bollywood. Here's what the average college educated American knows about Indian politics: _____. —Kevin Myers 12:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question is what is the reason behind the overall attitude which is answered by Tango above. Some typical American views are Muslims are violent, Putin is a dictator and Iran is a terrorist country. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Te term is stereotype - just as you stereotype the views of 'americans' so will others stereotype the views of other groups. Across the whole of American there will be people who believe all manner of different thigns on each of the points you mention. There will be pro-muslim, anti-muslim and indifferent to muslim, there will be putin-fans, putin haters and people who are indifferent to him. Etc. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe American views should be stereotyped because American worldview vastly differs from the view of the rest of the world (let aside some EU states) and also differs from reality. No one can deny average Americans view Muslims as inherently violent. As Kevin Myers suggested the American view above, American view towards India is horribly wrong after you read the articles Economy of India, Indian Armed Forces, India and weapons of mass destruction, Integrated Guided Missile Development Program etc. By GDP (PPP), India ranks 4th in the world and Indian Air Force is the fourth largest air force which is stronger than Royal Air Force. India is also considered to be a Potential superpower. See Potential_superpowers#India. Americans believe Vladimir Putin is a repressive dictator despite the fact more than 80% of Russian population supports him [1]. See Putin#Support. The Criticism of Vladimir Putin primarily comes from a handful of individuals, see Putin#Criticism, it mention he has widespread support in Russia. Americans carefully ignore the view of Russian population and emphasize the view of certain anti-Putin political activists. Americans still view the rest of the world as they viewed it 50 years back. For this reason, I believe general American view should be stereotyped because their worldview is certainly wrong view and unrelated to the real world. The term "American viewpoint" should also be used in a derogatory sense to denote wrong and fringe political viewpoints. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you begin this discussion to be argumentative? Corvus cornix_talk 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I believe American views should be stereotyped because American worldview vastly differs from the view of the rest of the world". They may on average differ from the rest of the world, but the rest of the world isn't unanimous in their views either. Anyway, because Americans' views are different that means they should be stereotyped? Most of your generalizations about Americans aren't just stereotypes, they're wrong. Americans are divided on Putin. Most don't have any opinion on him at all. Also, being popular doesn't immunize one from the charge of being a dictator. The historical examples of popular dictators are numerous. Where is your evidence that Americans' views on the world are 50 years old? Your whole argument is a tautology: Because of the stereotypical American, Americans deserve to be stereotyped. There's no excuse for stereotyping anyone. It's just intellectual laziness. —D. Monack ^talk 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As other posters have noted, the fact that many Americans don't know anything about India seems to distress you. It's not a deliberate choice on their part. India is (to most Americans) far away and seems a very alien culture.

I was born in Canada but grew up in the United States. To put your questions about India in perspective, my guess would be that not one American voter in five could name the two largest political parties in Canada; not two in five could name the prime minister; at least half, if asked the title of the leader of Canada, would say "president." I don't think one American in 20 could name all the provinces; except for Americans living in the upper midwest, for the most part the average American couldn't find Saskatchewan on an unlabeled map of the prairie provinces. Most Americans, I think, would simply not believe you if you said America's trade with Canada (imports and exports) is nearly 50% larger than America's trade with China.

If this is the case for Canada, with whom the U.S. shares a border of nearly 9,000 kilometers, a nation where nearly 80% of the people speak English as a first language, and a nation millions of Americans can drive to, why be surprised at the U.S. view of India? — OtherDave (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from Norway, another country where the US Democratic party would beat the US republicans by a huge margin if the population, main news channels etc were asked, I'd assume that, if people knew much about Indian politics, any nationalists would come out bad. That would mean support for Congress (not least because Gandhi remains an iconic figure) and skepticism towards any Hindu nationalist organization (which I assume Hindutva to be; I didn't look it up). But this country may not be typical; confrontation and nationalism is viewed, in a way, as something remote and perhaps uncivilized in this country which has been lucky to get away from most conflicts over the last centuries (save a relatively peaceful yet of course troublesome Nazi occupation). Yet it is my impression (having only been to the US once and that was several years ago) that a similar mechanism could be at work for the US. You might have to subtract some skepticism of Muslim organization (which would make any anti-Muslim org come out better) though. Jørgen (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US is strongly skeptical of all nationalisms and fundamentalisms other than its own, which it embraces largely uncritically. (Sigh...) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an American I can tell you that Americans don't know much about events outside our country. After all, we just nominated a vice presidential candidate of one of the two major parties a person who didn't have a passport before last year. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

definition of DUI

Driving Under the Influence, this van be alchahol or drugs.

The exact definition will vary by jurisdiction, but see driving under the influence for an overview. (I've also added a redirect so that the link you typed above will now work.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barter vs. sell/buy

What is the advantage of bartering stuff vs. selling and buying? It seems to me that always when you have some sort of currency the process will work more efficiently. Mr.K. (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currency makes all transactions possible. Every item and service may be given a price and the currency seamlessly allows the transactions of items and services among the people. In strict bartering, transactions become difficult. What if I want some cheese, but I'm a website designer. The cheese guy doesn't want a website. But, he wants some gasoline. I talk to a gasoline guy, but he doesn't want a website. However, he says that he is interested in a new computer. I talk to a computer guy and he says he'll give me a computer for a website. So, I make his website, get the computer, and go to the gas guy. By that time, he already got a new computer. So, I'm stuck with a computer I don't want and I still don't have any cheese. Bartering sucks. -- kainaw ™ 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the barter deals put together to get around the fact that Communist economies had limited "hard" currency reserves were almost as baroque... AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage of bartering is that the parties involved often find ways to conceal the value of the transaction from the tax authorities. A housepainter might barter his services for dental work; neither the dentist nor the painter claims the value of the work done as income. (I'm not saying this is legal, only that it's possible.) — OtherDave (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you have currency, using it is pretty much always the best option. Bartering is handy when you don't have currency. This can happen due to you living in a society without currency (the past, say), or due to a lack of whatever is used as currency (caused by hyperinflation, say). --Tango (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also in a time of hyperinflation, even if you have currency you might prefer not to use it because it loses so much value between acquiring and spending it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have soul "X" I am not a soldier

In the song X is "but." However, I think that "and" would make much more sense here. Why do they say "but"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Brandon Flowers. It is rather silly to think that someone here has a psychic link to him and knows why he chose those exact lyrics. -- kainaw ™ 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think from, a writing perspective, the 'but' emphasizes both the similarity of the /sol/ sound in both words and the difference in meaning; it helps to point out that 'solder' is not in fact 'soulder'. Even though I've heard the song I can't remember the name of it or the artist but I don't remember it being religious at all. If it were then it would be understandable to think of it as a reference to that metaphor being used in a lot of religious traditions, so they'd be essentially saying they're not zealots. But I think it's really more of the literary reason. - Lamba jan 17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Kainaw. It seems like someone do have a speculative answer to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then ask the question at Wikipedia:Speculation Desk/Humanitites. -- kainaw ™ 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good fight Kainaw, but this seems like a funny place for it. Most poetry is just asking to be understood and if we all had to go directly to the source for any kind of explanation whenever there was a part of it we don't get, it surely wouldn'tve lasted as an art form. This is hardly the sort of question that's prone to big arguments and long diatribes. Moreover, there's a pretty standard analytical tradition for breaking down poetry and getting to the meaning and reasoning behind parts of it. That said, I can see how a discussion board elsewhere on the net would be a more appropriate place where Mr.K. would find more and better answers, but there's plenty of other offending questions by plenty of repeat offenders far more worthy of your policing. - Lamba jan 03:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the question: "Why do they say 'but'?" It isn't asking "What is the meaning of the word 'but' in this phrase?" It is asking for the motive of the lyric's author, not the meaning of the lyrics. If it had been worded in such a way that it was trying to understand the meaning of the lyrics, then I wouldn't have responded as such. -- kainaw ™ 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'I have soul' usually refers to 'a general feeling for music' and has nothing to do with any religion. This makes sense, as it is in a song. The religious idea would use the indefinite article 'a', as in 'I have a soul'.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights - Workplace thru the Decades

Working on a presentation-for a basic and simple elective study assigment at work. I am looking for a timeline to include a few key or important facts/issues/Rights/Acts pertaining to Human Rights in the workplace for each decade; 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000. I have alot of information that I have read thru, just having a hard time pulling one from each decade, since they aren't listed out by date's etc. Please let me know if you have suggestions on where I might look, or if there is a cronological document listing Human Rights. This is for the US.

Any other tools,video clips etc. would be great, but not sure if any exist.

Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.178.13.2 (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to choose a few of the issues you've identified, research them, and look for outstanding incidents in a given time period. In other words, build your own timeline. Since you talk about rights in the workplace, you might research strikes, unions, organizing efforts. I found a list of strikes by googling the word "strike," for example. From that I found a link to the in Flint, Michigan, in 1937-37. Earlier than your dates, but then, you didn't want me doing your research for you. — OtherDave (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholic drinks

Why are some alcoholic drinks generally drunk with ice and some without? Cider and whisky are generally drunk with ice. Cognac, vodka and champagne very seldom. Beer and wine pretty much never. Sake, to the extent that I know of, absolutely never - it is supposed to be drunk hot. It has no apparent correlation with either the potency of the drink nor its ingredients. Is it simply a a matter of hysterical raisins? JIP | Talk 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or of preferences that got widely adopted. As for myself, I believe that if the makers of Talisker thought it needed ice, they'd add it at the distillery. — OtherDave (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ice in cider is very, very wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. Even if you're not drinking it warm/hot, you certainly wouldn't want to water it down. Matt Deres (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iced sake, on the other hand, is quite popular in Japan. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's generally down to whether or not you intend to water-down the drink. Friday (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you contrive this question as an opportunity to use "hysterical raisins", JIP? :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not! I just like to write "hysterical raisins" instead of "historical reasons". I asked the question because of genuine interest in how different alcoholic drinks are drunk. And yes, in many places in Finland at least, cider is served with ice. JIP | Talk 06:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some instances, the inclusion of ice is to make the drink more palatable versus drinking the alcohol neat. This then moved over into the popular lager front with chilled drinks like Fosters Ice et al on draught and in bottles. Some people, like me, are errant snobs who believe that if you have to chill a drink to make it sell - it didn't taste very nice to begin with. Another possible reason is that the ice, whilst watering the drink down, also makes it last longer - giving the impression that you are 'getting more for you money'. Nanonic (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many bars in the UK serve cider with ice. I suspect that they do this because ice is cheaper than cider, so they can get away with giving short measure by appealing to the sort of people who think they are being cool by drinking an agricultural workers' drink in a "sophisticated, metropolitan" way. Some bars will also try to give you a head on cider, which is just daft. I am now in the position of explaining to barmen who were not even born when I started drinking how to do their jobs properly. DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I've only seen ice added to those vile bottled ciders (like Magners and Bulmers) for which 'served over ice' is an integral part of the brand image. Of course, in this case there's no question of short measure. I've drunk a lot of draught cider in my time, and no-one's ever tried to put ice in it. Algebraist 11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly yes, it does happen, rather a lot round here. As for Bulmers being served with ice, this is quite a new phenomenon, as I recall it started in the 90's with an advertising campaign. Cider was a "low-income" drink (part of its agricultural heritage, for a long time it attracted lower duty than beer, as it was traditionally drunk by agricultural workers who were paid significantly less than industrial workers who drank beer). By marketing it to people with a higher disposable income, higher prices can be charged, and nowadays in a city like Brighton there is no price differential between cider and bitter. DuncanHill (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of cider with ice, at least not draught cider. What a horrible thought. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Finland, cider is not considered a "low-income" drink. It costs the same as beer (in some places, even more - but only very slightly more). It is considered a ladies' drink. Most men drink beer, and most women drink cider. However, there are much more women who drink beer than there are men who drink cider. JIP | Talk 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Draught cider and cider that comes in small bottle is the same price, if not more expensive, than beer in the UK too. You can, however, get really cheap cider in 2 litre bottles (the best known is White Lightning. That kind of cider is commonly associated with a certain variety of the homeless, since it's often the cheapest source of alcohol. --Tango (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serving draught cider with ice, unless you use an oversize glass, would be illegal since it's a short measure. I've only ever seen it done with bottled cider, it's quite common then. --Tango (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ice in cider is very common in Ireland. I think following on from the success from Guinness in the UK, Bulmers/Magners Irish cider decided to go with a very Irish advertising campaign, including the use of ice in draft cider, and us Brits seem to love everything Irish so the custom has started to stick, but I doubt anyone who is drinking cider from the West Country would even consider ice in their cloudy pint. - Phydaux (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys would probably be horrified to learn that in Brazil, its common to have ice in red wine. Now that's just weird.82.22.4.63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

religion

scripture says there was at one time only one language. what was that language? 4ll allen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.77.185.1 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article on the origin of language. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the scientific viewpoint, I think the OP wants the religious one (Abrhamic religions, I'm guessing). --Tango (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Adamic language is what you're after. --Tango (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor did an experiment raising children without hearing any speech the purpose of which I believe was to find out this original language. The experiment was unfortunately a failure. Dmcq (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grapes of Wrath

Got a couple questions about the sister Rose of Sharon Rivers. Where did that name come from ? I found Rose of Sharon on Wiki but nothing with Rivers on it.Also why didnt the film allude to the Roman charity dipicted at the end of the book ? To me that was a shocking yet beautiful ending.Did i just answer my second queston ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.211.5 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rose of Sharon" is a description of the bride in the "Song of Songs"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know, there's actually an article Rose of Sharon. AnonMoos (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also (as the WP article notes) a woman named Rose of Sharon in Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. She's Tom Joad's sister. — OtherDave (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen in the article The Grapes of Wrath, Rose's husband's name was Connie Rivers, so her surname in the novel simply came from her husband; she would have been Rose of Sharon Joad before marriage. If the question is about her being named Rose of Sharon, I think you'd have to ask either Ma Joad or Steinbeck, neither of whom is likely to be available at this time.

Regarding the second question - our article about the film notes that the plot in the second half of the film strayed considerably from that of the novel, and specifcally mentions that "the novel's original ending was far too controversial to be included in the film," which is probably understandable for a movie released in 1940. --LarryMac | Talk 19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]