Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 16

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.

February 16

Source of citation

.To be or not to be. -- Shakespeare To do is to be. -- Nietzsche To be is to do. -- Sartre Do be do be do. -- Sinatra

The first and last are pretty easy. But are those in the middle real? If yes, where from? Quest09 (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The middle two are probably just made up for the purposes of the joke. I've seen the Sartre quote attributed to Kant as part of the same joke. —Kevin Myers 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"The way to do is to be" is often ascribed to the Tao Te Ching and is in this interpretation (47.2). "To be is to do" seems to be a commonplace although this guy ascribes it to Plato in his Sophista with the equivalent greek but I can find it in no other translation. What is the actual source for the 4th one. meltBanana 04:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The 4th is a reference to Sinatra's famous (or infamously bad) scat singing at the end of Strangers in the Night. —Kevin Myers 06:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

History of Vision and Mission Statements?

Can anyone shed some light on the history of vision and mission statements? I'm curious how long they've been in widespread use. Did Henry Ford have one? How about the East Indian Company? Hudson Bay? Wikipedia's V&M page lacks any historical context. The Masked Booby (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Google books does not provide any results of the use of "vision and mission" in a coorporate context prior to 1970. This is the earliest, but it does seem to use the terms in a context that implies familiarity with the term. However from the results I would think it was a term coined in the 20th century, probably in the later half, and thus none of the companies you mention in your question would have had vision and mission statements (I know for sure that the East Indian Company did not, but was not certain whether perhaps it was a term Ford himself could have coined). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

They've been around a long time in the form of general aims or aspirations, but in the sense of a formally worded and specifically named pair of utterances called "Vision Statement" and "Mission Statement", it seems to me they took off in the 1980s in the corporate world. Once there was a critical mass of them, it became unacceptable for an organisation not to have them - but typically the people who wrote them had no idea of the difference between a vision and a mission, and as often as not just wrote them off the top of their heads during a break between meetings, rather than consulting widely within the organisation to find out what anyone actually thought about where the joint was headed. They were rarely if ever given more than lip service, which is why they're now a lot less prevalent. Trends come and go. Like outsourcing. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The OED has four quotes for "mission statement". The first from 1967 is from Management Science journal but has an aviation or military context: "Particular stress is placed on the type of mission to be flown by an aircraft. Each respondent was given a mission statement." The second from 1972 uses the phrase in the modern sense in the field of education, refering to "'mission' statements" in college catalogues. The third, from 1986 uses it in a business context, but coming from a book called The IBM Way seems to refer to a practice that existed for some time previous in the company. "Vision statement" isn't in the OED.

So from that evidence they may have originated or first become popular in education in the late 60s or 70s, moving into business some time soon after. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

When my company decided to concoct a mission statement in 1989 or 1990, it had to explain to us workers what was meant by such a beast, since the term wasn't yet in wide use. However, the message to employees did point out that a number of large US-based corporations had recently adopted mission statements (I'm in Canada) and they were all the rage, so this is consistent with a mid-1980s origin. IBM was a source of a lot of corporate fads in those days so the book mentioned above might well mark the beginning of its spread. And yes, nobody refers to our mission statement anymore. We've moved on to other fads. -Xuxl (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether it was called a vision statement but as Encarta owners may know, Microsoft was founded based on Bill Gates's vision of a computer in every desk and in every hope, at the time (in the 90s) they had never and would never waiver from that vision. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OP here. I appreciate the help everyone - very useful! The Masked Booby (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Politics and war several in 1

How many times has each political party taken the UK to war? Which party has taken the UK to war the most? And which political party was in power for the majority of the Victorian Era? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

See List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom#Prime Ministers under Victoria (1837–1901) for political parties "in power" during the Victorian era.

As for "taken to war", you may need to define some parameters first. Do you start counting from the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801? Or would you look further back to, say 1541 or 1603? That said it is probably meaningless to look too far beyond the 18th century given the focus on political parties. But what about wars conducted by one of Britain's colonies or territories? Do the various invasions of Canada count as Britain going to war? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You will also need to decide what is "war". If you are looking for what is a war at law, then you'll need to stop after World War II and exclude, for example, the Korean War. An alternative is to look at what in common terms is regarded as a "war", which is similar to but may not be the same as what in international law is regarded as an "armed conflict". It may then become a little uncertain what is and isn't a "war", and you may find that a lot of minor conflicts in the 19th century for example suddenly looks a lot like a war in a modern sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

what type/field of logic is used when thinking in...

chess, xiangqi, weiqi, maths, sudoku, iq tests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.69 (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Every type of logic is used in maths. IQ tests are rather not precisely defined. You can call anything that you want an IQ test, so here any type of logic can also find an application. For mental games like chess, try combinatorics. 212.169.187.62 (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Who originally said "good judgment comes from experience ... experience comes from bad judgment"?

Who originally said "good judgment comes from experience ... experience comes from bad judgment"? An Internet search turns up many hits of variants of that quote, attributed to different people. It's not clear who originally said/wrote it. Can someone help? --173.49.10.170 (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not new, as I first heard it decades ago. A "rebuttal" to it goes, "Experience means applying yesterday's answers to today's problems." Obviously, sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Will Rogers seems to be credited for it frequently, but no source is given. I have a book of Will Rogers quotes, complete with dates at least, but that specific quote is not in there. It is rather interesting, though, that the form attributed to Rogers is, "Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." Notice it doesn't say that all experience comes from bad judgment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a really old sentiment - I think I remember a cognate being used by Socrates, but I'd have to check. basically the idea is "Wisdom comes from being a fool and then learning better", the idea being that the two mistakes you can make are trying too hard not to be a fool, and not trying hard enough to learn from your own foolishness. with respect to the actual phrase - it sounds a bit like the way Twain would have put it, but that's just a feeling, not a fact. --Ludwigs2 16:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

vulnerability to radicalization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What are the imperfections in the American legal and political systems which might make a loyal and law abiding American vulnerable to radicalization? --Inning (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Try again, in plain English, please. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ignore him, Inning. There was absolutely nothing unclear or any unnecessary use of words in your question. Although it does sound rather like a homework question, which we don't really do unless you can show you've had a go yourself already. --Viennese Waltz 16:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it is NOT clear. What does "radicalization" mean? Violent revolution? Changing party affiliation? Switching TV channels? What? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Its clear for anyone who has heard about the current hearings of Rep. Peter King. --Inning (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a matter of clarity of definition, which is not what you were complaining about. You were criticising him for not using plain English, which is something else entirely. In any case, "radicalization" is a pretty commonly understood term these days. We even have an article on it. --Viennese Waltz 16:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The answer in America, as anywhere, is "desparation". That's usually driven by disenfranchisement and alienation, not by "flaws in the legal system" as such. And you're right, it sounds like a homework question. Or it's another way of approaching his theory that the law should somehow be driven by "pure logic" rather than case-by-case flexibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean driven by desperation over disenfranchisement and alienation resulting from flaws in the legal system. --Inning (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It does sound like a homework question, but it sounds like a very bad homework question because it presupposes that such flaws exist and that they can lead to radicalization. In other words, the question takes a controversial hypothesis for granted and asks the answerer to provide examples of it. Only a poor teacher would give his students a question like that. Pais (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is what we teachers call a student classifier question, you know the questions we ask in order to make the proper seating assignments. --Inning (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) You're right that it's a loaded question – it assumes that the drivers are legal and political, rather than personal. If I was answering this homework question, I would point out the loadedness in the question, and then go on to discuss that the drivers may be legal, political and personal. --Viennese Waltz 16:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a loaded question, and would require books to answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because all of your answers are loaded does not mean the questions are. BTW being objective does not mean viewing everything from a contrary POV. --Inning (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Some might consider this "Tea Party" stuff to be "radicalization". Yet it's actually operating totally within the American system, as far as we know. No responsible citizen advocates violent overthrow of the government, but rather change through the election process. That's the beauty of having a "system" instead of a "cult of personality" that the typical dictatorship feeds upon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have often imagined a scenario where Congress invokes the Necessary and Proper Clause in order to give the President emergency powers, which in turn leads to an organized rebellion. I'm forgetting which I saw in my childhood which caused this scenario to be implanted in my head... schyler (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It happened to some extent during the Civil War and World War II. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

One such imperfection is Buckley v. Valeo, the legal precedent holding that all political and campaign spending amounts to speech, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This legal precedent has allowed moneyed interests to dominate the American political process, by making it virtually impossible to limit campaign contributions and thereby making political candidates effectively dependent on, and subservient to, wealthy campaign contributors. The Supreme Court recently extended this precedent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruling that political spending by corporations also amounts to constitutionally protected speech. This ruling makes U.S. politicians even more dependent on and subservient to corporate and moneyed interests. The higher the office and the greater the size of the candidate's electorate, the greater his or her dependence, since modern campaigns require expensive television advertising for any hope of success, and the cost of TV advertising is directly proportional to the size of the audience. These legal precedents effectively give a right of free speech to individuals and corporations that is proportional to their wealth, so that a billionaire has a freedom of speech billions of times as great as that of a citizen with only a few dollars in his pocket. As a consequence, corporate and moneyed interests effectively dictate policy in the United States. They also shape the political discourse, with the result that the interests of the bottom 98% of the wealth distribution have little effective voice in U.S. politics. In such a context, in which the interests of the vast majority are ignored when they conflict with those of the wealthiest, there is a risk that the majority will come to give up on the wealth-driven political system and turn to radical solutions outside of a system of electoral politics that serves only the wealthiest. Marco polo (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How is that factor really any different than it was 100 or 200 years ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me give an example of the kind of flaws I am looking for. When someone is found guilty who is innocent on the basis of psychological illusion rather than on the facts and on the law. --Inning (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Got an example for us? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, innocent get in jail sometimes, and sometimes that's due to faulty evidence. If that's "psychological illusion", I don't know. Quest09 (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Inning is trying to lead us somewhere with all this, so we're waiting for the next tidbit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bugs, for your information case law is already written in stone. --Inning (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The only place this is leading anyone was to the truth - a subtle reminder now of what the Wikipedia can not handle except by cover up, diversion or deletion. Pathetic. --Inning (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of The Truth, what ID or ID's did you used to edit under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Protests in Middle East and North Africa

Of the countries in the Middle East and North Africa, which of them have not had, are not having, and probably won't have similar protests to those that have happened recently? 128.223.222.23 (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Israel would be a good bet, as it's already a republic that holds elections. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is another relatively stable democratic republic. Marco polo (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Iraq is not stable, but they don't have a dictator to fight against, only each other to fight with. Quest09 (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So much for that theory: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/17/iraq.protests/index.html?iref=allsearch --Soman (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The King of Jordan seemed pretty confident when interviewed on UK TV. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Jordan has had protests, and the King shuffled the cabinet...I'm sure he's pretty confident about his own kingship, but people still aren't happy about the government. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Quest09) There was a blurb in the paper saying Lebanon and Syria were both unlikely to see an Egypt sort of protest revolution. Lebanon was particularly interesting, given that they are decidedly not a stable government. The argument went, though, that Lebanon's government is composed of many factions working against each other, and that it's very hard to get a large group of people to work towards a common political goal. I can't find the article off hand, I think it might have been in the Chicago Tribune a couple of days ago. Buddy431 (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof says here: I don’t know which country is the next Egypt. Some say it’s Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Syria or Saudi Arabia. Others suggest Cuba or China are vulnerable. But we know that in many places there is deep-seated discontent and a profound yearning for greater political participation. And the lesson of history from 1848 to 1989 is that uprisings go viral and ricochet from nation to nation. There are also a lot of comments to his blog post here discussing the topic. There are also some maps of how "democratic" countries are in the Democracy article. Jørgen (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Crescent Moon

What is/was use of crescent moon as symbol in rural America in last century ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I'd call this example a symbol of "rural America", but the crescent is present on the Flag of South Carolina. The "History" section of the article mentions a bit of history on the crescent symbol. --Zerozal (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Satirically, at least, it was well-known as the shape of the vent opening in the door of an outhouse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's it. I asked because I read in a Stephen King story (set in rural America of 1920s (infact the story itself is named 1922)). In it a character asks the other the way to toilet and the other answers something like this. So it was "the shape of the vent opening in the door of an outhouse" as Baseball Bugs put it. Thanks Bugs !  Jon Ascton  (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There's an article about that at this Straight Dope link. Dismas|^(talk) 19:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I used three familial outhouses many years ago, and none of them had any crescent symbol carved through the door. For ventilation, there was sufficient spacing around the door, and between the walls and the roof. It seems to be something popular in cartoons ridiculing rural existence. Edison (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly time for someone to mention The Specialist by Chic Sale. The Outhouse Preservation Society also deserve a mensh. DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Generation identity

While reading the responses to a previous question, I was very surprised to see someone claim "everyone who's a Gen X knows they're a Gen X", and that generational identity became much more important after WWII. I had no idea which generation I belonged to. Not surprisingly, after looking it up, I found out that I had never heard of it before.

My question is, how many percent of people know which generation they belong to? Does this depend on age? For example, if I tell a random person born in 1997 that he's in Generation Z, will he likely know what I'm talking about? --99.237.234.245 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If s/he is from Generation Z s/he would -I expect- know that s/he is too young to belong to Generation X and viki verky.--Aspro (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like the type of question which would have any research devoted to it. Vranak (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure why you would say that. I can easily imagine sociologists being interested in how different groups of people self-identify when it comes to being in a "Generation" or not, and whether those self-identifications line up with the date ranges imposed by the sociologists. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There's actually been research on this, especially the international differences. Even very similar countries may count their generations differently - the baby boom lasted longer in the US than in other countries, so the "Boomer" generation runs from 1946-1964 there, as opposed to 1946-1959ish elsewhere. I'm a boomer in America but a Gen X in Canada. --NellieBly (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's very culturally specific? I have no idea what generation I'm supposed to be. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Breastfeeding

Reading a question on the science desk reminded me of something that I find, in my European ignorance of USian ways, mildly mindboggling - the apparent aversion of some in the US to breastfeeding and the staggering amount of research that appears to be done into whether mothers milk or formula is better for the child. Me, I was totally incredulous when I first heard this debate even existed - how could anyone possibly claim mothers milk, nature's own baby nutrient could be bad for a baby and some artificial foodstuff could be better? That sounds obscenely non-issue to me. Our articles don't shed much light on this, but they are cluttered with "citation needed" and "POV" markers, making it obvious some people really do find this topic controversial. So why the controversy? Why the debate? Why the aversion and stigma? Is it because of the ridiculously puritan nature of some Americans who consider a mother breastfeeding a child a pornographic scene (for reasons utterly beyond my fathom)? That's the only explanation I can think of, but I'm not too happy with it. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The assumption that mother's milk is the "perfect food" does not necessarily stand up to scrutiny. If the mother is insufficiently healthy or is lacking the optimal body chemistry, the milk is likely to be inferior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How can anyone possibly possible make such a claim... indeed! Nestlé boycott--Aspro (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not assume the person they are indented as a reply to, and partially quote to form a direct reply? 86.164.25.178 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the comment doesn't make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm an American and I have to admit that Americans tend to show either aversion or embarrassment around a breast-feeding mother as opposed to Europeans, who don't even seem to notice. Americans are also more inclined to complain about a woman's attire if it is too revealing or avante-garde.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In 50 years, European women will be wearing burqas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't post inflammatory crap to the Reference desk. 91.125.195.163 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A few European women wear them now, but the majority of young European women I meet will definitely not wear burqas at any time of their lives. Have you spoken to any European women recently?Itsmejudith (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I know for a fact that my teenaged European daughter has no plans to include the burqa as part of her future wardrobe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In 50 years, she won't be a teenager. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 13:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not? I've been a teenager for the past 40 years.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The roots of the controversy are deeply embedded in US attitudes about science. Basically, back in the 40's and 50's (in part due to the spur to science given by WW II), the scientific community developed this conception that everything scientific was inherently better - science's job was to improve upon and replace nature. Scientists didn't really think that mother's milk was bad, but believed that science could produce a better and more nutritious formula for infants (and yes, it's still called 'baby formula' in the US). This attitude was picked up by the general public in some bizarre ways: for one, the general public doesn't parse 'better' well, but tends to reduce it to a good/bad dichotomy (which is where mother's milk started to get a 'bad' rep). for another, the mother's milk issue started to mix with middle-class prejudices - women of a certain class were averse to nursing because it was primitive/animalistic, might make their breasts sag, went against puritanical attitudes about the display of breasts, and in other ways tweaked bourgeois mores. This was particularly true because (during this period) women were moving into the workforce, and "women's issues" were a hot-button issue in the workplace. So we ended up with an oddly strong cultural prejudice against breast feeding, and those kinds of prejudices sometimes take generations to displace. --Ludwigs2 19:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sort of an echo of "Better living through chemistry", combined with cultural norms, then? Thanks guys, this is very informative. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Another factor at play here is that most American mothers need to work to earn a living. Paid maternity leave is a benefit offered only by the better employers. Consequently, millions of women are forced to work full time within a couple of weeks of giving birth. As others have said, Americans have a kind of cultural taboo around the exposure of women's breasts that other cultures might reserve for genitals. As a result, a majority of women, who do not have the benefit of a private office, are unable to collect their milk during work hours for feeding the baby the next day. Of course, the baby cannot be allowed to go unfed through the entire 8-hour work day, so women are forced to resort to packaged formulas. They want to feel that they are doing the right thing, and the companies that sell the formula want to convince them that they are doing the right thing, hence this discourse that apparently doesn't exist outside of the United States. Marco polo (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In Australia, there's been a big shift between this (2003) and this (2009). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A major problem with this (and many similar questions) is the assumption that there is an "American attitude" towards something. I have been to many countries and spend much of my time talking to people from around the world. The United States is the most diverse place that I've been. The only consistent American attitude is that everyone is unique in the United States and no attitude is consistent. So, for every person in the United States that is pro-breastfeeding, there is one against it. For every one against exposure of breasts for feeding, there is one for it. I believe that foreigners fail to understand this because they come from countries where there are general attitudes towards most things. Then, they apply that mindset towards what they see in Hollywood movies and make wild assumptions such as thinking that there is an American attitude that infant formula is superior to breast milk. -- kainaw™ 20:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oof, I got schooled. Kainaw, you are correct to an extent. I did assume this was an American stance in as much that from what I can find on the Internet, there are people making an issue in the USA (and apparently Australia, judging by Jack's links) out of what just seems like a non-issue to me - but notice also that I was careful to word it in a way that doesn't encompass the entire population. I asked this not because I want to stereotype but for the exact opposite reason - I wish to educate myself and understand something that I am not equipped by my upbringing and background to understand - and I got some helpful answers and some insight that would otherwise not be available to me. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You've got it. People who come from what I call "conformist" countries just cannot figure the USA out. It's like anarchy here by comparison. In fact, I don't know of anyone in America who's "against" breastfeeding. Americans are just not so apt to expose themselves on a routine basis, in contrast to the stereotype we have about Europe (which is probably false also). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop moving the goal posts. The OP simply points out that the US middle class populace, commonly demonstrate an aversion as if breast feeding is something only non-human beasts do. It is a bit like in the UK, were the Queen is well known for never visiting the loo (bathroom). --Aspro (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The American middle class has no "aversion" to breastfeeding. That's a myth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Always nice to see your nuanced political thinking, Bugs. "Us vs. Them: Right Versus Wrong!" --Mr.98 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, while I am not "against" breast feeding, I do think the health benefits have taken on a totemic quality in lefty circles (the same lefty circles I run in, mind you — I am not distancing myself from the left!) that often far outpaces the actual benefits. There have been some articles recently on this. Yes, yes, the Nestle boycott, but that was some time ago, and the formula they use today is really pretty nutritious. The "breast is best" movement strikes me as having severely problematic, anti-feminist undertones that are plastered over a "woman power" position. The women I know in my own life who use formula (in the case of one, because the baby was adopted, so there is no other option) have far more autonomy in their lives, their workplaces, and their home relationships. They need not be always "on call" for the baby or even the primary caretaker — their division of baby chores is far more equal. The women in my life who swear by the breast are essentially attached to their baby for at least a year if not more, and end up performing activities which look striking like the kinds of 1950s gender roles that they are supposedly against. They participate in this because the swear to the miraculous benefits of breast milk, benefits which are not exactly derived from actual science. (There is some benefit, on average, but it is quite small.) So anyway — I'm not against breast feeding. But I am dubious of the current breast feeding culture in the United States. When the friend of mine with the adopted baby feeds her baby in public from a bottle (she is not lactating; there is no other option), she gets horrible, nasty glares from other women, as if she is feeding the baby poison. It's a little out of hand. Some of this is my locale (extraordinarily lefty), I admit, and am not sure the glares would be there if I were doing this in a "red state." In any case, this is not just my opinion — similar opinions have been voiced on Salon.com fairly recently, if I recall — though it is admittedly a minority opinion at the moment. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. 98 is correct that breastfeeding is fashionable in certain (left-leaning and/or more educated) circles in the United States. In my post above, I was suggesting that there is a class dimension to this. In the United States, breastfeeding amounts to a luxury that only the more privileged can often afford. Marco polo (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Pull the other one!. When Jeanne Boleyn mentioned the mater of fact attitude in Europe I didn't mention that I disagreed because I happened to see many instances of breast feeding in public in America. One place (or area) I remember was in Maryland. However, when I got out the map and showed the places I had been exploring, my host went slightly pale and said you really shouldn't wonder into those places. Rich they weren't! --Aspro (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All this debate ignores the immense, irrational hostility shown towards public breastfeeding by a significant number of college-aged men. They tell each other stories about breastfeeding women spraying passers by with milk and screaming about "their rights", "their rights" over and over again, all the while painting breastfeeding women as complete sociopathic monsters. Because of this, I suspect that much of the anti-breastfeeding furore in America is plain old boring sexism (ie. women are irrational subhuman idiots, so whatever they are in favour of must be ridiculous and wrong and evil and meant only to hurt men), fuelled by the belief that breasts should only exist to turn men on. It's bizarre and counterproductive. --NellieBly (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That reads very trollish. Have a good nights sleep and come back to this in the morning --Aspro (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not trolling at all. That's my honest dispassionate observation. And I'm not sure why I need a sleep at 4 PM - are you implying then that "not agreeing with Aspro" is the same as "not being rational or sensible enough to agree with Aspro"? --NellieBly (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

“breastfeeding women spraying passers by with milk” and you don't call that trolling? --Aspro (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that observation. I wouldn't generalize it to the entire male population, as responsible fathers aren't likely to cop such a weird attitude toward their nursing wives. (Hope not, anyway.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Even most college-aged guys aren't that entitled and self-absorbed. --NellieBly (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway breastfeeding in public and associate sites obviously need expanding. Maybe some of the contributors here are well placed to fill in the gaps. --Aspro (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I know this is not really the point of the debate here, but sometimes breastfeeding just doesn't work out for whatever reasons, and using formula is an excellent way to feed a baby as well as keep the parents from going insane. It's possible to raise a perfectly healthy and intelligent child who was fed exclusively with formula. I'm sure breastmilk is better, but formula isn't poison. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hell, I was raised in the early 1960s when formula was routinely viewed (by doctors no less) as being better, safer, than breast milk. Full of vitaminy goodness and what-not. Of course doctors in those days also recommended you smoke Lucky Strikes... but that's besides the point... what I am trying to say is that both medical science and cultural perceptions change over time.

To get back on track... I don't think there is an American aversion to breast feeding... there is an American aversion to breast feeding in public. This has nothing to do with health... its related to the American cultural taboo about women baring their breasts in any public situation. It isn't the milk that is the no-no in America... its the "naked tit". Blueboar (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

From my Google search for breastfeeding product discreet modest, I found several web pages with information about products for discreet, modest breastfeeding. One of those web pages is http://dirtydiaperlaundry.com/baby-bond-stylish-and-discreet-nursing-cover-review-and-giveaway/.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

advanced question: how to play honorable poker

This goes way beyond etiquette or anything like that. Obviously it's perfectly elegant and acceptable to make a "come-hither" bet (a tiny raise, hoping someone will reraise, whereas you've had a monster all along). Nobody would object. But once, somewhere, I heard a real pro (who I won't name) who said that he thought that was a cowardly, dishonorable thing to do. That really impressed me. I would like to know what other such things any poker player has ever said about being a truly honorable player. Well beyond the rules, the etiquette, etc, what are some things that the most honorable players in the world simply never do? (despite the fact that lots of other people do so). I can tell you one thing straight away: you muck your hand, it's already been taken away, after the round someone can ask you what you had. If you lie (strategically) no one will think the worse for it (well, hardly anyone). But obviously that's a dishonorable thing to do. So, I would never lie about what hand I had. (Though I might dissemble about how strong I had thought it would play). In other words I'd never say "pair of sixes" if that's not what was in my hand. What else? What other things do the most honorable players do? Thanks. 109.128.173.122 (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you shouldn't show your cards when folding, and many players think it's sneaky and dishonorable to Check-raise — as that article states, there's often a house rule forbidding it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

moar please. I like that check-raising example (and didn't realize that before). Do you have moar? 109.128.173.122 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find it very difficult to believe that a real pro would actually say such a thing, unless it was as a joke. I'm excluding home games, where the primary object is different from regular poker. In the latter, small bets to build the pot are 100% acceptable, as is check raising. In either situation, you should never say what cards you folded or comment in a way that affects the play if you are not in the hand (e.g. "one of you must have a flush"). String bets are also frowned upon. Slowrolling (dragging things out unnecessarily when you have or believe you have the best hand) is one of the worst sins IMO. Check out the flak Phil Hellmuth got from other top pros when he did this to an amateur (and his richly deserved comeuppance). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I read about it when I knew even less about poker than I do now, in our article: Post_oak_bluff, which ends by saying "Doyle Brunson described the move as "gutless" and he claims that he never makes the play." So it was "a real pro saying such a thing", but not exactly the thing I first wrote. It's not the come-hither bet that's gutless, it's bluffing and making a pretend come-hither bet as part of your bluff. 109.128.173.122 (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the book in front of me, but "gutless" in this context likely means ineffective, not dishonorable. Funny though; Dan Harrington wrote that he learned about the expression/concept "post oak bluff" from Brunson. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brussels! Nice to hear from you again on this topic so soon here. :)

Purely inexpert personal opinion here, but I think it would probably be okay for your purposes (or per your concerns about honor etc., whichever way you want to look at that) to "dissemble about how strong [you] had thought it would play" whenever you think that might be worthwhile.

(Also: may I ask you, Brussels, since you have gone on quite a bit about this sort of thing in the past: could you outline, with examples, the sort of response you feel would be most helpful to you, or which in whatever other way would benefit you most, and which you believe we here at the RD can provide? Do you really need all that much moar from us here on this issue? Please be as specific about those criteria as you can be, thanks! :) WikiDao ☯ 00:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

One way to be honorable would be to play purely based on the odds. This would preclude bluffing. But from personal experience some people think it's dishonorable to do perfectly rational things like bankrupt a new player on the first hand when you know for certain you have better cards. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are not cheating, you are playing honorably. Everything else would be part of the game. Googlemeister (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Professional or competetive poker is built on deception and manipulation.. seems strange some kinds are accepted and others aren't. Games amongst friends are a different story, but that's largely dependent on the group in question.