Humanities desk
< July 29	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 31 >

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.

July 30

Historical Article

From: G. Pellegrini E-mail: [removed] Date: Thursday, July 29, 2010

Please let me know how to do this?

Thank You.

G. P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.145.57 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's already discussed at Chronology of Jesus#Birth. (I've removed your email address.) Your article might be considered WP:OR and is under copyright, both problems for Wikipedia inclusion. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Ah, I see it's already been asked and answered above.[reply]

Population of Australian electorates

What is the population of the average electoral district in Australia? I assume they are determined roughly based on having equal populations, the same way each electoral division in the USA has roughly the same population. Is this true, and if so, what's the population?

If it's not the case, then how do these divisions get determined?

24.20.200.67 (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the local "Electoral districts" which are used to elect members of the State legislatures, or the "Electoral divisions" used to elect members of the Australian House of Representatives. There are no figures for this in the articles per se. If you wanted the local districts, they are located under titles like "Electoral districts of (blank)" where "(blank)" is the state name. --Jayron32 02:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the house of representatives districts at the federal level. I am just curious. I wonder how I could find this out? 24.20.200.67 (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page on the Australian Electoral Commission website may be what you want. Dalliance (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this answers your second question. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Bengali Brahmins article Kayasta Bengali Brahmins are not there why?

In "Bengali Brahmins" article "Kayasta Bengali Brahmins" are not there why? According to your article "Kayasta" article Kayastas are Brahmins and holding dual cast status Brahmin and Kshatriya. So kindly mention all bengali kayasta peoples name and there surname in the "Bengali Brahmins" Article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.130.233 (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the scope of Wikipedia to list the names of every person who belongs to a particular arbitrary grouping of people. See WP:NOT for a description of the stuff we generally don't put in the articles here. --Jayron32 03:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take Jayron's reply to be to your request to include "th[eir] surnames". But if you think there is some more general information for the article and you have reliable independent sources for this information, please add it to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do people in afganistan or Iraq have the right to kill American soldiers there?

Do people in afganistan or Iraq have the right to kill American soldiers there? I mean because we made war on their country. In general, if you go to war with a country and conquor them, do they have the right to kill you? or only during the war (until you conquor them). if it's only during the war, when does the war officially end, so that it's wrong to kill you after that - how do people know? for example, was the war officially over when Hussein was captured, since he was there emperer? 92.224.207.77 (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting and hard to answer question. I would certainly grant any of the prisoners in Guantanamo and (formerly) Abu Ghraib the individual right to self-defense, including deadly force. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq is harder to judge. It's not a traditional war between states, in which there is a clear delineation between combatants and non-combatants. Arguably, the current war in Afghanistan is justified by the UN security council resolution. But even then, that puts legal obligations on the allied troops, few of which are strictly observed (or , to be fair, practical in the situation). Violations might again justify individual acts of self-defense. It does not, I think, justify indiscriminate bombings (by either side, again to be fair). Much of the moral ambiguity could be resolved if the West followed its own legal and moral principles, even if inconvenient. But that comes at a cost, both real and politically, that few politicians would be ready to bear. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, there are national governments that support the presence of the troops, so there is no automatic right under local law or international law to fight the troops because they aren't officially an invading or occupying force. You could refuse to recognise those national governments, claiming they are puppet governments of an occupying force, but that wouldn't hold up in court since they are courts of that national government. Really, it's an academic question since you only actually have rights that you are able to invoke. --Tango (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if those national governments opposed the presence of the troops, would your answer differ in that case? --Viennese Waltz ^talk 13:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, there would still be an ongoing war and the coalition forces would be invaders. Attacking invading troops is usually legal (under local law, which is the law that would actually be enforced in courts rather than summarily by the troops). --Tango (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP here, different IP. What do you mean in your last sentence with "since you only actually have rights that you are able to invoke." It seems that people most certainly "invoke" it. 84.153.241.14 (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did those folks have the right to destroy the World Trade Center? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking Bugs, that is not especially relevant to this question. Googlemeister (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It most definitely IS relevant. The reason we went into Afghanistan was directly connected to 9/11/01. We didn't "make war on their country", we attacked the Taliban, who were involved in trying to protect the architects of 9/11, some of whom we've caught and some we haven't. As was the reason for invading Iraq (again), though it was on less firm reasoning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the people of Afghanistan were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, thats news to me. I wonder if Halliburton were not going to gain millions would they even be in Afghanistan or Iraq. Mo ainm~Talk 14:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You both pose interesting questions: if a country conquers your country after your country killed five thousand cilians there, do you have the right to kill the soldiers in that country (also if you are a civilian, as many fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq were not regularized soldiers in uniforms). so does a civilian have the same right to kill your soldiers as soldiers would? also did Iraq have the right to produce weapons of mass destruction and scheme to eradicate New York and Washington? I think countries do have the right to produce weapons of mass destruction, if they want, but maybe they lose their right to attack conquering soldiers if they do...92.224.207.77 (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq did not have the right to produce weapons of mass destruction, the UN resolutions were pretty clear on that. But Iraq scheming to eradicate NY and Washington - what makes you think they did that? If anything, it has been suggested that the Iraqis actually thought the US supported them. Unilynx (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what about the other part of my question? if you do something the UN forbids, do you still have the right to kill soldiers that invade you? 92.224.207.77 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not according to UN rules. You have to seek a peaceful solution, and failing that, refer the matter to the security council: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter6.shtml Unilynx (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant invoke without facing legal consequences. The insurgents (if caught) face criminal charges. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic WP:SOAPboxing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Right after 9/11, Bush said we were going to go after the 9/11 conspirators, "and countries that harbor them". The immediate reaction from the Taliban was to complain that we were talking about them. (Apparently they had a guilty conscience.) As far as "the people of Afghanistan" causing 9/11, maybe not directly, but they are the ones who allowed the Taliban to rule their country, so they can't claim total innocence. When you make war on the U.S., you pay the consequences, be it invasion (as with Afghanistan and Iraq), or nuking (as with Japan), or both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you were the ones who allowed Bush and Chaney rule yours. All you are short of doing now Bugs is beating your chest a shouting USA USA. Mo ainm~Talk 14:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we eventually voted the Republicans out. Did the Afghanis vote the Taliban out? I don't think they even had that opportunity. They preferred to cower in fear. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were enemy actions, and when someone declares war on you, the idea that they have the "right" to kill your people when you take action against them is ludicrous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did Iraq or Afghanistan declare war on the USA? And don't say 9/11 because they weren't responsible. Mo ainm~Talk 14:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so it would be ludicrous for US soldiers to kill any Afghanis or Iraqis who take action against them. Good to know. Thanks Bugs! 86.164.66.83 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Afghan government was harboring the people who caused 9/11, so whatever disaster that happened to them was due to their own folly. The USA has the right to defend itself. Someone asked me about 9/11, "What if we had done nothing?" We tried "doing nothing" when the terrorists blew up that Marine barracks in the 1980s. "Doing nothing" against them doesn't work. Action has to be taken. As for Iraq, our premise for invading was faulty. But not our premise for invading Afghanistan. The question of whether Afghanis have the "right" to shoot at us silly. Obviously, they have the power to do so. And whether lingering there is in our best interest remains to be seen. But they are not innocent little lambs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I see most of what you're saying. you say "As for Iraq, our premise for invading was faulty. But not our premise for invading Afghanistan". So, does that mean that since the premise was faulty for Iraq, but not Afghanistan, it is silly to suggest that Afghans have the right to kill us. But Iraqis have the right to kill us, right, since we invaded on a wrong premise? Or do you not have the right to kill someone even if they invade your country with a wrong premise? 92.224.207.77 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is it your view that after 9/11 we should have just said "la-di-da" and taken no action? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to answer the question is to call up your local (in case you live in the US) NRA office and pose the question, if a foreign army (for whatever reason, and with whatever rationale) invaded and seized control of the US, oversaw a re-draft of the US constitution and organized elections to legimize their presence, would it then be acceptable for US citizens to use armed resistance? And there you would get a reasonable answer to the question, from a US rightwing point of view. --Soman (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The American right wing reserves to themselves the "right" to overthrow a "tyrannical" American government if necessary. That's a core belief connected with the second amendment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is implied by "having the right" to kill a soldier or someone else? Is it a moral question, like "Will I be punished in the afterlife for it?" or a present day pragmatic question "Will the judge or jury or appeals court spare me from punishment because of a defense that I had the right under the writings of a prophet/international law/the Geneva Conventions/some constitution/common law/natural law to make war and kill the person?" Regarding the American Revolution, conservative William F. Buckley once said that George Washington and his co-conspirators had every moral right to rebel against their King, but that King had every legal and moral right to hang or shoot George Washington if he had captured him. There was a collaborationist government in France while the French Resistance killed German occupiers in WW2, and there was a Quisling government in Norway when resistors spied for the British. Having a validly elected government or an imposed puppet government has little effect on the moral right to oppose occupiers. An occupying force is not going to tolerate the killing of its soldiers because the insurgents/patriots/terrorists claim a moral right to kill occupiers. The Taliban government provided a sanctuary for the organizers of the 9/11 attacks, and refused to stop providing a base of operations. That seems a valid basis for the country which was attacked on 9/11 to use its military to remove the Taliban from governing Afghanistan. Refusal to stop the use of their country by terrorists on the part of the governing Taliban was effectively a declaration of war by Afghanistan, or at least a declaration of being a failed state which cannot /will not act responsibly toward other countries. That said, it is easier to invade and occupy Afghanistan than to make it a modern democracy with a strong central government. This is especially true when the occupying power is not willing to be ruthless in reprisals, punishment of hostages, and collective punishment in general, like the WW1 Germans were in the Rape of Belgium. Targetting houses where Al Queda personnel are with bombs from drones is a less ruthless form of this than the collective punishment of random people from an area which was popular in the 19th and 20th century. There are many folk tales from around the world about punching a sticky creature made of petroleum, but just getting more entrapped in it the more you fight, with separation, however unrewarding, being the only "victory." This might be like the proposal of George Aiken in 1966 that the US simply declare it had won in Vietnam and pull out. Professor Donald Snow explicitly called for "The Aiken Solution" in Afghanistan, on the grounds that no matter how long the occupying forces stay, no matter how big a "surge" is sent, there can never be a "victory" like the signing of a surrender document by the Japanese government on the battleship Missouri provided a victory in WW2. Edison (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting case of someone in Afghanistan somewhat randomly killing a somewhat random American soldier is Omar Khadr, who is still in Guantanamo because of it. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo? Is that still there? Gosh, I seem to remember a clear election promise, followed by a clear presidential directive, to close it down by the end of 2009. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed to move them to US prisons, and Americans weren't too keen on that idea. So there they sit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love that "Americans weren't too keen on the idea", as though there's something essentially un-American about the proposal. Also, after your last sentence, you forgot to add "...imprisoned without trial". --Viennese Waltz ^talk 07:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty basic NIMBY at work. No one wants them in their state/city, out of irrational fears, so they're stuck in a limbo state. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And strictly speaking, you don't need to try each POW. And the alternative punishment if they don't want to be called POWs would be summary execution for being a non-uniformed combatant. Googlemeister (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes they were actually combatants. But, again, the OP has some good answers here, no need to diverge this further off-topic into politics. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to the original question: Does anyone have a right to kill anyone anywhere? How can anyone have a right to kill anyone? Even in a self-defence situation, usually depending on the legisiative area, it is only sufficient force to despel the attack not anything over and above that. All troops are there at the invitation of the legitimate authority, and acting within that mandate, (Afghanistan). MacOfJesus (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill's cigar consumption

How many cigars would Churchill have consumed in 1944? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get this started, Cigars Magazine says that Churchill "smoked eight to 10 cigars a day", so my first estimate would be somewhere between 2,928 and 3,660. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of cigars, but I have a vague recollection that he was known for chewing on them as much as smoking them. I could be wrong. But it's hard to imagine living to the ripe old age he did without getting any lung ailments, if he actually smoked that many cigars in one day. (I see that he apparently died from a series of strokes, which can be connected with tobacco - but he did live to be 90.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco usage is not a simple A->B form of causation with lung ailments. It's probabilistic — it increases risk factors in biologically complicated ways. Which is all to say that one cannot form conclusions about whether it does/does not do anything based on individual cases, but on groups, populations. It's perfectly plausible that Churchill could have smoked like a chimney and not had any problems; some individuals just don't manifest any. That doesn't establish anything about the safety of cigars, though. I only point this out because the simple causation model (which has understandable public health appeal) leads a lot of people to say, "well, I've heard of someone who doesn't fit into that, thus it must be wrong," but this is a very incorrect way of thinking about it. Better to emphasize the risk factor approach from the beginning, because it contains within it an understanding of how to go about getting correct information from the beginning.--Mr.98 (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People often smoke cigars without actually inhaling the smoke, you just let it fill your mouth and then blow it out. That means your lungs are usually ok. There are still risks from the nicotine and from mouth and throat cancers, though. Cigar#Health effects discusses this a little. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, some more references Michael Paterson's "Winston Churchill: Personal Accounts of the Great Leader at War" (David & Charles, 2005) states that he "did not smoke more than eight or ten cigars a day" (p23), but one page earlier: "It has been estimated that he went through cigars at the rate of 4,000 a year and that his lifelong total was therefore a quarter of a million".

Encyclopedia of Smoking and Tobacco (Arlene B. Hirschfelder, Oryx Press, 1999, p66): "He smoked at least 10 cigars a day, roughly 3000 per year, amounting to over a quarter of a million over his lifetime"

Isaac Frederick Marcosson wrote that Churchill smoked nine cigars a day, adding that "he smokes only half of each cigar as he is constantly talking and having to relight it. The cigar butts are carefully collected into a tin box and are given to the head gardener for his pipe." (Marcosson, Before I Forget: A Pilgrimage to the Past, Dodd, Mead, 1959, p177).

I couldn't find out what these estimates are based on, or who was counting. Nor could I find anything about his smoking habits in 1944 significantly differing from other years. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher G. Moore

Christopher G. Moore, Canadian author, was born in 1946 according to the Library of Congress (www.loc.gov) authorities database. Other sources, such as Wikipedia and Fantastic Fiction list him as 1952. Which is correct?208.74.208.242 (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He invites you to contact him here. --Sean 16:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author's own claims in the matter may not be considered a reliable source. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not definitive but worth including on the talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proportion of security personnel per country

Top Secret America says that there are 854,000 people with top secret clearence in the USA, out of a population of - whatever it is. The Stasi were I understand a high proportion of the population of East Germany. How do countries vary in the proportion of their population who work in security of some kind such as secret agents and the police? Thanks 92.24.178.254 (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I don't know how common this is with Top Secret, but it is commonplace for "ordinary" people to have some kind of security clearance if it will make their job easier. For example, I worked for a company that sold a product that one of our customers used to handle sensitive data. One of our field support techs had security clearance, which meant that he could actually look at what was on the screen to help us debug the problem. Paul (Stansifer) 05:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was with the US military, I had (no longer have) a Top Secret clearance, that was due to the fact that, as a computer operator, then later a programmer, I had to deal with classified material and had to keep track of passwords which protected classified documents. That was one military base, add to that all other sites where classified material was processed, and you can see why the number of people with clearances adds up. It doesn't have anything to do with paranoia. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a security clearance simply means that the government considers you demonstrably trustworthy and honest. Given that, those large numbers speak pretty well for Americans. The number would likely be way much higher, except that many Americans never seek a government job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about being a member of the Stasi. 92.28.249.190 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1989, the Stasi had 91,015 full-time employees, according to our Stasi article. The East German population was around 16 million people at that time, so that makes it .5% of the total population who worked full-time for the Stasi. They also had 173,081 unofficial informants. So you could say that 1% of the population worked for the Stasi, which is pretty impressive on the face of it. (It means that at least one person in every apartment complex was a designated Stasi informant. Probably more in some!)

But it's apples-to-oranges to compare that to Top Secret holders in the USA. For one thing, most Top Secret holders are probably not in the intelligence organizations — they are in the military. Second, informants in East Germany were not Top Secret holders (or whatever the equivalent was).

If we just look at intelligence agencies, a better comparison is between the Stasi and the FBI. The FBI currently has 33,652 full-time employees according to the FBI article, out of the total US population of 307 million, which is two orders of magnitude less percentage-wise than Stasi employment (.01%). If we also include the CIA (which is probably appropriate, since the Stasi was not just domestic), that's another 20,000 people. That doesn't affect the percentage substantially. (Note that .4% of the population of the US is in the Armed Forces at the moment. But most probably do not have Top Secret clearances. And even if you add that to the total intelligence agencies, you don't get up to the 1% of the Stasi.)

But is this even the right metric? I don't think so. The Stasi were not distinguished by their number so much as their methods. That's what matters. And that can go both ways. The Stasi had machines that let them basically read two pieces of mail for every resident per year, if they wanted to. Compare that to the capabilities of the NSA, for example, who probably have the technical capacity to record any electronic communication whatsoever by US citizens. The NSA is more powerful technically than the Stasi could have ever dreamed to be. On the other hand, the NSA (and the FBI, and CIA) don't have a reputation for knocking on your door late and night and forcing you to rat out your friends because they read a piece of poetry that was deemed subversive. So the comparison there seems to fall a bit flat. We should not, of course, lose sight of the fact that capabilities and deeds can be very linked indeed, but we should also not confuse the two as synonymous. Opinions will differ as to whether the US is a surveillance state to the same degree as the Stasi, but I don't think most sane people would disagree that the individual and political environment is extremely different. You can be plenty "subversive" in the US without anybody caring much, and there is basically zero effective control on media expression. It is an age where everyone has their own printing press a million times more effective than the most popular Samizdats — a phenomena for which this Wiki is a proud example. The Stasi would not be pleased. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance to the Metric System

In the question a few steps above, there is some mention of American resistance to the Metric System. Other than inertia and familiarity, why is that? Metric has a generally consistent internal logic, what with base ten, rather than weird numbers like how many inches in feet and feet in miles. Aaronite (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See our lengthy article Metrication in the United States. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think there is more to it than just inertia and familiarity? Humans are generally quite resistant to change. They don't need a reason beyond that. --Tango (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One difference between the United States and Europe is that in many cases political elites in European countries can push through changes such as adoption of the metric system or abolition of the death penalty whether the majority of the population is in favor or opposed (and in many countries a majority was opposed to such changes at the time they were first enacted). This may make Europe more enlightened than the United States, but it doesn't make it more democratic... AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion before, but think of it this way: Esperanto is a much more logical language than English is. Should we dump English and all speak Esperanto? Most English speakers would object to that, because English, for all of its quirks, is intuitive to those who have lived with it their entire lives. Feet, inches, miles, etc. may seem strange to those who aren't used to it, but for those who have lived their entire lives with it, it's intuitive -- to an American, "Everyone knows how far a mile is." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another supporting example would be the case for Simplified Chinese versus Traditional Chinese...61.189.63.171 (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto might be objected to by countries whose language is not Latin-based. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the metric system actually used by everyone in Europe? In Canada, where the metric system has been used officially for almost 40 years, we still use non-metric measurements in normal speech. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on that? Why are European governments more able to ignore the populace than US governments? --Tango (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Not an answer to Tango's question, but ..) What AnonMoos writes does, for example, apply to "direct democracy" in Switzerland. On a national level, women weren't able to vote until the 1970s after several earlier attempts had been turned down by our men at the ballots. On a cantonal level some cantons introduced women's suffrage earlier, also by men's vote. In other cantons (and also in Liechtenstein) it wasn't introduced until later. In one case the men remained against it, and it had to be enforced by Supreme Court ruling in 1990. It took Switzerland forever to join the United Nations, and, if we believe the demoscopes, the people wouldn't agree to join the European Union either. For a last, recent example: It is very unlikely that a Western democratic government would introduce a ban on building minarets, as we did last November. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, I don't mean to imply that other nations would be equally conservative if they had more direct and less representative instruments of democracy. In my own experience and comparison, to this day, Swiss society is distinctly tainted by archaic male values (albeit passive aggressive ones), but hey, what do I know, ask Geert Hofstede. [1]. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the one quarter of U.S. citizens who believe that the characters they see on TV are real (per survey) and the quarter who don't know that the U.S. declared independence from England (per survey) might be challenged by such a change from the familiar. No data to what degree these two quarters overlap.

More seriously, IMHO weight is not as much a problem (pound is roughly half a kilo) but the 2.5 cm to an inch always threw me off (and I know my history). More to the point, there is the sheer size of the U.S. and everything that is tooled to non-metric. Economics will drive any eventual U.S. conversion to metric, not legislation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the quarter who don't know that the U.S. declared independence from England - they still don't know that, Peter. The US declared independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain. They were just as much declaring independence from Scotland and Wales as they were from England; but it's silly to single out any of the constituent parts, because the K of GB was a unitary state. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call your distinction more semantics with regard to popular knowledge (but thank you for your precision). The surveyed misconception was more basic, as in, France versus England, or not knowing at all. (!) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but why perpetuate an error for the sake of simplicity? This is like saying that Japan did not attack the United States in December 1941, they only attacked Hawaii. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But after the attack, Washington issued a resolute response. It's not an error to call the UK or GB England, it's metonymy. --Sean 16:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Do we really have to drag the "England vs. Great Britain" debate onto the RefDesk too? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vecumbra is right that economics is the most likely force of change, as there is no inherent reason to change otherwise (the fact "the rest of the world" uses it is a good reason not to). In fact, nearly everything in US stores lists the size in both Metric and what we used to call the "English System". Inches, feet, yards, etc., are based on "human" measurements. The meter is to the yard what the camel is to the horse: "designed by a committee". And just try dividing a meter by 3 and see how things go. Yards and feet? No problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with Tango, 61.189, and Mwalcoff as well as Vecumbra, and Bugs too . I grew up with the metric system, and my skills in mental arithmetic improved while living in the US, because converting gallons, miles, pounds, and Fahrenheit in my head was the only way I could cope. Miles are easy, Fahrenheit are extremely annoying. When you're struggling at that level, for a long time, you might not be interested in the merits of the other system. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the life o' me, I have never been able to figure out what they thought was wrong with Fahrenheit. It's a finer gradient than Celsius. And what's holy about the melting and boiling points of water? That's an arbitrary decision - just as was the original decision to make a meter a small specific fraction of the distance from the equator to the north pole. Fahrenheit works just fine, but unfortunately is a pain to convert to Celsius and vice versa, because of the 5/9 or 9/5 situation. I've found that the best way to deal with it is to have a thermometer on the wall that shows both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celsius does have a less persuasive case than meter/gram/litre etc. Two markers are easy to remember (and we Celsiusites have to remember an odd number for blood temperature too). The annoying part is that you have to perform a subtraction/addition (+/- 32) and a multiplication/division! My point was merely that, coming from the other side, I fully understand the reluctance (though I wouldn't want to finance this mix-up out of my own pocket either :) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any other widely-used temperature measuring systems other than Fahrenheit, before Celsius came along? Or did they change it just to be changing it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Celsius was devised in 1742, only 18 years after Fahrenheit (which itself was a modification of Rømer), it doesn't seem likely that Fahrenheit was at all well-established when Celsius was invented. And if we're going to play the game of denouncing late-comers for creating needless complication, then Newton's scale based on the boiling and freezing points of water predates the idea of using the freezing point of brine. Algebraist 10:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, and forgot about that degrees f = 9/5 * degrees c plus 32. The mind reels. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remind people about the Mars spaceprobe that crashed because people had mixed up the metric and imperial systems. Its odd that imperial is still used in the USA when it is no longer used in the Motherland. I hope US metrication will at least stop Americans from believing that the whole world uses, or wants to use, those d*mn "cups" that they are obsessed with. 92.15.12.218 (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What cups? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that most Americans believe that the whole world uses, or wants to use, cups. I doubt that any of us really care. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They use metric in China. Nuff said. 92.15.12.218 (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China is a dictatorship. Nuff said. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now we're back to the Hitler argument as used up above. If a dictatorship uses something, it's automatically bad and we should do whatever the opposite is, eh? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why Bugs wants to divide a metre by 3? Astronaut (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what does he do when he wants to divide a yard by 10? 86.164.66.83 (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 feet in a yard. Both feet and yards are "human" measurements that can be easily related to, unlike meters or centimeters. There's no obvious need to divide a yard by 10. Just as there's no obvious need to have a meter be 3.37 inches longer than a yard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Is there an obvious need to have a yard be 8.5598 centimetres shorter than a metre? It is just what you are used to, Baseball Bugs. Bielle (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The yard was there first. And there's no compelling reason for the US to adopt someone else's measuring system at this point. Metrics are listed on products that have weights or volumes, just on the off chance that any American cares. Having metrics in science classes, as we did back in the 60s, is just fine, since it's confined to that environment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were other things before that ridiculous upstart "yard" came along. Why don't you use them? Why should your car not get 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way you likes it? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

40 rods to the hogshead! What are you driving? The USS Iowa (BB-61) got 42.4 rods to the hogshead at flank speed, and at 15 kt her roddage improved to 135.5 rtth. By comparison, an M1 Abrams battle tank gets 11,650 rtth.-- ToE^T 15:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first stage of a Saturn V rocket only got 4 rtth, but it was going fast enough that it could coast a fair distance and get a better average consumption, and the oxidizer was included in the number of hogsheads of fuel used. Googlemeister (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the OP's question is American exceptionalism. The system America uses is better because America uses it; and all things America touches become better than things it does not by mere association. At least, that's the primary reason I, as an American, can see for refusal to adopt the metric system. That, and the standard inertia that generally accompanies these things. --Jayron32 03:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. :) It's worth mentioning that there were some attempts during the 1970s to make the metric system even more visible, by putting it on road signs and such. It went over like a lead balloon. If and when it becomes necessary to switch to metrics, America will do it. Until such time, there's no reason to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cliche is true then, that Amerikans do not understand irony. 92.29.127.162 (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Amerikans"? Well, one thing we do understand is that the metric system is loved by the same folks who love soccer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that just about every car sold in the US these days has kilometers on the speedometer, though that may just be so that they don't have to change them to sell them in Canada. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, in Canada, the metric numbers are big and the U.S. numbers are small on the speedometer, the opposite as in the U.S. It's more in case you do drive to Canada or Mexico. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of metrics and the American system both being shown. And in either country, you can ignore the one that you don't care about, until there's a reason to care - such as crossing the border. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] As far as distance measure goes, one difficulty with adopting the metric system is the grid plan used for streets and roads in many parts of the USA. Many cities are planned with one street every 1/10 of a mile, and many states (especially in the Great Plains, although this extends as far east as western Ohio) are covered with grid roads at intervals of one mile or ½ each; it would be less convenient to think of roads appearing every 1.609 km than every mile. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If America does not adopt metric, then it is going to be difficult for it to export its manufactured products to a rest of the world that uses metric. Whereas rising star China has no such problems.

Not really. Most of the US's exports are things that aren't dependant on a certain unit system (eg. electronics, drugs, etc.) or that can easily be made in metric versions (eg. corn that you can just measure out in different quantities for export). --Tango (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobia. The metric system was invented by those dog-gone foreigners! --142.104.53.238 (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't matter to me one way or the other whether we use metric or Imperial in the US, lets just make sure we get rid of the stupid troy ounce and troy pound. Googlemeister (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resistors who appreciate the number 12 as a highly composite number might also want to change to a duodecimal system and support the Dozenal Society of America or The Dozenal Society of Great Britain. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]