Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 6

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.

March 6

Violence in Congress?

Did any US Senator or Congressman ever carry a gun onto the Senate or House floor? If so, did he ever shoot anyone? Did Senators or Congressmen ever get into a fist fight on the chamber floor or could they have been charged with assult for something they did in their official capacity in Congress? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough this google search with the phrase "fistfight in congress" turns up a wealth of information. The second linke titled " Ready to Rumble: Greatest Fistfights of the U.S. Congress " kicks up Wikipedia's spam filter, so I can't link it, but its a GREAT article that catalogues exactly what you are looking for. As far as shooting goes, Wikipedia has two articles on shooting incidents in the Capitol, both linked under United States Capitol shooting incident. --Jayron32 05:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

[1] —Dark 08:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia based in mainland China? I read the first few paragraphs of Wikipedia but it doesn't say. I'm just asking because that's where I've heard of these kinds of pointless censorship stories coming from before. 82.113.121.104 (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

@82.113. No, Wikipedia is not based in China. Wikipedia is uncensored. However, links to certain websites (not content) are forbidden as detailed at WP:ELNEVER. --ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that "Wikipedia is not censored, however links to certain websites are forbidden". Isn't that akin to saying, "Wikipedia is not censored, however explicitly spelling out certain vulgar terms such as shit, fuck, cunt, and so on, is forbidden." That means you can ALLUDE to these terms, you just can't spell f-u-c-k. You can ALLUDE to a certain web site, you just can't spell h-t-t-p-:-/-/-w-w-w-.-t-h-e-s-i-t-e-.-c-o-m". Look at the above example that made me ask whether Wikiepdia is based in mainland China. The person said: "its a GREAT article that catalogues exactly what you are looking for". However, despite the fact that person WANTS to be able to mention what they're talking about, they CAN'T. It is forbidden to write the explicit mention, leaving the person unable to communicate what they want. Sorry, this is the definition of censorhip. 82.113.121.104 (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Far as I know, the "forbidden" sites are thus because they are pure spam sites and/or copyright violations, and thus have no value to wikipedia. That's not "censorship". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Googling "fistfight in congress" and clicking the link titled "Ready to Rumble: Greatest Fistfights of the U.S. Congress" you will see that the article fits none of your criteria. Not being allowed to mention it, so that I have to vaguely allude to it, is pure censorship in its most unadulterated form: you are forbidden from saying it, so you allude to it. It is not "censorship" of spam sites or copyright violations, which could almost make sense. It is senseless, pure censorship with no justification. 82.113.121.88 (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is censored only in the sense that it is censored by US law. This is because Wikipedia's servers (the computers that store Wikipedia's database) are in Florida and thus those servers are subject to US law. (And, I guess, to Florida law as well.)

For example, we're not allowed to repeat copyrighted works verbatim unless we give credit, and then only for fair use. Similarly, we're not allowed to publish links to sites that do repeat copyrighted works verbatim. That's all that Jayron32 was saying. But there are many things that we, by consensus, have decided not to allow. See WP:NOT for examples. Therefore when we say the Wikipedia is not censored, we mean that Wikipedia is not censored as a group but we are severely self-censored in what we will allow others to publish through Wikipedia.

I've always been a bit worried that Wikipedia could be censored for real. Let's say Congress passed a law making it illegal to "cause others to view the American government with contempt" during the War on Terrorism. (A similar law was passed in WWI.) Would we be allowed to report fully on the Pentagon Papers during the injunction, when the NY Times was not? Sometimes I wish that Wikipedia's servers were spread all over the world, so that that action of any one government could not overturn Wikipedia's consensus. What if the Wikipedia servers happened to be located in China? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

@82.113: The link you are talking about is on the site Associated Content. That entire site irrespective of content has been blocked since March 2008 as a spam site, in that anybody can post there and get paid to do so. It is therefore 100% under the rubric mentioned at WP:ELNEVER. This is a blocking a site, not particular content: it is not censorship. --ColinFine (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks in 1856 was an extremely notorious public incident at the time, and contributed to tensions between the U.S. north and south in the years preceding the Civil War. There's also a famous early illustration (ca. 1800) showing one Congressman attacking another with fireplace tongs, but I'm not sure what search keywords to use to turn it up... AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Also the famous quote (apparently by James Hammond) that in Congress "the only persons who do not have a revolver and a knife are those who have two revolvers"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, we have an article here Legislative violence which has the illustration of the fire tongs incident... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So. The bottom line in answering my first two questions as originally stated is no. The closest thing involving a firearm on the chamber floor was in 1850, when Senator Foote pointed a pistol at Senator Benton. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. See United States Capitol shooting incident (1954). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I only asked if Senators or Congressmen themselves had ever carried or shot a gun on the chamber floor. The 1954 incident is about four visitors in the gallery firing guns. No Congressman shot back.

The answers to my questions are: (A) so far as "carry", there are too many legislators to count (especially in "the old days") that carried firearms as a matter of course and (B) so far as "shoot", no federal legislator ever shot a firearm while in Congress. The closest was Foote, who pointed a gun at Benton. I suppose that, if it happened today, Foote would be up on DC assult charges, suspended from his seat and, if convicted, tossed out of Congress. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently, Senator Jim Webb may be packing heat at any given time, without apology. I wonder if there's a specific rule forbidding a Senator taking a loaded gun into the Senate chamber? —Kevin Myers 18:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

billion

How much millions constitute one billion, 100 million or 1000 million? --Wikigon (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As our page billion states, it is one million million in the long scale, and one thousand million, in the short scale. Gwinva (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And note that the long scale, formerly use by the British, is being phased out, so a billion is 1000 million to almost everyone, now. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I was just about to ask whether OP meant a British billion or an American billion when I read your post —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartender, bloodwine! (talk • contribs) 22:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

@StuRat, I was going to say something similar, then I actually read long scale: apparently the long scale is still in use in a number of other countries. --ColinFine (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding the long scale is rarely used in English speaking countries but is still used in some European non English speaking countries Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Information on Instant Messenger Use

Can anyone suggest a group or organization that has tracked or estimated the total number of users of various instant messaging clients? I'd be particularly interested in comparable and recent data.NByz (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedia has - there's a chart in our article Instant messaging with estimates for numbers of users, and it looks like a sourced chart. Maybe following the source links will help you? Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

History Channel Documentaries

The History channel (or the Hitler channel as it's become known because it shows nothing but world war two documentaries) shows a lot of old documentaries made in the 50s and 60s. My question is, are these documentaries still factually correct to this day? Have new things about the war been discovered that would discredit a documentary made in the 50s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agitable (talk • contribs) 11:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In some ways they may actually be better, as more of the people from the events were still alive to be interviewed. Over time, certain myths tend to develop, and lacking any first-hand witnesses left alive to counter them, they tend to spread. However, you do need to be aware of the politics of the time. For example, they might well minimize the contributions of the Soviet Union to defeating Nazi Germany, for fear of being called before called before the House Un-American Activities Committee.

On the other hand, news programs actually made during WW2 are likely to be pure propaganda. For example, they referred to the Germans and Japanese, in an offical news program, as "Huns" and "Nips". If they can't even avoid racial slurs like that, I'd have very little faith in the accuracy of any of the facts stated.

Now for the advantages of modern programs. In addition to being in color and having better special effects, they may also have access to some info that was unknown earlier on. This is particularly true when dealing with nuclear weapons and other military secrets, where all records were sealed for many decades. The collapse of the Soviet Union also brought about the release of many Soviet records which were formerly kept secret. So, I'd watch some of each, old and new, to get both perspectives on history. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

With due respect to the people who answered the OP, it should be mentioned that, in fact, the History Channel does NOT show "a lot" or even ANY documentaries made in the 1950s and 1960s. A contrary example would be most surprising. For one thing, you don't get ratings with old shows like that, which is why they end up on PBS only. 63.17.74.113 (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment directly, since I don't subscribe to that channel, but would suggest that the much lower cost of an older show might make it a good choice, especially when viewership is low, like late at night. Compare with how Nickelodeon airs new shows during the day and reruns of much older shows during Nick at Night. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

When exploring any type of Historical commentary, be it documentary (on any channel), book, periodical ... the trick is to keep in mind that "history" tends to be written with the author's adjendas and perspectives influencing the content, no matter how "non biased" they try to be. People write history and people always have a point of view. Although the personal interviews in the older documentaries might be more "accurate" because memory is fresher, studies have shown that everyone's memory tends to be selective on a sub-concious level. There's no doubt that they would be better detailed, but they'd likely have focused on what they NEEDED to learn about while the event was occuring, rather than the bigger picture. We remember what is important to ourselves as individuals. And although the newer documentaries may have information never seen before (and has more value as it fleshes out concepts not explored as deeply before), there is bound to be restriction somewhere that limits how much of that new information you are getting, which also effects how you understand what is being expressed. The trick is to learn what you can, sift out the obviously biased or incomplete information and then process it all yourself to give yourself your own ideas about what happened. And I do subscribe to the History channel, and they like to explore issues from a number of different perspectives, older and younger ... which is why it's my favourite channel to watch.

Novel

What was the world's first novel? --70.250.214.164 (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a complicated question - see Novel#History. As the article shows, the answer depends on how you define "novel", but it gives a number of examples starting from about 1,000 years ago. (Naturally, there are long written stories from much earlier as well. And no one is able to date the earliest non-written stories.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Tale of Genji (early 11th century) is, apparently, sometimes called the world's first novel. Vranak (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hellenistic tales such as the Aethiopica are sometimes called "novels". AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do cave paintings count? They often tell a story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VCRVLC1010 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it -- they're non-linguistic (i.e. not true writing), and the strong probability is that they were about people's immediate lives, not convoluted fictional narratives... AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Novels need be neither convoluted nor fictional to be novels. But I agree, cave paintings are not in the ball park. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The first novel in English is often said to be Robinson Crusoe - still an entertaining read all these years later. See also First novel in English. 84.13.166.170 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It would have to predate Satyricon, which by any definition is a novel. It would be hard to believe that novels are not as old as all lengthy transcribed literature. Why wouldn't they be? Nothing distinguishes transcribed verse from transcribed narrative except that the former might have been handed down generationally; but the fact of it being "traditional" doesn't preclude other transcription of "original" contemporary work, including prose. Certainly in the thousands of years of (now lost) Ancient Egyptian literature someone wrote someting that was an extended narrative unclassifiable as poetry. It's a "modern"-cultural bias, fostered by uneducated journalists and high school teachers and so on, that novels are a recent genre. Again: was Satyricon a once-in-a-millennium fluke? I don't think so. 63.17.74.113 (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And to mention another work coeval with Satyricon: the author now known as Luke wrote a single novel eventually published in two parts: The Book of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, the latter a splendid example of the romance genre. 63.17.74.113 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Golden Ass written a century after the Satyricon could be the first complete surviving novel, and still a good read. 78.146.0.232 (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' connotation with David

Maybe I missed something while reading, but I can't get one thing. I know that Jesus' genealogy is traced back to David because he is the foretold Messiah. But firstly, unlike Jesus, David is the earthly king while Jesus repeatedly criticised the high classes of Jewish society (Pharisees, Sadducees) and its customs (Shabbat, etc). Besides, Jesus emphasizes that "Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me"Mt. 11:6 (i.e. one who would not regard Jesus as an earthly king to restore the independece of Jewish state) and essentially affirms his unearthly originMt. 12:48. Jesus also knew who would be actually responsible for his crucifixion, but is still regarded as being from the David line. Thoughts on why is that? Brand[t] 16:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. Jesus needs to be in David's line to fulfill various prophecies as the Messiah, but he certainly never used his lineage to try to claim any (earthly) power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but his lineage from David is never mentioned by Jesus or anybody else in the narratives of his life. Keeping his followers (and everybody else) in the dark about his lineage would be consistent with your reading of Mt 11:6. I think it makes a lot of sense to assume that none of those who would be responsible for the crucifixion knew about Jesus's lineage. Staecker (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides, that's all Joseph's lineage. You know, the step-dad. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've found the relevant place: Mt 22:41-46, particularly: "If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?". It looks like in that place Jesus says that the God can not be a human descendant, neglecting the genealogy once more. So the issue is why Jesus had not incarnated from a virgin without Davidian background to avoid being David's offspring by flesh and ultimately evade such complications? The only reason I assume is providential, that Davidian background was necessary to be successfully charged and crucified, but that's a bit odd. Brand[t] 18:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Staecker, Jesus was referred to as a "Son of David" various times. Matthew starts his Gospel, “A record of the origin of Jesus Christ, the son of David ..". He’s also referred to this way in Matthew 9:27 and Luke 18:39. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Right you are, thanks. Staecker (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are vastly under-estimating the number of people who can claim Davidian background. with ruling elites, it is generally sufficient to be able to trace background to near relatives (bothers, sisters, first cousins) and over the course of a dozen generations there might literally be tens of thousands of people who can claim to be descendants of David. Add that the hebrew culture tended towards extended clan-type organization, and you can increase the numbers. it might have been difficult to find someone who couldn't trace some ancestry back to David if they tried hard enough. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't see any contradiction. Suppose we are around 33BC and somebody wants to criticize the high class of his Jewish society: it works much better if he can boast a good pedigree including, in direct line, Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, David and Salomon (and God himself). It should put him on a sort of authoritative position (like saying: "Of course I know what is written, 'cause my father himself wrote it"). --pma 19:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like by Davidian reference Jesus proved his authority for Jews in particular, while universally that claim is useless. Brand[t] 20:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, and early Jewish Christians might have claimed that Jesus was descended from David to enhance the authority of Jesus among their fellow Jews. Marco polo (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Jesus also knew who would be actually responsible for his crucifixion" wrote the OP. Q: Oh, really? Who was? If you don't know, how can you say that Jesus knew? 63.17.74.113 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You can see what people thought in the middle ages at Tree of Jesse... AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Space fiction

When did fictional works about space travel first start to be written? It seems like a very new concept, the last 100 years ago at most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventiant (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Icaromenippus by Lucian I guess. Brand[t] 20:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Jules Verne wrote some more than 100 years ago. Edison (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Apart from Lucian of Samosata's story in the 2nd century, mentioned by Brand, there were a few stories from the 18th century involving inhabitants of the Moon and the Sun, but the first stories we would really consider to be space travel ones would be Verne's De la Terre a la Lune in 1865 followed by E.E. Hale's The Brick Moon in 1869. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mention should also be given to Micromégas (Voltaire, 1752). Tevildo (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

See The Moon in Science Fiction]. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The shooting script for Georges Méliès film "A Trip to the Moon" (French: Le Voyage dans la lune) was ready over 108 years ago. The Wikipedia article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's necessary to clarify whether the question is about space travel or extraterrestrial travel. We now know that those are the same thing, but when Lucian of Samosata was writing about people going to the Moon, he assumed they'd have air to breathe all the way. Only once people had the concept of the vacuum of space could they write stories about traveling through it, as Verne did. --Anonymous, 01:37 UTC, March 7, 2010.

Somnium, a book about a trip to the Moon that landed Kepler's mother in jail, was written almost 400 years ago. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And let's not forget Ol' big nose's Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon, written in 1657. Methods of space travel suggested by Bergerac include smearing yourself with bone marrow, so the moon will pull you up. Obviously. FiggyBee (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oy... Jules Verne was really the first author who wrote anything remotely resembling science fiction space travel, and you're probably not going to find anything comparable after that until the 1940s or '50s, when the big scifi boom started. unless you consider topical bone marrow or glued on feathers to be scientifically credible, that is... --Ludwigs2 06:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure how you define "scientifically credible", but that "gap" between Jules Verne and the 1940s was filled by H. G. Wells, Edward Everett Hale (already mentioned), Edgar Rice Burroughs and others - see our history of science fiction article. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And adding a few at random to Gandalf61's list, Percy Greg's Across the Zodiac 1880, Robert Cromie's A Plunge into Space 1890, John Jacob Astor IV's A Journey in Other Worlds 1894, Garrett P. Serviss's Edison's Conquest of Mars 1898 and A Columbus of Space 1910, George Griffith's A Honeymoon in Space 1901, Mark Wicks' To Mars via the Moon 1910, etc, etc.

Once the SF magazines took off (heh!) in the 1920's space travel stories came thick and fast. E. E. Smith began to produce his Skylark multi-novel series from 1928, the same year that the prolific Edmond Hamilton began publishing interstellar adventures; in Germany, Otto Willi Gail and Thea von Harbou were writing space-travel fiction around the same time. If I were to attempt any kind of comprehensiveness, this comment would run to several dozen more lines - in short, space travel stories (of varying scientific plausibility) were common from the late 19th century all the way through to the 1940s (and beyond, of course). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dreaming

What is the study of dreaming called? Who are some of the best know researchers into dreaming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObligationBreak (talk • contribs) 21:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oneirology. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Lathe of Heaven is the best science fiction book about oneirology ever written. well, it might be the only one ever written, but it's still a damned good book. --Ludwigs2 06:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think that, you're dreaming. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs2 - I love that book! Snorgle (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant about it being the only one ever written about the subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sunday shopping in Germany

Why is Sunday shopping illegal in Germany? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The trivial answer is "because it's against the law" - see Ladenschlussgesetz. According to our Sunday trading article, one major factor in the law's continued application is objection to reform from the retail trade unions, who (understandably) object to their members being forced to work longer hours. Tevildo (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the Ladenschlussgesetz says so (the authority for setting shop closing times was devolved to the Laender in 2006) - the basic reason is because the federal constitution refers back to the Weimar constitution of 1919 in declaring Sunday to be a day of rest and recuperation. The follow-on reason is because the churches don't want it, the shop workers don't want to work on Sundays, and neither do the small shop-owners want to open up then. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is holiday shopping illegal in Germany? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Essentially for the same reasons that Sunday shopping is illegal. I would add to the arguments mentioned above that workers want a day that they can spend with their families, and many Germans agree that guaranteeing a day for family and recreation is socially desirable. Marco polo (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is night time shopping legal in some parts of Germany, and illegal in others? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sunday shopping in the USA used to be widely banned, as per Blue laws. Those laws were at the state or local level, so they varied a great deal from place to place, in terms of what kinds of businesses could or could not be open on Sunday. There's a subtle hint about this in a 1944 Woody Woodpecker cartoon called Ski for Two, in which Wally Walrus sees a calendar that says "October 3 - Only 70 shopping days until Christmas!" That "70" figure excludes Sundays and the Thanksgiving holiday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't Easter Sunday and Whit Sunday public holidays in Germany? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Easter is not really a "holiday" in the US either, because it's on Sunday, which is already a "holiday" in a general sense. Many places in the US take Good Friday as a holiday, making a 3-day holiday weekend out of Easter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are Jewish shops in Germany not allowed to open on Sunday, even if they observe the Jewish Shabbat? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess is it would create unfair competition, if the Christian shopowners had to remain closed while the Jewish-owned stores remained open. I've never known Jewish shopowners to be too fanatical about closing on the Sabbath, at least not in Christian-dominated countries. It's possible they would in Israel. As a compromise in a largely Christian nation, the store owner himself might take the Sabbath off and expect his Christian employees (if any) to operate the store on Saturdays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't create unfair competition: quite the reverse, it would disadvantage Jewish shopkeepers who are anyway obliged to close on Saturdays... an extra day off means an extra day's takings lost. In Britain, Jewish shopkeepers are exempted from the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (see here for the law), and I'm very surprised to hear that this isn't the case elsewhere. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 23:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, should a Jewish-owned shop open on Sunday and get fined or whatever, I strongly suspect that an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights would result in an exception being made, because the law essentially requiring Jewish shops to close for two days per week and everyone else for one is clear religious discrimination. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 23:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US, I don't think this is such an issue. But it probably varies from case to case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is Saturday shopping legal in Germany? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is Thursday shopping legal in Guatemala? Why not? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 11:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is Saturday shopping illegal in Israel? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you try and use some common sense, please, rather than just asking a stream of questions without even thanking people for the comprehensive answers you've received so far?

Saturday shopping is illegal in Israel for precisely the same reason that Sunday shopping is illegal in predominantly Christian countries: to protect workers' rights and observe a religious day of rest. This should be obvious. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 11:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there any Jewish shops in Germany today? --84.61.170.179 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Iceland debt

If Iceland does not pay back the rest of the world what it ows them, under international laws, can America nuke em? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.171.183 (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain is perfectly capable of nuking Iceland to dust ourselves thanks. 84.13.166.170 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No. For a start, Iceland doesn't owe America anything, as far as I know. It's the UK and the Netherlands that are trying to get money back. The main consequence of Iceland not paying back the money is that the UK and Netherlands may well veto Iceland's application to join the EU, which it needs in order to stabilise its economy. The use of military action to force a sovereign state to pay its debts is not usually permitted by international law. The one exception I can think of is payments required by a peace treaty (eg. war reparations) - if you don't comply with the conditions of the peace treaty then the peace is over and you can be attacked. The use of weapons of mass destruction wouldn't be allowed even then, of course. There are rules against indiscriminate killing of civilians. --Tango (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Luckily the UK didn't "nuke 'em", or the U.S. would have been obliged to defend Iceland under our 1951 defense treaty with Iceland. Rmhermen (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

They won't be any physical repercussions. No one will go to war even if Iceland said tomorrow "nope we ain't gonna pay it back ever." What will happen is Iceland won't be trusted again and no country will do dealings with them, so they'll lose out on international trade and such, and eventually shrivel and collapse unless their geothermic energy reserves are needed by other countries in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartender, bloodwine! (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but if they had oil, would America invade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.171.183 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think America would be more keen to invade if Iceland had vast reserves of oil, but the international community wouldn't allow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartender, bloodwine! (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

America is not in the EU, last time I checked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything about the EU. I said "international community". That means all countries from all parts of the world. If America just invaded Iceland the rest of the world wouldn't allow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartender, bloodwine! (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The point was made earlier that Iceland owes no debts to the US, and since the US is not in the EU, it would have no justification to invade. If you're trying to argue that the US invades countries just to get oil, keep in mind that the whole problem with Saddam, starting in 1990, centered on his invasion of Kuwait, an act which threatened to mess with the world's oil supply. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the U.S. already did sort of "invade" Iceland back in 1941 -- but it had nothing to do with oil or debts... AnonMoos (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Who cares about International Law? Under the Bush Doctrine, all the USA has to do is claim that Iceland is "harboring terrorists." So, hell yeah. 63.17.74.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC).

I do have to agree a bit on the above. The US has a powerful military, and if they were to invade Iceland, it is extremely unlikely that anyone would do very much about it in a military sense. More likely to say some nasty things about the US at the UN, and to put some economic sanctions out there (although that might more resemble an economic suicide pact). Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why can't America join the European Union? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Because we don't want you. We don't just let anyone join you know. We've got standards. 84.13.166.170 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, so do we. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing preventing it from joining European Union, even though it's not in Europe. America just doesn't want to; it would rather pay higher currency conversions to trade with Europe so that it can remain apart and purely American. Basically nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartender, bloodwine! (talk • contribs) 22:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There was plenty of complaining here even about NAFTA, which is nowhere near as broad in scope as is the EU. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the EU's rules say only European countries can join. It doesn't define "European", but there is no way the USA would be considered European. As I recall, Morocco wanted to join and was rejected for not being European. I expect the EU would be open to negotiations involving free trade with the US, but probably not full EU membership (the US would end up with far too much control, since it is almost as big as the entire EU is now). It is irrelevant, though. The EU only comes into this since EU membership is the UK/Netherlands main bargaining chip. They each have a veto on Iceland joining and Iceland really wants to join, so Iceland has to do what the UK/Netherlands demand (they are negotiating over the details, like how quickly they need to pay back the money, but they won't be able to refuse to pay at all). --Tango (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See Copenhagen criteria#Geographic criteria, Future enlargement of the European Union, Morocco – European Union relations. Of course rules may be changed (or ignored) when they get in the way of things. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to cultural differences between the U.S. and Europe and the political difficulties that would be involved with America joining the EU, the basic goal of the EU is for countries to join together so that as a whole they form a zone of quasi-"continental" scope (within which trade is free etc.) -- but the U.S. already has quasi-"continental" status all by itself... AnonMoos (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it very unlikely that Russia will ever join the European Union? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Amongst other reasons, one is because it's not in Europe, it's in Asia, and is more likely to form part of an Asian trade agreement. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, quite a lot of Russia is in Europe. --ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Likely a supermajority, by population. —Tamfang (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The true reason is that Russia is simply too big, has a very large population, and has too many problems. The same applies to Turkey (which also has a religious aspect). Flamarande (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the original question, as far as I know, Iceland does not legally owe anything to anybody for the banking crash. European customers elected to invest money with private banks in Iceland. Those banks went under, i.e. they declared bankruptcy. So far the free market worked - some people took a risk, and lost their money. The governments of the UK and the Netherlands then decided, on their own and quite possibly for good reasons, to bail out their citizens who had invested with the broken banks. Then they turned around, and, without any justification, started whining at the Icelandic state to reimburse them. Why should Iceland pay for the decisions of British and Dutch investors, or for the decisions of British and Dutch politicians? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason that the Icelandic state (as well as the Dutch government) are involved is that bank accounts have a "guarantee" provided by the Central Bank. The Dutch Central Bank guarantees savings up to a monetary limit (that limit was adjusted during the banking crisis). The Icelandic Central Bank provided guarantees on savings held by customers of the IceSace bank. The Dutch Central Bank decided to pay customers in advance for the guarantee that was given by the Icelandic Central Bank, and handle the combined "claim" between the two governments. There are still several individual account holders trying to claim their money that was not "guaranteed" by the two Central Banks. These customers include some local government institutes (provinces and city governments) that kept their 'savings' on the IceSave accounts to benefit from the very high interest rates. See also the first paragraph under the reaction heading on the Icesave dispute Rwos (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

what prophecies about the Messiah did Jesus fill?

1. Which prophecies about the Messiah did Jesus fulfill?

2. Are Jews today still actively, seriously and literally awaiting the Messiah -- ie they believe the Messiah will come, they are ready to see if anyone meets the description and fulfills all the prophecies, etc -- or did they stop doing that after the Jesus debacle?

Thank you. 82.113.106.88 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am completely astonished that Wikipedia does not have an article on this, but Jesus Christ as the Messiah redirects to Jesus in Christianity, which barely touches the subject. Clearly there is room for an article here.

Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled many prophecies about the Messiah - too many to list here. This page recounts some of them along with some counterarguments. They don't believe that he fulfilled all of them, but they believe he will return again, and the remainder will be fulfilled at that time. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Found a much better article: Jesus and Messianic prophecy. I'm going to change the redirect of the above article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the antecedent of your word "they" when you say "they don't believe that he fulfilled". Who is they?

So what is the answer to my second question, about whether Jews are still totally actively awaiting a Messiah even after the Jesus debacle, or whether they are not really awaiting one actively... thank you. 82.113.106.88 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"They" would be Christians. Jews, in theory, are still waiting for the Messiah, although I don't think they obsess over the subject the way many Christians do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That would indeed be Christians, the pronoun referring back to the last group mentioned. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Certain old testament books contain messianic prophecies which Jesus fulfilled. The Book of Isaiah is the most important, though there are some other prophecies in other books of the old testament as well, such as in the Book of Malachi and the Book of Zechariah. --Jayron32 00:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason why Jews reject Jesus was because he was a false prophet by Jewish standards -- he modified Mosaic Law in contrivance of the law itself, thereby subject to the death penalty. He is also not a descendant of the house of David. Moreover, he failed to fulfill the mission of the Messiah, and only through the contrived "he will return" assertion do Christians substantiate their claim -- Jews do not need to fall upon such an assertion, because they reject him being the Messiah the first time. So from a Jewish perspective, no, he has not fulfilled any of the requirements of the Messiah. And, yes, Judaism purports that the coming of Messiah is anticipated -- "speedily in our days" is the phraseology generally used. To be fair, though, there is a significant school of thought that portrays Jesus as an obedient Talmudic Jew and paints Paul as the one who used Jesus as a figurehead for his new spin on Judaism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

One prophesy about the Messiah that Jesus failed to fulfill was the ushering in of an age of peace. Oh yes, there was the peace dividend. Added, after striking through: I stand corrected. Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment minimalizes the issue, Bus stop. He fulfilled no prophecies. By definition, a prophecy is irrational and completely objective when fulfilled. Being born in a certain city, suffering or other similar ambiguous claims certainly do not establish one as a Messiah. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw a very interesting TV show, once, which argued that Jesus intentionally fulfilled several of the requirements for the messiah (which, of course, he would have been perfectly aware of in advance, since they were long-standing traditions in judaism) in order to put the Pharisees in a difficult position. Just from a political perspective, I wouldn't be surprised if he at least nominally fulfilled most of them. Oddly, part of the reason that the Jews didn't accept him as the messiah (if I understand correctly) is that for the Jews the messiah is an explicitly political/military figure who would (like Moses and David) lead the people out of bondage and into righteous independence. the fact that Jesus refused to place himself as a worldly leader soured him for Jews as much as it inspired Gentiles. --Ludwigs2 03:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many of the criteria one meets for being the Messiah; a single disqualification would lead to disqualification. Jesus was not from the House of David. Although Matthew provides a genealogy for Jesus, it does so to Joseph, not Jesus. The Church provides three responses to this question, all of which are inadequate:

1. Joseph adopted Jesus -- this rebuttal is invalid because adoption does not continue a blood line. The adopted son of a kohen is not a kohen, the adopted son of a Levite is not a Levite and the adopted son of a king can not be king. Thus, the adopted son of Joseph is not descended from Judah and is not considered from the House of David according to Jewish law. The Messiah is a Jewish concept and laws pertaining to the Messiah would have to conform to Jewish standards.
2. The genealogy is really that of Mary -- this rebuttal is similarly invalid because Jewish rites are passed through patrilineal descent. The son of a daughter of a kohen is not a kohen unless the daughter's husband was a kohen, etc.
3. Jesus is a spiritual descendant of David -- Jesus is decidedly not a spiritual descendant of David. Jews, who follow the Mosaic Law as David did, read the texts that he wrote (Psalms) in the original language that he wrote it in (Hebrew) and hold sacred the Temple that David desired to build but that his son ended up building are more spiritually descended from David than Jesus and his followers were, and so this weak explanation is hardly sufficient grounds for establishing Jesus as a proper blood descendant of David.

DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're getting into pretty solid WP:SOAP territory here. This isn't a place to debate the validity of Christian theology and doctrine. The question was "Which prophecies about the Messiah did Jesus fulfill?" Christians believe that Jesus did fulfill a lot of prophecies, Jews and Muslims (and everybody else) disagree to varying degrees. We don't need to try to argue for or against any of these cases. Staecker (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the OP's question is being answered. I do not believe there is a violation of wp:soap. I think if there is any issue, and I don't think there is any, that it would be one involving finding fault with the original question posed by the OP. But again, I don't find the question improper. Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not soapboxing. One of the prophecies was that the Messiah would come from the House of David, right? (The king's lineage, not the baseball team.) So the question, in that context, is "Did He or didn't He?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many well-known points of contention between Christianity and Judaism and I don't think I brought up one that was even mildly unrelated to the topic at hand. The OP certainly was focused on Jesus, the prophecies he may or may not have anything to do with and the Jewish version of the Messiah. If he did not, please correct me. I read and re-read my previous post multiple times to ensure it was a balanced approach towards the issue at hand articulated in a civil, cordial manner. The reality is that Judaism makes claims, Christianity makes claims and then each makes counterclaims against the claims of the other. Now, in the past I have crossed such a line, and perhaps that is why I have received such a comment as I have from Staecker, but I sense that my comment was in line with the query posted, and I thank Bus Stop and Baseball for their words of support. I will certainly use this opportunity to strengthen my Wikipedia sense of neutrality and stifle any urges to the contrary. But, yes, if the question was, "Which prophecies of the Messiah did Jesus fill?" A proper response is not just "none" from the perspective that maintains such, but the evidence to back up such a claim. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly not being uncivil DR, and I don't really think it's an issue of neutrality-- my reading of the question is: "In traditional Christian theology, which Messianic prophecies did Jesus fulfill?" If that's the question, then we can list them by chapter and verse from the Old Testament. If the question, as Bugs seems to suggest above (and others are implying), is "did Jesus actually fulfill these prophecies?", then I don't think the RD can meaningfully answer, except to say: "Christians think so, pretty much everybody else thinks not". To argue that one of the other of these camps is correct isn't productive. What if somebody asked if Muhammad was really God's true prophet? Or if The Buddha really achieved true enlightenment? Would we at the WP RD really answer "yes" or "no" to these (with or without providing "evidence" to back it up)? Staecker (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me it's a given, for the first question, that we're postulating that Jesus was the Messiah. That doesn't mean we're taking the position that He was the Messiah. It's more like, "IF He was the Messiah, THEN which prophecies did He fulfill?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, then aren't you finding fault with the question posted by the OP? Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, User:DRosenbach is being extremely uncivil, portraying the Jewish view of these matters as if it were incontravertible fact. The rest of us at least have the decency to prefix comments with "in Jewish belief" or some such. This is soapboxing at a great height. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, DRosenbach said, "by Jewish standards." Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right. My mistake, and I apologise. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: (2), see Jewish messianism. Haredi Jews today, particularly those of Chabad Hassidism, actively and fervently anticipate the coming of the Messiah. While they are a minority by numbers in contemporary Israeli society, the cultural concept of the Messiah's coming (imminent or not) is expressed among secular Jews in colloquial references including popular music and humor. Not to be confused with Messianic Judaism, a term referring to "Jews for Jesus." -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see the talk pages of: Paul of Tarsus & Paul of Tarsus and Judaism, where a lot of this is already aired. There are quite a lot of commentries on this and notes in modern Bibles regarding this. The Jerusalem Bible has good accounts of this, written before the Books of the Bible concerned, and extensive foot-notes.

Luke 24: 25-27, would be a good beginning.

Look up the terms Jesus used regarding Himself:

1. Son of Man.

2. The Messiah.

3. The Christ.

& "This text is being fufilled today even as you listen..."

& "My God, my God, why have you deserted Me.."

(I am not giving my opinion here. I can understand why Wikipedia have not an article page on this, as this issue would be very contravertial. See the new article page: Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, and see my effort, in the talk page, to get the Manhattan Declaration's own list of people it wished to defend, in the article page!) {Post Script}.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with this debate is that Jews declare, as a matter of doctrine, that Jesus is not the Messiah. Anybody who believes that he is is declared not to be Jew (a state of affairs that has been going on for two thousand years now).

What this also means is that, by definition, there has been no Jewish scholarship considering with an open mind the question of Jesus' fulfilment of prophecy. Anyone who concludes that Jesus might be the Messiah is thrown out of Judaism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth, open-mindedness is a subjective thing. And are you sufficiently familiar with Jewish scholarship to know with assuredness that "there has been no Jewish scholarship considering with an open mind the question of Jesus' fulfilment of prophecy"? Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually my point is that anyone who comes to the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah is declared not to be Jewish, and thus there can be no Jewish scholarship declaring his Messiahship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Declared by whom? There's not exactly a Jewish pope who can excommunicate people. Plus, there's Jews for Jesus. So, you might want to back that statement up with some citations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

John Ankerberg quoted Dr. Stoner on the the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies by Jesus in a statistical way. If the state of Texas were covered with silver dollars 2 feet (61 centimeters) deep, and one marked with an X were added, then all were thoroughly stirred, and a blind man were asked to select one from the set, the odds of finding the X marked one would be one in 10¹⁷. The Christian writer then states that Jesus fulfilled 48 prophecies, with odds far less than finding the hypothetical x marked dollar. He takes this number as an indication that Jesus was likely the prophesied Messiah. I have seen some hyperbole from many different religions. In the first century, the Christians were just one more Jewish sect, and they were not so automatically deemed "not to be Jews" as was claimed above. The New Testament states Jesus' descent from David. Edison (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In the first century Christians were indeed "one more Jewish sect". The separation occurred shortly after that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty with that analogy is that the US has not made anywhere near that number of silver dollars thoughout history. I estimate that only 1-2 billion were made. Googlemeister (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have kept my focus on the question asked, assuming that a student needs help. The work and evidence is immence here. Why allow yourselves to be waylaid. Are you not all caught up with your own pride, here? Please look at The Book of Job, and The Job comforters, and Job's words themselves: "I know that my Redeemer liveth...". The student does not need Job's comforters.

MacOfJesus (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

... what in the world are you talking about? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In relation to my answer further up the page, beginning: "Please see talk pages to...". "..Have kept my focus on the question asked..", "..assuming that a student needs help."...

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the stuff about "pride" and "being waylaid". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sunday shopping in Poland

Why is holiday shopping illegal in Poland, even if Sunday shopping is legal there? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Speculation: Take it from the shops perspective. There may be government regulations which mandate that businesses have to close down on certain holidays; it may be illegal to force people to work on those holidays. Different countries and jurisdictions have different laws which govern when employers can make their employees work. Shops are a business, and they may required to shut down like other businesses on certain mandated holidays. Not knowing how such laws work in Poland at all, but it may be a prohibition on working on holidays rather than shopping. --Jayron32 22:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the OP is going to pose this question one-by-one until he gets all the European nations covered? :) Blue laws vary from place to place. For example, Illinois has (or at least used to have) a law prohibiting car dealerships from being open on Sunday. And if that's sounds discriminatory, it is - except it was the car dealerships themselves who lobbied for that law, so they would be guaranteed at least one day off per week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

European? How parochial of you! —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This tourist site says there is no easy answer. SHOPPING IN POLAND Opening hours are very diverse and it is difficult to apply any rules. Most grocery stores open at 7 in the morning and are open until 7 pm from Monday to Friday, but there are many exceptions. The smaller shops close earlier on Saturday while on Sunday they do not open at all. There are also numerous supermarkets belonging to international chains that are often open seven days a week until late. Modern shopping malls are mushrooming in all major cities. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Same too in Malta! MacOfJesus (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In Ontario, Canada, they repealed what Americans called blue laws several years ago but left intact the portion prohibiting retailing on public holidays such as Canada Day and Canadian Thanksgiving. Certain establishments such as restaurants, gas stations and convenience stores are exempted, which means that on public holidays, some large drug stores will close off half the store so they can qualify as small shops for the day. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)