Humanities desk
< July 10	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 11

Finding a logo before registering one

It is obvious that when a company wants to register a logo, it has to check if it's not already registered. How do they technically do that? I mean, that's not like finding a keyword. In this case, you'll have to search through thousands and thousands of already existing logos. Wikiweek (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Register for what? For trademark protection? If so they likely hire a professional who's job it is to know how to do that sort of thing (which involves more then just searching existing logos). Nil Einne (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for trademark protection. I just want to know how is it technically possible. Do they really go through thousands and thousands of logos, comparing them? Wikiweek (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Said professionals use things like the Design Search Code Manual to narrow things down a bit. It's kind of a crazy document. When you register for a trademark, you have to provide all sorts of technical classification for how your design is constructed (does it have a circle? does it have an animal in it? how about a rainbow?) which allows someone to look up all similar designs. (This is similar to patent classification schemes as well.) A thorough search would involve checking all of that sort of stuff, as well as checking the sorts of things your competitors do. (You aren't banned from using all designs already used, just using things that will confuse your company with a competitor's in the same field.) --Mr.98 (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term registered trademark implies that there is a registry of trademarks, and, lo and behold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_trademark#Search ! μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the issue is not searching by name or product (which is easy), but the elements of the design themselves. That's in fact handled, but it is not obvious unless you poke around looking for it, as I indicated above. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identify this saint

Based on the iconography, which Roman Catholic saint is the statute at the right depicting? My normal guess would be Saint Francis, since he's the standard saint to put on a half-shell in your front yard, but it lacks the requisite birds and animals and etc. This one seems to have flowers and the baby Jesus, but that has taxed my knowledge of saints. Sorry my camera is lousy! --Fastfission (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely St Anthony of Padua, with flowers, a child (Jesus?), and a book of scriptures under the child. See here for similar statuary. Bielle (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks. --Fastfission (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Our article on Saint Anthony of Padua even says in its infobox that two of his attributes are the Infant Jesus and the lily. Pais (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American deficit

As a representative of your British overlords, I'm closing this ridiculous thread. No question has been asked. --Tango (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Service and Debt Funding by Taxes and Loans

Taxes are a taxpayer liability which then becomes government income which then becomes a government asset, whereas a loan is a lender asset which becomes government income which becomes government asset whereas government services and debt are government expenses which are government liabilities.

Government can eliminate debt but not services so government can eliminate loans but not taxes. If debt becomes so high that taxes and loans are insufficient to pay for services and debt then it is debt which must go by eliminating loans and not taxes whereas it appears the lenders would prefer not to pay taxes but to receive payment of debt which includes interest by increasing debt and eliminating taxes.

The dilemma is obvious here, is it not? --DeeperQA (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the dilemma would be obvious if I could understand your sentences. Unfortunately they are too complicated for me to decipher. Looie496 (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean obvious to those with economic, accounting, finance or even spreadsheet knowledge who are not trying to hide the obvious, like lenders. --DeeperQA (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a question, or an attempt to use the reference desk as a soapbox? If it is the former, please clarify what it is you are asking, and if it is the latter, please find another forum... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a current policy event that has only 10 days to be divided according the the President of the United States. Is the Wikipedia Reference Desk not a place to learn about its true structure? --DeeperQA (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question?!? --Jayron32 04:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only question I can see here so far is "The dilemma is obvious here, is it not?" Is that the extent of your question, OP? The answer is either yes or no, depending on who is answering.

I’d like to ask you a question, though. What does "It's a current policy event that has only 10 days to be divided" mean? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he's refering to the current U.S. budget crisis; there is an impending deadline controlled by the "debt ceiling"; that is there is a legal limit to how much the U.S. Government can borrow, and they will run smack dab into it by late July/Early August. The problem is that before they ceiling is raised, allowing the U.S. Government to continue to borrow (and thus, operate) there are some political hurdles to overcome; some in congress are tying votes to raise the debt ceiling to votes to lower the Budget deficit, and then there's additional complications as to how to lower deficits (what balance of increased revenue (taxation) is to be balanced with decreased services (spending), etc.) which is making the entire thing a big complicated mess. I presume his question has something to do with that problem, but it is impenetrable so far, and he has not clarified which issue he needs additional references for. --Jayron32 04:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama has just announced a 10 day deadline, after which he intends to assume dictatorial powers. μηδείς (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing anything in your reference that supports the assertion that Obama intends to assume "dictatorial" (or any other kind of) power. Your comment is provocative and not supported by sources. (I'm not a Democrat; I'm not even an American.) Bielle (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were an American, I'd expect you to be familiar with the U. S. Constitution, and to understand the obvious problem. But since you say you aren't, you needn't, and I don't. μηδείς (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an American, I am also not a Democrat, and I have read both of your references. I don't see anywhere where President Obama has claimed he will enact or enforce any powers at all in the references you provided. I see an article where he asks leaders of Congress to get the budget problem fixed in 10 days, and I also see an editorial where one writer rebuts the assumptions of another editorial writer (i.e. a prior editorial made some errors, and the writer you cite is trying to correct what the earlier writer screwed up). I see no where that Obama has indicated that he intends to do anything. --Jayron32 12:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You (the OP, not User:Medeis) seem to be saying that there's a group of people, the lenders, who exert some unspecified influence to prevent tax increases so that they can continue to lend money to the government. Were it not for this group of people, you seem to say, the government could pay for services by increasing taxes with the consent of the general population, and balance the books, and there would be no deficit and everything would be hunky-dory. I'm not sure this is correct. I'm also unsure what the "dilemma" you mention is. I think perhaps you aren't using the term dilemma properly and you just mean a "conflict", between the alleged wishes of the lenders and the assumed wishes of everybody else. (I'm reading a lot here into your words "the lenders would prefer not to pay taxes but to receive payment of debt". Since you assign this preference some significance, I assume you think the lenders have some serious influence over the policies which cause the government to borrow money, and so the rest follows.) Card Zero (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that is obvious for persons not trying to play dumb is that I have asked a question on a Sunday that should have waited for a Monday.
Another is the Wikipedia is not necesaily American but British, who would do anything to overthrow the American Revolution.
Another is the likelihood that all lenders, whether British or Chinese or American, prefer payment of debt and services through them along with the idea of privitization to put their lucrative business of lending the American government money to pay for services and debt at risk. They do not want to pay taxes to cover services and debt but rather to lend even more money to pay services and debt which is made obvious by common sense (IMHO) even for a high school graduate.

The obvious solution of course being default on all unsecured debts so that lenders will reduce their efforts to lend the American government money and Congress will no longer pay for services or debt by borrowing money.

Yes, the implication is that bankrupcy may be the only way in the presence of unsecured debt to end tax loopholes and borrowing in combination.

For secured debt Americans need only to hand the keys to Fort Knox over to the lenders.

My question, however, relates to the correctness of the above spreadsheet. I'm asking if the spreadsheet shows correctly the relationship between payment of services and debt liabilities and receipt of taxes and loan assets. --DeeperQA (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not necesaily [sic] American but British, who would do anything to overthrow the American Revolution". Really? Then presumably you will take my suggestion (I'm British) to take your paranoid bigotry elsewhere as further evidence for this. This is a reference desk, not a soapbox for the incoherent and deluded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hit a sore spot did I? Since you are unable to answer the question please refrain from speculation and accept what America already knows. --DeeperQA (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question about whether the dilemma is obvious, no. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indecent liberties

Someone told me that when a man rapes a woman he's convicted of "rape", but when a woman rapes a man she's convicted of "indecent liberties". Is this true? -- œ ^™ 05:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Australia. Where are you? HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is a huge topic. Rape by gender is a starting point, although you will need to look at the references linked, since the article is only an introduction. I think it is generally treated as rape in Western countries, but as the article states, there are social factors that lead to prejudice. In Perth, many years ago, a male taxi driver was raped by a female passenger at knifepoint, and he faced a long battle to get the crime recognised as such, due to skepticism about whether it was possible, and cultural assumptions. He faced a certain disbelief, and thought, like female victims, that the system had raped him as well (I'm going by my own memory, and it was a long time ago, but he was eventually awarded compensation, and I don't think there was ever any dispute about the legal status of the crime, just the facts.) It's been emotional (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, it was interesting, but the article doesn't mention that specific term "indecent liberties" (although I didn't go through all the reference links yet). I'm interested in this phrase, as we don't have an article on it but there is a Wiktionary definition of "indecent liberty" however. I'm wondering if this is an actual legal term anywhere in the United States, and if someone can be convicted for the crime of "indecent liberty" and have that on their record. -- œ ^™ 09:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are statutes labeled that in plenty of states, but what it actually means varies from each state. It's not a common law crime (to the best of my knowledge) nor is it a Model Penal Code crime (then again I could be wrong, but I don't remember ever hearing about it there). Labels don't help you understand the crime very much when you're trying to parse nuance. While the conduct that leads to that charge is probably criminal almost everywhere (with perhaps some technical differences in some cases) the name or which statute covers it can vary quite a bit. Rape is quite different. It has a long history as a crime, and it was certainly a common law crime. The standards and distinctions vary in that regard too. Almost all modern criminal law in most common law countries is basically statutory. There may be some exceptions to this but I'm unfamiliar with those. Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization of Egypt

Why did the Egyptians reign for so long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbrwon007 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't 'reign'. There was no continuous royal line from the first king right up to Roman times. They were a succession of dynasties, each more or less disconnected from the ones prior to it. See List of Egyptian Dynasties. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt is relatively isolated; basically a very narrow band of fertile and habitable land surrounded by miles of impenetrable desert. Egyptian culture was surprisingly stable, perhaps because of this; even invaders to Egypt quickly adopted much of Egyptian culture, rather than the other way around. Egypt had little direct contact with other civilizations since it essentially bordered none of them. So even though the Egyptian dynasties changed over frequently, even sometimes being ruled by foreign dynasties (the Nubian dynasty, the Hyksos dynasties, the Greek Ptolemies), the culture and governmental structures remained wholly "Egyptian". These foreign rulers adopted Egyptian culture, language, writing, religion, etc. Rather than conquer Egypt, they seemed to be "conquered" by it. Even the Hebrew leader Moses has an Egyptian name. They were a powerful force in their era and region, much like the later Roman Empire. --Jayron32 12:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptologist John A. Wilson wrote in 1954 that "The extraordinary phenomenon of ancient Egypt is her success in denying change by tacitly accepting change" (p. 91). Some might also attribute Egypt's long-running civilization to a fairly high degree of centralization - pharaohs, viziers, nomarchs, the influence of organized religion, and so on. As Jayron points out, ancient Egypt wasn't continuously ruled by native Egyptians: The Hyksos (literally Egyptian for "foreign rulers") invaders from the east led Egypt for almost a hundred year starting in 1663 BCE), and centuries later, the Kushite king Piye from Nubia made a conquest of Egypt and ruled all or part of Egypt for over a hundred years, but they too were often Egyptian in many ways. Compare with the Mongol Yuan Dynasty. Neutrality^talk 20:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Jayron32 on one point. Egypt was in direct contact with the East when it conquered Syria and Judea at various times. Egypt needed to control Lebanon Cedar for buildings and ships. Before the invention of money, Egypt harvested Lebanon Cedar itself or received it as tribute.
Sleigh (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural level of slaves

What cultural level did slaves brought from Africa had? Were they like the native Americans? Quest09 (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were various cultural levels in both Africa and the Americas. West Africa had its great kingdoms like Ghana and Kongo. America had the Inca and Aztec civilizations. Both continents also had rainforest areas where people lived by hunting and gathering. So a question would have to be more specific if the answer is to be meaningful. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. Are there different cultural levels? There are different cultures. But no culture is higher or lower than any other culture, hence "level" would seem to be the wrong word there, as it contains a misassumption, I think. Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a 'cultural level'. Furthermore, Both the Americas and Africa are large areas, and as such have always been culturally and technologically diverse. If you want to see what pre-slavery sub-Saharan Africa was capable of in terms of technology and material culture, you could look at our articles on Igbo-Ukwu in Nigeria, Great Zimbabwe, and no doubt others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't different "levels" of culture so the question makes no sense. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, although the idea of a "level" of material culture may make some sense. If the question is rephrased "what kind of lifestyles did the native Americans and the Africans have?", we are all saying the same: "varied". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing special about any culture. Some cultures use more packaging material and some cultures use less packaging material. I don't think Western European culture is at a higher level just because it disproportionately contributes to global warming. Wikipedia needs an article on "Environmental impact of packaging material waste". Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we interpret the OP in a generous light, they probably mean, "what were their technological and material conditions, compared with native Americans?" One can certainly say whether a given culture is, say, only using stone technology (such as were the native Tasmanians at that time), or if they had managed to develop large urban centers with elaborate political bureaucracies (such as the Aztecs or the Incas, or the pre-contact Missouri Valley Native Americans). There are real differences, in terms of which cultures end up dominating over others. (Insert compulsory reference to Jared Diamond's excellent Guns, Germs, and Steel here.) The answer "varied" is not terribly helpful, nor is "the question does not make sense" (when you really mean, "I think the phrasing of the question is politically incorrect", which, while certainly true, is about the least enlightening or persuasive way one could make that point). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that there is no such thing as a cultural "level", there are useful distinctions to make among cultures' degrees of technological or social complexity—for example, political organization and division of labor. While there was a range of technological achievement and social complexity in both Africa and the Americas before the arrival of Europeans, that range was broadly overlapping or comparable. Both Africa and the Americas had cultures ranging from hunter-gatherer subsistence to those with all of the hallmarks of civilization, including cities, writing, and a range of social classes. Technologically, the main difference between the two regions was that Africans used metal tools, whereas pre-Columbian Americans did not. A more meaningful answer to the question would depend on what part of the Americas we are talking about. If we take the region that later became known as Virginia, for example, then Africans brought there came from societies typically somewhat more complex than those of the surrounding Native Americans, but not dramatically more complex. The West African societies from which most slaves came had metal tools and had been engaged in long-distance trade with the complex states of the Sahel for centuries. These trade connections linked them indirectly to other Old World societies including that of Europe. West African societies before European contact included state societies with cities such as Ife and groups organized along kinship lines without a central state structure, such as the Ewe people. The societies of the pre-Columbian eastern seaboard were organized mainly as tribes. There is a subtle distinction between tribal and kinship organization, but in practice, they are similar: typically small-scale hierarchies built on personal relationships. Both the tribes of eastern North America and the non-state kinship groups of West Africa sometimes acknowledged the authority of chiefdoms such as that of Powhatan. To sum up, I think that we can say that African slaves—in eastern North America specifically—came from societies that were technologically slightly more sophisticated but, in most cases, politically comparable to those of the Native Americans around them. (While there were Africans living in more sophisticated polities such as Dahomey or the Benin Empire, those polities typically did not sell their own subjects to the European slave traders but rather captured slaves from surrounding, less hierarchically organized groups.) Marco polo (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culture is a function of being human. So long as you maintain that all humans are human you cannot make any meaningful distinction in culture. You can only overlay on the variety of human cultures the narrative of your liking. It is not even a matter of being politically correct. It is just as incorrect to concoct a story that so-called primitive peoples occupy a more noble strata or one for instance more in harmony with "nature" than to argue that some people benefit from being enslaved, or are deserving of being enslaved. We are lying to ourselves as well as to others when we distinguish between cultures on the basis of any inherent value. There are no particular values associated with "cultures". One big problem here is that we are talking about culture. No single word in the English language that I am aware of encompasses as broad a range of human output as "culture". Most of you are trying to address the question posed by the OP by singling out components of culture. But the OP simply inquires about "cultural level". That is why the question is unanswerable. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to make sense of the last statement. I agree that we cannot make value judgments about different cultures. We cannot say that one culture is superior to another. But it does not make sense to say that "you cannot make any meaningful distinction in culture." That would mean that there is no meaningful distinction between the culture of the ancient Israelites and that of modern native-born white Americans. (If that's true, then modern native-born white American males should be marrying their brothers' widows, and various types of people should be stoned to death for committing abominations.) There are all kinds of meaningful distinctions to be made, such as the ones I have made. Of course, you can't use those distinctions to say that one culture is better or more "noble" than another or that supposed cultural "benefits" justify slavery. However, there's no reason to suppose that the person who asked the original question meant to do that. I don't think it's fair to refuse to answer a question because the person who asked the question lacks our intellectual training or sense of political correctness. Marco polo (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "I don't think it's fair to refuse to answer a question…" What does "answer a question" mean? One cannot "answer" a question that has not been suitably articulated. Nor do I fault the questioner. I am perfectly capable of formulating a problematic question too. I certainly did not say that anyone lacked intellectual training. I don't think any of us are truly "answering" the question. What we are doing would more correctly be called "responding" to the question. Some of you are "answering" the question that you think was intended. I am using my responses to point out what I see as a problem with the question as posed. I am not "answering" the question either.

Here on the Reference desks a lot of times people including myself "respond" to questions because that is what people do. You are right that any sort of helpful, friendly response is better than no response at all. Should I retract all of the above (my posts)? If there is a unanimous vote (unlikely on Wikipedia) I will strike through all of my above posts. But that might enhance their readability. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Bus stop (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you are spending your time scolding the OP rather than giving useful answers. "Cultures are not comparable" is nonsense. You need only specify what you are comparing (number of domesticated animals and crops? level of political organization? the existence of a bureaucratic class?). The OP's invocation of "level" assumes a comparison, one that is not hard to guess. Pointing that out might be useful for an OP. Saying "the question is ill formulated" or "it can't be answered" is not. You can make lots of meaningful distinctions between cultures. There are plenty of non-racist, non-Eurocentric, non-imperialist books which make great distinctions about the ways different cultures work and have worked. The OP is clearly looking for some way of making sense of the cultural traits of the Africans groups who were imported as slaves. That's not at all unanswerable, as many have demonstrated. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a festival of attacking the OP for his phrasing, and quite a burst of political correctness groupthink. Some of us might perceive a difference between some group who lives under trees and makes their tools out of sticks, compared to Rome, Egypt, or modern Europe. Writing, metal working, long distance trade, the use of wheeled transport and the ability build ships and cross oceans, technology suitable for the industrial revolution of the 19th century, astronomical knowledge, all are parts of culture which could be said to be in "levels." Some groups in the pre-Columbian Americas did build large cities, did have calendars and writing of a sort, and did metal working. So did some Africans. The Powhatan confederacy encountered by the Jamestown settlers in the early 1600's did not have the same culture as the Lakota, or the Cherokee, or the Chicasaw, and the Native American culture changed rapidly with exposure to new things from Europe (whether horses, guns, or diseases). A 1901 book "Central and South America" says (p113) the Aztecs "..had risen to a high level of culture at a remote epoch." Quaint and inappropriate terminology from long ago? Here is "The Aztec image in Western thought (1990) page 417: "This proved to Mendoza that the ancient Nahuas had attained a level of culture as high as that of the foremost peoples of Old World antiquity." "The epic of Latin America," (1992) page 49 says of the Aztecs "When the Spanish encountered them they had reached a level of culture slightly below that of the inhabitants of England under King Alfred." About the Mayas "The children of the sun" (2004, page 17) says "the level of culture was the highest ever achieved by a native American civilization." "Atlas of the North American Indian," (2007, page 18) says "of the Toltecs "It is also known that he strove to raise the level of culture among his people. Because of his efforts the Toltec name came to be synonymous with '"civilized" in later Aztec tradition." "North American Indian Dwellings," (2006, page 469, rep[rinted from "Annual Report of the Smithsonian," 1924) says of the building of Native Americans in the US Southwest "Yet certain tribes here reached a much higher level of culture than the other tribes of North America." "Franz Fanon and the Psychology of oppression"(2004, page 42) says of Africans "Historians recognize the high level of culture, the mining of gold and iron, the commerce, and the learning elaborated in these and other African empires." The question from the OP is a valid and meaningful one. These references do not assert some automatic equality of every groups culture. Edison (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edison is quite right about all of that, though I would not use the word level. As a quibble, I would point out that some Native Americans did metalworking, but they did so only to produce ornamental objects. Africans, like Europeans and Asians, also made tools from iron and other metals. While this did not offer any moral superiority (or inferiority), it gave them more powerful tools. Marco polo (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would I claim some higher moral level on the part of the Spanish or other Europeans who came to murder, and enslave, and hunt for gold, compared to the Powhatan confederacy or the Cherokee whom they found along the East coast. I see no clear coupling between technology and morality. But "levels of culture" is not a term to be so readily shouted down, if the OP wonders were the new slaves from cultures comparable to the Native Americans of some time and place, in their literacy, metal working, scientific knowledge, painting, sculpting, music (drums and flutes?), boat or ship building, food preservation, making of fabrics, use of dyes, clothing construction and ornamentation of clothing with beads, long distance communication (drums, smoke signals), poetry, composing and preserving oral traditions like sagas and creation myths, funerary practices, civil administration of large cities, irrigation, math skills, ability to build large buildings and monuments, hunting of large and small animals, farming, sports, knowledge of astronomy and navigation, long distance trade, agriculture, animal husbandry, knowledge of medicine and anatomy, or warfare. Edison (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning morals, it's true that the conquistadors were scum. However, I would point out that Spain did have people like Las Casas - which the Aztecs and, say, the Iroquoians in the Beaver Wars never had. In general, Christianity, all its nastiness notwithstanding, was, in principle, more unfavourable to mass murder and had more respect for the value of an individual person than Quetzalcoatl worship. But the very idea that pillage and murder are bad and that respect for individual humans is good is, of course, incompatible with cultural moral relativism.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the Aztecs and the Iroquois did not have their equivalent of Las Casas or even Mahatma Gandhi? We know very little about the early history of these people, since they had limited written history (if any), and their traditional cultures and oral histories where extremely disrupted by the European conquests. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

African kingdoms during the American slavery era had literature and metalworking, but less than half of the Africans taken as slaves from sub-Saharan Africa would have attained more than what we would call a first or second grade level of literacy or learned a trade substantially different than the hunting, gathering, and agriculture practiced by the Native Americans of the time. However, some of the slaves were taken from Europe and the Mediterranean as the Moorish customs of the time included participation in the international slave trade. Many of those slaves would have attained levels of reading, mathematics, and engineering comparable to a modern American primary and vocational education. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part seems unlikely to you? If you are referring to the "less than half" part, I think I can find sources for the number of sub-Saharan Africans who attained above a second grade level of literacy and mathematics at those times, but I could be off by quite a bit, come to think of it, given the weak reliability of the slavery apologists of the time. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edison—you apply the criteria of your choice to differentiate between cultures. Depending on the criteria you pick you arrive at levels of culture for those criteria. But without singling out areas for examination one cannot stratify peoples by cultures. There might be levels of culture for metalworking. But focussing on that ignores other aspects of that group of people, does it not? Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does! That's what makes it a useful distinction and not just a list of disconnected facts. There are real and meaningful distinctions between cultures, and there are also patterns of cultural development. Saying "every one is different in ways that can't be compared" is simply false and not useful in any case. One can talk about differences between cultures without implying superiority or a single variable scale or anything so antiquated as that. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how political correct some people are here. Couldn't "cultural level" be level of civilization? Or is it also not PC to call some societies (with less cities) less civilized? Quest09 (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that is different. You are providing criteria for comparison—number of cities. Bus stop (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civilized is not only number of cities, but also size and organization of them. Whatever. "Cultural level" might also be relevant at a personal level. Were these slaves educated? Could they read and write? Quest09 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might point out that to have a higher level of culture than another, you have to first make a judgement about what is more cultured than something else. For example, going with the reading and writing, that is valued very highly in our culture, therefore it is easy to say that literate cultures have a higher level of culture (which is a step away from saying, is culturally superior) than cultures that are illiterate. However, what about a culture that is based on oral tradition? Would it not culturally be a higher level than one that is literate, as the literate culture is burdened by having to write every little thing down, and nobody remembers how to even retell a simple story without first finding it in a book? I'm just playing devil's advocate here, the key is that neither is more advanced, or on a higher level, they are just substantially different approaches (I guarantee you that I would have had about as hard of a time properly retelling a Native American story as the pre-contact Native Americans (the ones without writing systems) would have had writing them down); I think that there are a lot of valid points here, but it might be best to instead of comparing cultural levels, to say "The Incas had a road system that allowed faster transport across greater distances than contemporary Europeans", rather than a more generic "the Inca's roads were more advanced" or "at a higher level", without stating what defines more advanced, more developed, or at a higher level. And, Bus Stop, I think you have some good points, and to a large extent I agree with you, but perhaps politely clarifying the question could be a good approach next time. Obviously the OP had some idea of what his criteria for cultural levels were, maybe s/he could have just told you. Believe me, I do understand your frustration, the idea of more advanced cultures bothers me probably at least as much as it bothers you. Falconus^{p t c} 04:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course more efficient roads are more advanced ones. And roads do serve pretty much the same purpose, so there's no controversy regarding what efficiency constitutes. It's not like Europeans enjoyed some spiritual and aesthetic value of their roads and preserved their inferior efficiency deliberately for the sake of that value, on the contrary, they did their best to improve their roads, too. Some things are just better than others (for most purposes that most humans have in mind), such is life.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US at least, "uncivilized" has come to be nearly synonymous with "primitive" or "uncultured"; though it may technically refer to the number of cities, I think of everything but cities when I see that word. Maybe someone else can weigh in on this, to see if that's the general feeling toward the word, but to me "uncivilized" carries a fairly strong negative connotation. Falconus^{p t c} 04:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up on Falconus' point about a pre-literate society being perhaps just different to a literate society, rather than necessarily inferior. A great deal of "our" culture (the alphabet we use, the most widespread religion in the west, the names of many political institutions, aspects of many legal systems, many literary and dramatic conventions and forms) comes from what the Romans did. The Romans, in turn, based much of their culture on Greek culture, and regarded the Greeks as culturally superior to themselves. (A wealthy Roman might employ, or buy, a Greek teacher or poet or philosopher, much as wealthy people nowadays might hire a French chef or a Japanese martial arts guru - they are seen as the best at what they do.) And in the height of ancient Greek culture, that absolute pinnacle of creativity that inspired all of this, who did the classical Greeks regard as culturally superior to themselves, and use as inspiration and background for just about everything they did? Why, the pre-literate oral tradition of "Homer", of course. They really didn't care that Homeric society and technology was clearly far less sophisticated than their own, lacking literacy and all manner of other things. Culturally, it was regarded as superior. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-literate era may have been regarded by the ancient Greeks as superior but it was largely a myth (i.e.: a lie). The ancient Greeks believed that their ancestors lived in an Golden Age, a time of heroes and gods, the Golden Fleece, siege of Troy, etc. The ancient Greeks would have been appalled if they had known of the true living conditions and cultural level of their ancestors. Flamarande (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh indeed, the Golden Age concept is always rather silly, whether it's the classical Athenians believing in it, or modern westerners (many of whom also believe in it, but in a slightly different way). But the ancient Greeks didn't make such a distinction as you suggest; remember Herodotus was happy to report in his historical writings that supernatural figures took part in the battle of Marathon, just as they'd taken part in the siege of Troy a few hundred years before. Would the poverty and simplicity of the rural peasants of tenth century B.C. Attica really have been so appalling to Thucydides, after he wrote the horrifically detailed account of the plague that was the end result of Athens' maritime, commercial, political (and cultural) hegemony, mass urbanisation and fortification? Remember Hesiod was the first to write about the Golden Age, and he was very nearly living in that pre-literate society. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of this PC whimpering leads to just one thing - an excuse for not valuing anything and for never acting on one's values. If literacy isn't so good, then I guess it must be OK if the children in our ghetto schools hardly learn to read! They'll still be just as fine, just different. Sorry, but literacy, efficient transport, improved medicine and so on do lead to more efficient societies with more diverse people who can achieve more things, know more, live longer and develop their human individuality more. In particular, an oral-based culture preserves information infinitely less accurately, except for highly specific practical issues that also change very slowly (the best herbs to eat in our rain forest, how to make an igloo and such) - not to mention that instead of a diverse culture with hundreds of different specialists, you get a culture composed of a hundred expert igloo-builders. An individual artistic contribution to a non-written culture can't be preserved in its uniqueness, it is reworked to an impersonal cliche during the transmission by the collective. To see the practical difference between an oral culture and a written culture, it's sufficient to look at the factual knowledge about the historical Völkerwanderung we get from Roman and Byzantine histories and the one we would get if we only had the oral traditions as ultimately recorded in the Nibelungenlied and the Völsunga saga. The difference between having an oral and a written culture is of the same type as the difference found between knowing and not knowing, between being asleep and being awake, between being human and not being human, between being alive and not being alive. The same applies to other forms of development. Some things just are superior to others, and the very possibility for our leading this conversation is dependent on their superiority. If one doesn't think conversation is valuable, then one shouldn't lead it; and if one doesn't think life is valuable, one had better commit suicide. This position may be accused of being racist and anti-human - I think the opposing position is anti-human and suicidal.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

91.148.159.4—in response to your above reference to "PC whimpering" I think sometimes political correctness is an unalloyed good. I think this is just such an instance. Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in our culture, we'd instantly deteriorate if we had no reading and writing, and it is not okay for our kids to not read and write. However, the Incas had a great empire, one of the greatest of their time, and... ...were illiterate. Were the Incas inferior to their invaders? Not in the least, they were just unprepared (and not used to the diseases) for them. I am saying that there are many different approaches, and in a culture like ours that values "truth" and depends so heavily upon the written word, we absolutely require the written word. However, whether or not is is ultimately adopted by another culture, they do not need the written word to function highly effectively. Most of what you mention, preserving information accurately, efficiency of roads, medicine, and literacy are all things that are valued very differently by different cultures. For each of those examples, I can give you off the top of my head cultures that do not or did not value them in anywhere near the same manner that we do. The idea of recording history accurately, exactly as it happened, is frankly rather unusual in light of a lot of cultures I have studied. Is it necessary to do so for survival? In our culture, perhaps, but again, one of the greatest empires, the Incas, had a concept of time and history that was so different from ours that I still can't comprehend it. It is purely very different. The mad race for advancement in our culture is also a value that is not shared across all cultures. Falconus^{p t c} 20:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To get this back on point... we can not really answer the question of "What was the cultural level of the various African cultures from which the slaves came?" The reason being that they came from many different cultures. Some were more "advanced" and "civilized" (in the non-PC, Euro-biased, sense of those terms) than others. However, none of that really matters, because once enslaved and shipped to the New World, all slaves (where ever they may have originally came from) were forced to adapt and adopt a unique "slave culture" that was different from anything that had been known back in Africa. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, forgot to point out the particular ridiculousness of the argument that an oral culture is equal to a writing culture, because people are better at oral retelling in the former, whereas in the latter people are dependent on writing. This makes about as much sense as saying that having the ability of teleportation is not superior to not having it, because people in a culture without teleportation will tend to become better at long-distance walking. Or that not having stone weapons gives you the opportunity to develop excellent skills for killing your prey with your hands and teeth, whereas having stone weapons spoils the hunters and makes them less skilled in that noble art. The point is that nobody prevents writers from also learning the art of oral retelling, or teleporting people from also exercizing their legs, or people with weapons from also learning manual combat. It's just that those skills aren't so necessary once the other technology is acquired, so people choose not to develop them to the same extent. What improved technology does is give more choices and a greater freedom - and having more freedom is what being human is all about, regardless of whether that freedom is used wisely.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my post above, where yes our technologies allow us better to do what we find to be culturally important, but not everybody shares those values. For example, if everything someone needs is local, teleportation is at best useless. I do not know of any culture who hunts large game with their hands and teeth (and if you are hunting small lizards, hands and teeth are infinitely more practical than guns). If you don't require an exact, never-altered account of your ancestors' feats, and don't have highly complex technology, why bother writing stuff down? Certainly it's useful for leaving notes, but hardly necessary. We have an obsession with writing down all of our ancestors feats exactly the way they happened, without erring, for example how Columbus discovered the New World and that the world was round, how George Washington cut down the cherry tree, how Abe Lincoln always told the truth, and how Johnny Appleseed never once in his whole life got sick until he died. It's ridiculous, to use your word, to think that of the thousands of cultures in this world, we have found the superior way, as valued by most of the aforementioned cultures. Falconus^{p t c} 20:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "cultural level" or practices in the various areas I listed above are not well described by the article on Powhatan which describes the Virginia Native American kingdom or confederacy of tribes which the Jamestown settlers encountered, and alongside which the English settlers brought African slaves. The Powhatans, apparantly Algonquins, seem to have been efficient farmers and hunters, and reportedly gave the English lessons in farming. Very little is said in the article about their culture or technology. The Cherokee article describes another major East Coast tribe, likely Iroquoian, considered to be "civilized" by the Europeans. The article talks about warfare, but says little of dwelling construction, medical skills, art, music, or technical attainments. They developed their own writing system in the early 19th century, before they became the victims of vicious ethnic cleansing by the US government in the 1830's. The Shawnee were another Algonquin tribe living where the early settlers established themselves. Their ancestors may have been mound builders, who created giant monuments. They came like the first two tribes mentioned from a long tradition of building farming communities. Lots of information on war in the article, little on culture or technology. The Wikipedia articles provide little help in answering the OP's question. Edison (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are defining culture too narrowly. Some excerpts that I find particularly interesting at Dictionary.com:

Science Dictionary:

The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought. Culture is learned and shared within social groups and is transmitted by nongenetic means.

Cultural Dictionary:

The sum of attitudes, customs, and beliefs that distinguishes one group of people from another. Culture is transmitted, through language, material objects, ritual, institutions, and art, from one generation to the next.

Note : Anthropologists consider that the requirements for culture (language use, tool making, and conscious regulation of sex) are essential features that distinguish humans from other animals.

Note : Culture also refers to refined music, art, and literature; one who is well versed in these subjects is considered “cultured.” Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culture actually has several definitions. Definitions from Dictionary.com:

The quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
A particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period.
The behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.
The sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.

The rest of the definitions of culture (such as the one that has to do with raising plants or animals), which I didn't put, don't relate to the subject matter of this question. Willminator (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Wikipedia included the information needed to make comparisons between Native American cultures, especially of the southeastern US tribes living somewhere near where slaves were introduced to the US, and the African tribes from which most of the slaves came. When the slaves escaped to the woods and encountered Native Americans, did they see cultural practices that were familiar or totally alien? Were there areas in which they could say, here, let me show you a better way to do that? (Let me show you how to make a great fish trap out of these willow shoots. And you can send a spear much farther with a throwing stick. Some of this sulfer-smelling mud will heal that infection. This snare will catch some fat game. Let me show you how to make and play a banjo, and the latest dance craze from back home.) Family structure: Monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, something else? Children raised by Mom and Dad or all the boys raised in a group? Clothing: did they go naked, make clothing of animal hides, or weave clothing from cotton, linen, wool? Dye the fabric? Decorate it with beads? Weave baskets? Make clay pots? Decorate and fire them? Did they make knives, spear, and arrow heads from flint or metal, or just use sharp sticks? Did they use blowguns with poison in the tips? Did they make canoes or boats, and how many people/how much load could they carry? Were their boats at all seaworthy? Did they go whaling or catch ocean fish? Did they carry burdens on wheeled transport, or travois, or on their heads? What dwellings did the construct? Mud huts, log cabins, saplings bent together and the spaces covered with bundles of reeds or thatch or bark? Tepees? Did they use horses, oxen, or burros as beasts of burden, to pull plows, or to ride? Did they live by hunting and gathering, or practice agriculture from a fixed village? If so, what crops did they cultivate? Did they wear out a farm and move, or practice balanced sustainable agriculture? How did they preserve food? Did they have a stable and peaceful social structure, or wars of conquest (between tribes as opposed to European conquest)? I seem to recall that the Native Americans did practice military conquest and ethnic cleansing, and that African tribes practiced military conquest and enslaved and sold to America or to slave ship owners conquered tribes, while at least the Aztecs captured other tribes and sacrificed or enslaved them. Edison (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about an apparent contradiction (or confusion) in the meaning of “Going to the city [center]” (Manhattan)

Before I ask my question, let me give you some background history related to my previous questions. So, I’ve asked a couple of questions here in Wikipedia’s Reference Desk about New York City, as an interested average town non-New Yorker who recently came back home in Florida from The Big Apple, because there were some concepts that I was confused about and wanted to understand. I know that some of you have probably seen those questions before, but who knows. Out of the 4 total questions I’ve asked in Wikipedia about New York City, 2 of them had to do with the concept and definition of a New York City downtown. On both questions, I was referring to the concept of “downtown” that I grew up with; that is, a city center or a central business district (both are synonyms); the meaning of “downtown” I’m familiar with as meaning the commercial and financial heart of a city. I recently learned that at the same time it can also be the historic core of the city. So anyway, the first question I asked was about where was and what constituted the official downtown of New York City, if it had one. The second question I asked as a result of my first question was about how many city centers or central business districts are in New York City in total.

After receive answers and reading several NYC articles on Wikipedia, I got to understand at least 2 things. I might be leaving out some things because I don’t want to make this too long, but you can check out my 2 questions I've linked and the answers to them:

New York City’s growth pattern and history is unique to that of other cities in the U.S. It is also not a city with an automobile culture. So, it doesn’t have the city model of “a central business district in the middle and ring of suburbs stretching outward from that” one would expect in many non-New England cities with a car culture. The rules and models that many cities follow don’t apply to New York City. So for these reasons and others, it wouldn’t be easy to define a “city center” or a central business district in New York City nor count them. In NYC, one can find from hundreds of commercial areas that are comparable to small-town downtowns, which is the place where one would fine most of the shops, restaurants, and places of entertainment like in the case of “Mainstreet,” Flatbush, Brooklyn, etc.; to the city-like business downtowns like in Downtown Brooklyn, Midtown Manhattan, Downtown Manhattan, etc. In total, there maybe hundreds of “downtowns” (city centres, central business districts) in New York City, so it is hard to say which would be the official downtown.
Downtown is more of a directional term in New York City. It would generally mean Lower Manhattan although if you lived in The Bronx north of Manhattan, downtown would mean any Manhattan destination. Although, I did a Google search in Spanish for “Centro de la Ciudad de Nueva York,” which means Downtown New York City or New York city center (Yo hablo espanol as you can see). I saw that most of the Spanish results were about Midtown Manhattan and places there. Apparently “downtown” in New York City can mean different things in other languages too.

Now, that you got some background, let me explain my recent confusion because I thought I understood everything at first, but I guess we all learn something new every day don't we. The new confusion started after I did a little more research after getting answers. Apparently, some people think that all of Manhattan is a downtown. I read the Wikipedia article on city center (which is the term that some cities use instead of downtown). I came across a section of the city center (central business district) article that says:

The alternative term city centre is used in Britain and Ireland, and also in some urban areas of British-influenced countries, such as the Commonwealth and Mainland China…., or the equivalent city center in some Rocky Mountain cities such as Salt Lake City or Cheyenne in the United States. In the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, Canada and New Zealand, the term is often just shortened to "city", as in "going to the city". This term is also used in the New York City area in the same manner, using the term the city to mean Manhattan.

I went on to read Wikipedia's article on Manhattan. I came across a section of the Manhattan article that further explains:

Manhattan has many famous landmarks, tourist attractions, museums, and universities. It is also home to the headquarters of the United Nations. It is the center of New York City and the New York metropolitan region, hosting the seat of city government and a large portion of the area's employment, business, and entertainment activities. As a result, residents of New York City's other boroughs such as Brooklyn and Queens often refer to a trip to Manhattan as "going to the city."

Now finally, I can take a deep breath, because I’m about to finally ask my question. I saw a map of Manhattan just in case and noticed that it wasn't in the geographical center of New York City. I know that, based on the quotes mentioned above, it is true that NYC revolves around Manhattan just like a city revolves around their downtown or downtowns (or city center or central business district if your city or town uses one of those terms instead). So, when New Yorkers say “I’m going to the city” referring to a trip to Manhattan, are they actually referring to Manhattan as their official "downtown?” I thought that it wasn’t easy to define a city center (downtown / central business district) or how many of them are in New York City. I also thought that when referring to the downtown of New York City, in English it generally meant Lower Manhattan as a location and direction, and “centro de la ciudad de Nueva York” in Spanish meant Midtown Manhattan in general also as a location and direction. It almost seems like if there is an apparent contradiction between the phrase “going to the city [center]” (meaning Manhattan) and the answers I received to my previous questions. How does the phrase fit in with the previous answers I received from my 2 previous questions?

By the way, I'm sorry if this ended up being too long. Willminator (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorkers call Manhattan "The City" because at one time the entire City of New York was on the Island of Manhattan. Brooklyn was its own separate city... Queens, Bronx and Staten Island were separate counties, with individual townships. "Downtown" referred to the Wall Street area (at the southern tip of Manhattan) which was the main business area of the city. Thus, the two terms ("the City" and "Downtown") are thus not identical. "The City" refers to all of Manhattan... which (broadly) has three zones... Downtown, Midtown, and Uptown (each of these are sub-divided into smaller neighborhoods... such as Tribeca, SoHo, Kips Bay, Upper West Side, etc.).

I suspect that the use of the term "Downtown" as a generic to refer to a city's business center derives from the fact that until recently the business center of New York was "Downtown" (and not in the "center" of the city). Modern New York may also be somewhat unique in having two separate business centers (The "Downtown" business area centered on Wall Street, and the "Midtown" business area originally centered on Grand Central Station). Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that New York City used to be part of Manhattan and that could also be another meaning of the phrase "going to the city," but check out the 2 quotes I put up above and the other things I said above because it seems to me that the other reason, perhaps the main reason, for the phrase has something to do with the city center (not a geographical center of course). If you wish, explain to me the meaning of the 2 things I quoted above.'" Willminator (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London is different from New York, but just as complicated. "I'm going into the city" could mean "I'm going to Central London" or "I'm going to the City of London". Small cities can have a well defined, single centre, but I doubt if many big ones do. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York does not really have a city center. As New York grew from South to North, the business center stayed at the southern tip of the island (and then splintered between "Downtown" and "Midtown" in the 50s and 60s. The cultural center of New York gradually moved Uptown ... first to Astor Place, then to Union Square, then to Times Square... and then splintering, so that the bulk of the theaters are in the Times Square, the museums border run along both sides of Central Park, while orchestra music and opera are at Lincoln Center (all either "midtown" or "uptown" to New Yorkers). All of this factors into terminology. The simple fact is, In New York these terms don't mean what they mean in other cities. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Willminator, I think I can provide 2 vital bits of data about New York that might solve your problem. (1) New Yorkers don't really consider all of Manhattan to be the center city. "Manhattan" often gets used as a figure of speech to refer to Lower Manhattan and Midtown Manhattan, both of which are the center city, while everything from Central Park & north, or Upper Manhattan, is not the center city. (2) The reason why Manhattan isn't in the geographic center of New York City is purely for legal reasons: everything west of the Hudson river is New Jersey! If you look not just at New York City the legal entity, but at the New York City Metropolitan Area, however, you'll see that Manhattan is pretty close to being in the center. --M@rēino 16:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, regarding "the city" refering to Manhattan (especially Lower and Midtown); the "Outer Borroughs", especially Queens and Staten Island are quite suburban in character. You can drive around Staten Island and feel like you are in Westchester County or some place like that. There's woods, parks, subdivisions, stuff like that. It really feels nothing like Manhattan. A person living in Staten Island wouldn't likely look at their surroundings and feel it to be that much similar to someone living in Soho or the Lower East Side. --Jayron32 16:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Staten Island... due to its suburban nature, SI still has definable towns centers. Because of this, some long time natives distinguish between going "into town" (ie to going to their local "main street" business and shopping area)... as opposed going "to the City" (meaning Manhattan). Queens residents used to make the same distinction... although more recently when they say they are going "into town" they mean Manhattan. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers so far, but here's just one more question. Let me post again the first quote I posted above. The quote can be found in the Usage section of the central business district article

The alternative term city centre is used in Britain and Ireland, and also in some urban areas of British-influenced countries, such as the Commonwealth and Mainland China…., or the equivalent city center in some Rocky Mountain cities such as Salt Lake City or Cheyenne in the United States. In the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, Canada and New Zealand, the term is often just shortened to "city", as in "going to the city". This term is also used in the New York City area in the same manner, using the term the city to mean Manhattan.

Does this mean that the phrase "going to city" that New Yorkers use when going to Manhattan is not a unique phrase at all since it is often used and in the same manner in many cities around the world? If the phrase is unique to New York City, what about the phrase makes it unique and special to New York City in contrast to many other cities around the world that use the same phrase? I'm curious. Willminator (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the New York metropolitan area (including suburbs), "going to the city" does not mean going to the city center. As others have said, New York doesn't really have a city center. To the extent that it has a city center, that would be Midtown Manhattan, Downtown Manhattan, or the lower half of Manhattan as a whole (including both Midtown and Downtown). However, in the New York region, "going to the city" means going to any part of Manhattan, not just Midtown or Downtown. Even if you were going to an uptown museum, you could say you were going to the city. In the New York region the city is synonymous with and equivalent to Manhattan as a whole. The only other English-speaking city with a somewhat analogous use of this word to refer to a specific political unit within a larger municipal area would be London, where "going to the city" (properly written "going to the City") would usually mean going to the City of London, a very small jurisdiction at the historic center of London which includes only a part of the city center, a larger area usually known as Central London. However, the uses of the term in London and New York are not really analogous, since in New York "the city" covers a part of the city including and extending beyond the city center, whereas in London it covers just a part of the city center. Marco polo (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to insist on what is the downtown, meaning historical core of Manhattan, it would be the Wall Street area, which looks very European in its narrow and irregular streets and its preponderance of businesses an non-residential buildings. But New Yorkers simply don't refer to that area as downtown. When they use the term they use it directionally and relatively, as in "The downtown 6 Train is out of service between 125 and 42nd streets. If you wish to refer to Lower Manhattan, that may extend anywhere from the lower tip of the island as far north as Canal, 14th, or 23rd streets. If you are looking for a local concentrated walkable shopping area, main east-west cross streets like Canal, 14th, 23rd, 34th, 57th, West 72nd, East 86th, and 125th and so forth are like the downtowns of smaller cities. But no one would refer to these as downtown. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might also look at Center City, which is the downtown of Philadelphia, but not its southern part. Or downtown Brooklyn, which is near the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge, but certainly not its southern part. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. The only difference between Brooklyn and Philadelphia though is that Brooklyn is not a city anymore and has become part of New York City, so Downtown Brooklyn is in New York City. Willminator (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Brooklynites may be an exception to the usage of "going into the city" (ie Manhattan). I don't know how common it is, but most of the native Brooklynites that I know all talk about "going into Manhattan" to see a show.

To help clarify some of this... When you ask someone who lives on Manhattan where they live, they will say "New York"... but when you ask a Brooklynite where he lives, he will not say "New York" - he will say "Brooklyn". And Bronx residents say they live in "The Bronx".... Queens residents, on the other hand, will usually say "Forest Hills", "Astoria", "Jamaica", etc. (ie the town/neighborhood in which they live) and clarify with an added "Queens" if they think you won't know where that is. Residents of Staten Island also will specify what town/neighborhood and then clarify with the Borough if needed. In other words... while administratively "New York City" includes all five boroughs... in the culture of the metropolis, "the city of New York" means Manhattan (or to put it yet another way, New Yorkers distinguish between "New York City" and "the city of New York".) Blueboar (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've never heard of Manhattan being called "the city of New York." When I type The City of New York on Wikipedia or on Google, or even the city of New York Manhattan on Google, I couldn't find anything that called Manhattan "the city of New York." Willminator (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I did not capitalize the c in "city"... I was talking about how New Yorker's think of their city, not what they say or write about it. I probably should have said that New Yorkers distinguish between "New York City" (all 5 boroushs) and the city of "New York" (just Manhattan). Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_{Ok I see what you mean. Thanks for clearing things up}. Willminator (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, somewhere among the 2,892 preceding words, this question has either been answered or lost its juice. Can we move on yet, even to one of the boroughs? Bielle (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not having an extra return between points #1 and #2 will solve the issue. Go to edit this post and look at the difference below.

This is point #1.

This is point #2.

-and-

This is point #1.
This is point #2.

Hope that helps! Falconus^{p t c} 04:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_{That's quite lovely. That did help me out a lot. I made the proper edits that you showed me to do, and it worked! I was finally able to correctly format the numbered list, and it ended up being that simple after all! Thank you.} Willminator (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(quote) So, when New Yorkers say “I’m going to the city” referring to a trip to Manhattan, are they actually referring to Manhattan as their official "downtown? I don't think it is as simple as that. Having lived in Brooklyn, just over the East River from "downtown Manhattan", I would understand "I'm going to the city" (without additional context) to mean "I'm going to Manhattan"--probably someplace between downtown and midtown Manhattan (probably not, for example, East Harlem and definitely not someplace like Roosevelt Island, even if it is technically "Manhattan"). Then again, there is a difference between "the city" and "downtown". Where I lived, Dumbo, Brooklyn, "downtown" could mean Downtown Brooklyn or Downtown Manhattan with almost equal probability. The context would make it clear which was meant. In addition, Midtown Manhattan is, in many ways, larger and denser than Downtown Manhattan. When I lived in Brooklyn I usually had jobs in Midtown and never in Downtown. Perhaps my experience was biased, but I developed the notion of Midtown being the "center" of Manhattan and New York City, while Downtown was the older, original but somewhat superseded "center"--at least in terms of the daily grind. In short, in NYC the terms "city center" and "downtown" are understood differently from other cities I've lived in. For Brooklyn, the two terms and essentially synonymous, but much less so for Manhattan. For New York City as a whole, additional context would be usually required, I would think. Pfly (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even though the City of Brooklyn was consolidated with Manhattan and the other boroughs well over a century ago, it is still quite clear that Brooklyn was and in some ways still is a city in its right, with a downtown and city center of its own. For Brooklynites, "the city" usually means Manhattan, "downtown" often means Downtown Brooklyn. Compared to other cities I've lived in (Buffalo, Denver, Albuquerque, Seattle), Brooklyn is by itself larger and older, with a very clear city center. And it was clear that Brooklyn was once its own city, across the river from Manhattan. Where I lived, near the East River, a person who said they were "going downtown" might well mean they were going away from Manhattan. When I lived there there were no stores in the Dumbo neighborhood, so I trekked to Brooklyn Heights to get groceries and the like. Brooklyn Heights was not downtown though--rather we would say we were "going to town"--something quite different from "going to the city", even if it would take no less time to trek over the Brooklyn Bridge to Manhattan. Also, for people living near but outside New York City--on Long Island for example, "going to the city" might mean no more than Brooklyn or Queens. In short, New York City is like no other city in the United States, and requires different ways of thinking about cities, and different usages of terms like downtown and "the city". Really, I've lived here and there across the US, and it is weird how the largest city in the country seems in many ways "foreign"--or, for New Yorkers, the rest of the country seems "foreign". It's a strange and wonderful place. There's no way I could live there these days, but I miss it frequently and deeply. Pfly (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To New Yorkers, "going into the city" means going into Manhattan. I don't think I've ever used or heard anyone say they are planning to "go to Manhattan next weekend." The "city" encompasses pretty much the entire island as there are places to go, things to do, from tip to tip. Parenthetically, while at first glance you might mistake Central Park being at the "center" of New York the same way that the Imperial Palace is at the "center" of Tokyo, that's simply not the case—imagine navigating "the city" if avenues were numbered in ascending radius around the park and buildings numbered on each avenue in the (ascending) order they were built. Two P.S.'s... (a) Perhaps the Brooklynites mentioned elsewhere who use "Manhattan" are transplants (!). (b) The "City of New York" is the official name for all of New York City. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I grew up in the Long Island suburbs. We never said we were going to "the city" if we were going to Brooklyn or Queens. Going to "the city" always clearly meant going to Manhattan. Marco polo (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan is New York City's most important borough where much of the activity and hustle bustle that happens in New York City occurs. Also, much of Manhattan is dominated by skyscrappers unlike the rest of much of New York City. Those are 2 possibilities I can think of of why many New Yorkers say "going to the city" when they mean that they're going to Manhattan, but the terminology also depends on location because some New Yorkers who live pretty much next to Manhattan won't refer to Manhattan as "the city," but those who live farther from Manhattan are more likely to say "going to the city" instead of "going to Manhattan." 71.98.165.171 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a NYer with a NY addiction. When I worked for the Senate in DC, my NY area and friends would speak of going to the city, more strongly than if we were in NJ. Class distinctions are present. We said "city" to emphasize we were going to an extraordinary, true city, similar to London or Paris, rather than a one industry town. Similarly, someone used to rant about the boroughs to me. He did not mean Brooklyn, Queens, etc. Rather,he was using code language to discuss properly that Macy's is more racially diverse on a weekend than a weekday. Only wealthy people or creative people deserve to live in sacred Manhattan. My experience is that the boroughs have a pecking order in terms of Manhattan: Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island. Of course, Manhattan is a borough. Manhattan is so special to call it a mere "borough" with the same status as the rest is unseemly.

In my opinion it would be better if Manhattan was not referred to as "the city" because the phrase causes confusion (I'm one of the confused ones) from outsiders because they are actually non-New Yorkers who would go to Manhattan thinking that New York City is just all of Manhattan, and I've met some people who either think that or who used to think that. The confused ones may think that they have gotten their whole NYC experience going from Wall Street to Harlem. They don't even know that Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island are part of New York City. Calling Manhattan "the city" causes confusion and just leaves out the "outer boroughs." Thankfully, I knew better. When I went to New York City, I knew that the City was more than just Manhattan, so I went to all the outer boroughs as well. I didn't even know that "the city" was a nickname for Manhattan until about a week after I came back home (I came back to my home-state of Florida 2 Sundays ago). Why not just call Manhattan "the borough" as in "I'm going to the borough?" Willminator (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4325 words now, and you still haven't got an answer that satisfies you? Bielle (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Bielle (talk), this comment and a previous one you made to me above violates Wikipedia:AGF, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:NPA, and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. This is an encyclopedia, an online library of information. If you are here to contribute to this project and to society in general, then do so. If not, then this place is not for you. I'm just saying bro.

By the way, I've learned many things after reading the answers to my question, but I research the answers to, and I do research here as I always do before I post something here. For example, reading [this] prompted me to write out my previous post, the one above your new little nasty post, because the website does make some good points that I haven't thought of before, and I learned that there are actually some New Yorkers who question and complain about why Manhattan is also called "the city." By the way Bielle, let me ask YOU some questions. The section with the heading called "Civilization of Egypt," the one above this section, has more than 5,000 words, so why do you have an issue with how many words are in this section, which as you said has now more than 4,000 words? What is it that ticks you about my question, but not of others? Again, please read Wikipedia:AGF, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:NPA, and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers ["Remember: all of us were new editors at Wikipedia once, and in some ways (such as when editing an article on a topic outside our usual scope) even the most experienced among us are still newcomers"]. Regards. Willminator (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you check again, I think you will find that it is "The Cultural Level of Slaves" that is more than 5000 words. The "Civilization of Egypt" is quite short. The important difference between "The Cultural Level of Slaves" question and this one, aside from the pronounced difference in the significance of the subject matter, is that the original "Slaves" questioner, Quest09, has written just about 100 of those 5000 words. The rest has been responses by others. In the case of this question, the original questioner, Willmanator, has written just shy of 2000 of the 4300 words. From the top of this page I have copied: "Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." It is none of nasty, uncivil, nor lacking good faith to suggest that, given the balance of talk, this is not a question being answered but a chat, and thus not really appropriate for the Ref Desk. If this is being used for an article, then the "chat" part more properly belongs on the article's talk page. Others may disagree. And, in reference to the first paragraph of your immediately preceding, and ever changing, comment, "I'm just saying bro" does not in any way mitigate the patronizing message of the prior two sentences, sis. Bielle (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prison sentences

How come some prison sentences, for example, that of Phillip Craig Garrido, are hundreds of years long? Wouldn't it just be easier to say "the rest of your life"? -- 143.85.199.241 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Back-to-back life sentences. It can sometimes be possible for a prisoner to receive parole for one life sentence, so sentencing a prisoner to multiple life sentences is apparently one way to prevent the prisoner from being released even if that happens. See also life without possibility of parole. WikiDao ☯ 17:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of accounting is necessary because if it is necessary to commute sentences, you want to make sure you don't let out the wrong person. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we're talking about the USA here. (Or at least its states.) My impression is that most of the rest of the world doesn't find this approach necessary. (Could be wrong though.) I wonder why? HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that none of the things Garrido did carry a life sentence in his state's laws. The judge can only issue the maximum penalty for each offense, which is why you get the 400 year sentence or whatever it is. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, it's theoretically possible that medical advances will give him a lifespan of a thousand years, in which case a "for the rest of your life" sentence is much longer than the 431 years he got. --Carnildo (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it keeps everything standard. If a 60 y.o. man were to be sentenced to 40 years, someone might say "you're in prison for the rest of your life" because they don't expect him to live over 100. So by just assigning a number of years, no matter how ludicrous they sound, there's no question. No ambiguity. Dismas|^(talk) 02:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a prisoner might be eligible for parole after some standard % of the time served (10%, 25%, 50% it probably varies with jurisdiction) So if you sentenced him to 100 years he could theoretically be out much sooner then that. Googlemeister (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://topcultured.com/longest-prison-sentences/ has other examples. Sources disagree about whether Gabriel March Grandos actually got the 384912 years demanded by the prosecution for failing to deliver mail. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK politics before 1975 referendum

I wonder if someone can point me to reliable sources regarding the political debate around the 1975 referendum in the UK? I'm not interested in the actual referendum debate itself, but I'd like to know more about the process Parliament went through in order to have this referendum. My memory tells me that, because there was no precedent for a referendum in this country, certain things had to happen first. As part of that process, it was made clear that there would never be another referendum on that subject (membership of the EEC as it was then). I'd like to be able to confirm that (or disprove it). --TammyMoet (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you've read "Referendums in the United Kingdom" and "United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975"? Gabbe (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Butler's The 1975 referendum and Anthony King's Britain says yes: the 1975 referendum on the Common Market both look very promising, and, with those authors, they will be reliable sources. They are only available in snippet view on Google Books, so you'd need to borrow or purchase copies. Incidentally, there had never been a UK-wide referendum, but there had been the Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum, 1973, the Scottish licensing referendum, 1920 (no article, and not even mentioned in referendums in the United Kingdom!) and local referenda. Warofdreams talk 16:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was there, in fact, a national Scottish licensing referendum in 1920? It seems extraordinarily difficult to find good sources about it - this is one, but others simply use the same wording, suggesting a single, possibly unreliable, source. There were certainly local referendums in Scotland following the Temperance (Scotland) Act 1913. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly a national referendum, although it is often described as having been national. It was a co-ordinated day of local referendums which covered most, but not quite all, of the country, on the earliest day permitted by the 1913 act. It was significant, as it was by far the most widespread use of referenda in the UK before the 1970s. It might be better covered in the article you link, particularly if there is a redirect. Warofdreams talk 09:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to you to write or improve the article, as you have the sources! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gabbe I'd read those but have just re-read them. There are some very interesting mentions in those articles but both stop short of the actual debate on the merits of having the referendum anyway. It is interesting that it was never binding - no referendum is, apparently. Warofdreams, I think I still have access to a University library so I will see if I can find them. Thanks for those two books. Not solved yet though! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on Google Books, which is the exact quote I was after, and it refers to Hansard too, so I guess that proves it. Thanks for helping with the Google-fu! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to read the debate on the Referendum bill, it's here: Commons Second Reading (10 April 1975), Committee stage first day (22 April 1975), second day (23 April 1975), Report stage and Third reading (24 April 1975). Lords Second Reading (29 April 1975), Committee stage (5 May 1975), Report stage and third reading (6 May 1975). Commons agreed to Lords amendments (7 May 1975). Royal assent on 8 May 1975. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best Cabernet Sauvignon of the Golan Heights Winery in the last 10 years

Wine is an art so this belongs in Humanities. I am thinking of buying a nice Cab at the Golan Heights Winery next month, but I am not sure which is their finest in the last few years. This is not a matter of opinion thankfully as you have fancy schmancy wine reviewers to rate the wines for you, but I am not sure which are best reviewers to trust. Could anyone help me to identify their best in recent years? My favourite recipe must be cooked when I get back to the States, and I would prefer to use a superior Cab. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are just going to pour half of it in the pot, don't buy an expensive bottle of high quality wine. The subtle qualities of high end wines are going to be totally lost when you start mixing them with food ingredients and cooking them. That being said, you don't want to cook with extremely low quality wine and most chefs will tell you to avoid so called "cooking wines," but there is no reason to read a bunch of wine reviewers opinions and then dump the best bottle of wine you can buy in the pot. The best wines for drinking aren't going to make the best cooking wines, this isn't to say they will be any worse, but I've had excellent results with very inexpensive bottles. Save the good stuff for the glass. --Daniel 17:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The actual phrase is "Don't cook with a wine you wouldn't drink". This means that when you open the wine, you taste it: if it is corked or sour, don't bother with it at all. The practice (in the UK at least) was to put such wines into cooked food. No wonder our cuisine had such a bad reputation! --TammyMoet (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to defend my comment a little Tammy, I wasn't referring to the phrase you brought up. "Cooking wines" are special products you can buy in a store which are intended for cooking rather than drinking. Some chefs discourage their use. --Daniel 18:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't drink wine though (or any other alcohol, as the alcohol burns my throat, even if the wine itself tastes yummy). It's not half a bottle, it's more like 1/8 or 1/9 really (it's a 750 ml bottle, silly, not one of those shrimp bottles, and it's used to soak the roast :p) I think that many of the subtle qualities are a mix of real qualities and stuff people made up on the label or in the review magazine (oftentimes my pops has had a wine and then we would look and laugh at the BS written on the label which he only would have detected if he had looked at the label before drinking). Besides, if I think it improves the already delicious roast to have a fancy wine, who knows, the placebo effect might make it seem even tastier (the recipe, as it stands, would make a vegan see the light :p). British cuisine is okay, just horrendously fattening. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well your recipe calls for 1/4 to 1/2 a bottle (very likely referring to a 750ml). I'm just saying using an expensive bottle of wine in a dish is a waste. You of course can do whatever you want, but if you already think that the subtle flavors of fine wine are mostly marketing BS why would you want to buy an expensive bottle? One more thing to consider is that if you are going to be in the company of people who would like to enjoy a fine wine, they might not like to see it poured into the roasting pan. --Daniel 18:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I wrote that there I am pretty certain that is says 1/4 to 1/2 a cup (measurement), not a bottle. :p When they say there is a subtle hint of oak with a bit of gunpowder and ash (this was on an actual bottle), I say it is BS; sure it tastes better, but don't say you taste gunpowder and other junk,. There are certain cases where you can actually see a real change in quality. If you read the recipe closely btw, you would see that the main attraction is the resulting "sauce" or pan-drippings that are a mix of the blood, wine and rub. My dad likes a nice wine, but everyone loves that sauce, and it tasted even better with the bottle of Vintage 2002 Seña Cabernet (which I used no less than eight times as my dad had already drunken a glass). I figure it is also nice to bring back a piece of the homeland and to give my family a special dinner (especially given the fact that my mom won't have seen me in two months). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heard Keith Floyd say that on Saturday Kitchen the other day. I've always wondered whether it was an attempt to justify drinking some of it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's supposedly a live show, but Floyd died almost 2 years ago ......... -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. It has segments - usually 15mins, maybe twice in the programme, I'm not sure - of prerecorded content. Keith Floyd's old programming (this was "Floyd in France" or somesuch) and episodes of the latest incarnation of Masterchef are routninely shown. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Even within the arts, there are both subjective and objective questions. I am not convinced that subjective evaluations of wines converge across populations. ~~Therefore, you might instead want to ask about the wines from the region which are most acclaimed by critics, in which case you probably want a wine critic forum for the question.~~ That is probably too hard in this case. Try Gamla 2004 or Yarden 2005. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you drop the Golan Heights Winery an email and ask them to recommend a wine for that particular recipe? --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think they would say to that question? :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William, you wrote above:

"when they say there is a subtle hint of oak with a bit of gunpowder and ash (this was on an actual bottle), I say it is BS".

Let me assure you that, just as most other human skills improve with practice, the ability to appreciate subtleties of flavours in wine and other beverages does so, hence the expression "acquired taste". Since, as you also say, you

"don't drink wine . . . (or any other alcohol, as the alcohol burns [your] throat, even if the wine itself tastes yummy)"

you haven't given yourself a chance to do so (and from the sound of it, you've been drinking mostly cheap and/or overstrong beverages). I myself used to dislike the taste of beer, and only drank shandy (cheap keg beer cut with lemonade), but after being persuaded by friends who were craft beer (aka real or cask ale) enthusiasts to drink decent real ales attentively, my taste discrimination for the subtleties of beers (and, as a side effect, wines) soon became much finer tuned, and I can now genuinely detect all of the 'overtones', 'hints' and so on mentioned on the most pretentious-sounding labels, and more besides. It may be true that you can't detect "a subtle hint of oak with a bit of gunpowder and ash" in a particular wine, but others doubtless can: to dismiss such descriptions as BS is like someone telling an ornithologist that the dawn chorus is an indistinguishable cacophony and no-one can really recognise individual bird species calls within it. </zythological rant :-) > {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.995} 90.201.110.148 (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many suspended sentences end up being served?

Can anyone find some statistics about how many suspended sentences end up getting served and how many reach the end of the suspension and get thrown out? I'm particularly interested in the UK, but other countries that have suspended sentences would be interesting too. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the UK has a Freedom of Information Act now, if [1] or [2] doesn't have it, you can ask. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Over all of Spain, the sky is clear."

These are the words, that, according to our article launched the coup that started the Spanish Civil War. It currently needss a citation - I could be lazy and merely use this Guardian article, but I want to make sure it's actually true. (It appears to be the name of an album by Interbellum.) You see, there aren't that many reliable hits at all (2 gbooks hits), and for such a phrase then I would think there are many. Can anyone find me a good source, or anything that would help assess whether it's good or not (presumably it was in Spanish - can wee track down what that was?)?. Thanks Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, and I thought that the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain. --Jayron32 04:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article in the Russian edition of Wikipedia on this phrase. It claims that the original was "Sobre toda España el cielo está despejado". However, this does not appear in any Spanish works which I can find, and the article in Russian sounds very doubtful that the phrase was ever uttered. Warofdreams talk 09:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase does not appear in the relevant chapter in Antony Beevor's The Spanish Civil War. In fact, even the dates given in our article conflict with Beevor: Beevor claims that the coup was scheduled to begin first in Morocco at 5am on July 18th and on the mainland "24 hours later," while our article states the coup began at 5pm on July 17th. The article cites a source for this that I do not have. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase does not show in the Spanish Wikipedia or many Spanish web-pages. Actually, a Google search points mostly to Russian pages or Spanish pages discussing if the phrase is real. It might be that it's complete wrong. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States citizen detained at Guantanamo Bay

I recall reading a wiki article about a US citizen who was held at Guantanamo Bay. His citizenship wasn't known at the time of his detention. As soon as it was revealed that he was a US citizen he was transferred to holding location in Continental US and received the appropriate treatment.

I tried googling and looking through List of Guantanamo Bay detainees but couldn't find anything.

Can someone please help me recall his name? Thanks an advance. Anonymous.translator (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yaser Esam Hamdi, of the important Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), was the only American detainee at Guantanamo Bay. Hamdi was born in the U.S. but raised in Saudi Arabia, and U.S. officials did not realize he was a U.S. citizen when he was captured in Afghanistan. Hamdi was eventually released and deported to Saudi Arabia after agreeing to renounce his U.S. citizenship. Neutrality^talk 20:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you very much. That's precisely it. Anonymous.translator (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]