Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 October 13

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.

October 13

Burma or Myanmar?

Which is correct, Burma or Myanmar? --70.248.222.85 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Either. Both. Neither. Depends on the context. See Names of Burma. Pfly (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There have also been huge discussions between Wikipedia editors. See Talk:Burma/Myanmar. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Having visited the country under each of these names, I can tell you (OR) that I vastly perfer Burma. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Rote learning

Has it been scientifically established that rote learning has certain advantages in developing the brain which learning by understanding does not? In many religious traditions too, rote learning is emphasized. Are there some advantages, besides just being able to repeat the information learned, something which develop as a by-product in the background without a person being aware of it while he/she is engaged in rote learning. Thanks-Shahab (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is that rote learning has its place when addressing bare arbitrary (or conventional) facts, such as the list of names of British monarchs, American presidents, and Catholic popes. Nothing about Pope John Paul II would have told you that his successor would choose the name Benedict XVI. These brute facts serve as the material substance out of which, or, better, the circumstances from within which our conceptual analysis of the world arises. There is a comprehensible trend behind such things as the evolution in time of the British constitution. The import of the Abdication of Edward VIII makes sense only if you know both the brute fact learnt by rote and the relevant concepts and historical trends. For the importance of conceptual understanding, rather than rote memorisation of concretes, I would direct you to Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and the radical contingency of Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's define "rote learning" as memorisation of factual information by repetition. Usually it's chunks of text, poems, lists, paradigms, numbers etc rather than one-off facts (as in Medeis' example of Abdication of Edward VII). Usually by repetition aloud in class.

I agree with Medeis that facts and understanding go together in historical knowledge. A teacher might get a class to chant: "In Fourteen Hundred and Ninety-Two, Columbus Sailed the Ocean Blue". Rhyme is a great aid to memorisation. But if that isn't backed up with the story of how he thought he was going to India and ended up elsewhere, the rhyme, recalled in later life, is of no use at all.

It seems that there is a claim going around that the memorisation of the Qur'an is particularly good for children's subsequent learning. I don't think there is much research into that yet. It would seem logical that doing a lot of rote learning in childhood makes you better at memorisation later on. But there is also the opportunity cost to consider. Is an hour memorising Qur'anic verses better spent than an hour learning physics? That probably depends on what skills and knowledge are valued in the society the child is entering.

There are bound to be positive spin-offs from so much concentrated learning effort, but we don't really know what they are, whether they are the same for everyone, or whether they are more beneficial than if the same time had been spent on learning something else, with a different method. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would, as an historian and a teacher, just object to using history as the great example of rote learning. Knowing "the facts" (names and dates) does not make one a student of history or give one a historical understanding. It just means one can take tests on facts, or spew out facts. I'm heavily against rote memorization as a method of teaching history, because the students inevitably forget most of it anyway, and you can't do anything with the facts alone, so they slip away. If you actually work with the facts, you tend to memorize them quite quickly anyway. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a big deal in maths teaching. On the one hand, rote learning (and blindly learning methods), by itself, doesn't let you solve real-world problems or problems outside the standard form found in your textbook, and if you don't understand the methods you cannot decide which is appropriate when, or spot when you've misremembered a step and produced a nonsense answer, and you certainly cannot synthesize a new method to solve a new problem. On the other hand, if you don't memorise any facts and methods, it takes you much longer to solve problems, even if you understand completely how to do so. I know I wasted a lot of time solving problems from first principles because I couldn't remember specific methods to solve them. And one of the big problems that many less mathematically inclined children face with maths is that they don't trust their recollection: they don't trust the answer popping into their head when someone asks them, "what's 3 times 5?", and teaching them to trust that ability and give instant answers can significantly improve their learning. Even the very mathematically capable can spend a lot longer solving a problem if they didn't learn their times tables, even with a calculator: I know being forced to memorise the square numbers up to 20² made a big difference when I started on more interesting calculus and force-balancing problems. On top of that, for most people to make use of maths in their daily lives requires them to have memorised a lot of standard mathematical facts and methods: it is no good understanding how addition and subtraction and the decimal number system work, when faced with making change, if you haven't memorised a lot of number pairs and short-cut methods: you will still be working it out 10 minutes later.

The problem comes when it becomes politically and ideologically charged: rote-learning becomes 'traditional', 'no nonsense', 'back to basics', 'empty learning', and understanding becomes 'progressive', 'hippie', 'true maths', 'all shall have prizes'. And I have sympathy with both views, because either method alone is worthless: politicians make speeches about one or the other, but children need to have both. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the most interesting things raised above is it isn't enough to memorise information, you have to then be able to operationalise the information in context. I suspect that children who learn their tables easily and then apply them in calculations have used many more strategies than simple repetition and practice. As said, you need not just to have "3 fives: 15" come into your head, but to be able to trust it. You need to know that if you needed to, you would have a means of double-checking. "Is that right? five plus five, 10 plus five, yes, 15" or "half of 3, 1 and a half, 10 times that, yes 15" or "half-way between 10 and 20, yes, 15". People use a lot of different mental methods in arithemetic. I agree with Mr 98 about history, too. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, there's rote learning and there's rote learning. Multiplication tables, which I agree must be known by heart if one expects to get anywhere in maths, are learned by rote but at the same time, one is systematically applying them, doing exercises with their help. The same goes for learning irregular conjugations in foreign languages, etc. - and if one doesn't get practice, the memorized stuff can be almost useless. I could give you the list of German prepositions that take the dative case if you woke me up in the middle of the night, wouldn't miss a beat. But if I try to speak German, the list in my head does not work for me, or at best, it works very clumsily. Another thing I know by rote are the prophets of the Old Testament in the order in which they are conventionally printed. Again, that information is in my head but inaccessible except if I recite the list mentally. I can't tell you whether Obadiah comes before Nahum or the other way round without starting from the beginning. That is not to say memorizing such lists couldn't have its uses. But it's one thing to learn things by rote with application and another to just memorize lists or texts.

Incidentally, Bertrand Russell, in an essay arguing against the use of Euclid as a textbook, says that there were schools in the 19th Century where the boys were taught "geometry" by making them learn Euclid by rote. That is, just the text of The Elements, without using actual rulers and compasses. It's difficult now to imagine how anyone ever thought that was a good idea. But if someone thinks teaching religious texts by rote makes good priests or theologians, well...--Rallette (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done some searching and can't find any research supporting the idea that rote learning has value in itself. Rote learning does not appear to train the mind in ways that are useful in other areas of learning. On the other hand, rote learning does have value as a way of building up an arsenal of facts or examples that may be used for some purpose other than rote learning. So, for example, memorizing multiplication tables may help a person do mathematical calculations or even use a calculator more efficiently. Memorizing the Quran may help a person learn Classical Arabic. Learning Classical Arabic in this way may make it easier for a person to learn other languages later on. However, there is no evidence that memorizing the Quran, especially if no effort is made to understand the meaning of the language, will help a person learn anything else. (Of course, one may believe that learning the Quran, even without understanding it, may have spiritual or religious value, but there is no way to test that sort of thing scientifically.) Marco polo (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of studies on rote learning in mathematics, in particular, because of the whole "new math" debates that has been going on for a long while. I'm not sure there is an unambiguous "winner" though at this point. For a personal anecdote, I was enrolled in one of those "conceptual" math courses that de-emphasized rote learning, when I was in high school, some time back now. The result was that I was quite good at ferreting out concepts and logical things... but I'm lousy at actually doing the calculations, and struggle quite a bit if I don't have a calculator handy to do all of the grunt work for me (I have difficulty calculating even a 15% tip in my head). That's just one anecdote, but I think in my personal case I would have been a bit better served by actually doing some repetitive, but useful, math, more so than focusing on the concepts, which were nice and fun, but neither instilled any great mathematical understanding in me, nor gave me the practical quantitative skills that would have been more useful later in life (when one does not use trigonometry on a daily basis, but would like to be able to quickly tally up numbers here and there). But this is a personal, anecdotal account. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There are situations where there is no underlying meaning to the knowledge, it's simply right or wrong. Conjugations of verbs (as I was reminded when I butchered Spanish in my visit to Ecuador this year) are something where there's not a lot of room for interpretation and rote learning is the practical way to teach it. Another example from my vestry days, the services in the Book of Common Prayer are another piece of rote learning. The order of the alphabet can really only be taught by rote. I'm guessing most speakers of English know that song, but maybe it's just an American thing? Boxing the compass is fortunately something we've dispensed with, but I for one never eat soggy waffles. SDY (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Two things:

• in traditional societies, rote learning was in fact the best method of preserving complex information over generations. Prior to the printing press (which allowed text to be set in a durable material and replicated precisely), transcription of written texts had a relatively high error rate, either from mistakes (such as misspellings or word substitutions) or from changes in conventional semantics over time.
• Rote learning has a certain intrinsic value for base tasks (there's no effective way to learn, say, multiplication tables or the capitals of nations except by simple repetition). but rote learning also has some important secondary psychological aspects:
  • it teaches intellectual discipline, which is later necessary to learn more complex ideas
  • it engrains certain concepts which are foundational to higher cognition. e.g. memorizing that 1+1=2 or 2*2=4 simultaneously forces a recognition of mathematical invariance - 1+1 always equals 2 - a concept without which calculus could not possibly make sense. The same is true of rote religious training (which happens in every religion, not just Islam - consider Sunday school and rosaries), in that it implicitly teaches certain moral precepts which the faith hopes will be built upon in adult life. --Ludwigs2 17:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, although that it occurred is memorised by school children, the Abdication of Edward VIII was given as a complex historical event which could only be fully understood based on prior rote learning of the British Monarchs, and such concepts as the sacramental nature of coronation. Regarding history as an example of rote learning, my point is that certain things are simply bare facts and must be learnt as such. Whether actual repeated out-loud recitation of lists or just repeated exposure is the best way of learning these facts is an empirical matter. But you simply cannot derive the sequence Mary>Elizabeth>James from first principles. It is simply contingent fact. The same applies for things like evolutionary biology. The fact that there was a species called T. rex is simply a contingent fact that has to be memorised. It can't be derived from first principles.

As for multiplication tables, what four times six produces can be derived from first principles. One simply draws four rows of six dots each and then counts the number of dots in total. The proper method of teaching multiplication tables is to show the row and column method, to teach the trends (such as adding the digits of multiples of nine gives a sum of nine) and requiring a child, when he gives a mistaken answer, to go to the board and draw the rows of dots and count them. Repetition is necessary, but only to automatise knowledge which the student can derive by applied thought. Mere repetition without showing the child how to derive the results from first principles leads to crippling the child's conceptual faculty, in this case teaching him that mathematics is something you can't understand but just have to memorise. He will eventually agree that mathematics is something one can't understand.

There are serious advantages to memorizing the actual table instead of just knowing the first principle, though. For another math example, even if I can figure out the integral of y=2x+3 by drawing an infinite number of rectangles, it really helps to know by rote how to do the integral without having to do several minutes worth of calculations (technically you would spend infinite time doing so if you didn't apply some shorcuts). Less steps means less opportunities for error. Maybe not perfect from a "wisdom and enlightenment" education standpoint but from the standpoint of "your bridge fell down" rote learning has a place. SDY (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Once the principle of what multiplication is, the summing of units in a set number of rows and columns, has been learnt, and the child has comprehended how to figure out the result if he does not remember it by rote, then of course the process has to be practised by repetition until it becomes automatised. Automisation is the precondition of further abstraction, for which see Rand, mentioned above. But if you teach the answers to multiplication without teaching what multiplication is and how to do it if you have to, you are mentally crippling the child. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get properly into this, I would strongly recommend exploring the actual published literature on pedagogy, child development, education and learning: Ayn Rand really doesn't cut it as a source for anything other than what Ayn Rand said. This is not to say that Ayn Rand is wrong in any specific thing said, but that she is not a good source for facts. I say this because I suspect that you love to understand things, and there is a lot of solid research in this area that has produced lovely, solid results and lovely, solid suggestions about good, evidence-based practice. You might want to start with things like Inside the Black Box, read about learning strategies (which you will be teaching to the children by how you teach them anything else), look at the impact of a teacher's understanding of maths, this hugely influential article on [relational understanding and instrumental understanding (read it: you'll be glad you did), and the entertaining Children's understanding of mathematics. This should give you access to a lot of related work, should you want to look further, and then you can reference someone other than Ayn Rand when you want to cite a source.

Obviously teaching rote facts and methods is not sufficient, but it is also crippling to avoid teaching any rote facts and methods: as I said, you need both. This actually has most impact on the less mathematically able, and those from social groups with a lower educational attainment, because those of us with enormous working memories and almost instinctive understanding of maths can get around a lot of problems by very quickly following inefficient methods, and children from social groups with higher educational attainment will already get drilled in basic facts, how to learn facts, and quickly recalling them when required.

Teaching understanding is very very important, and I push for it across the entire ability range, but rote learning, knowing how to learn things, having experience of learning things, having experience of recalling things, and knowing that you are capable of it? These are hugely important too, and they are most important for the children who will most struggle with the conceptual approach. Learning is not linear, it is not quite true that (as Piaget has it) we learn one principle and then progress to the next. Most of the children who will rush to understand the underlying concepts and visualisations of multiplication (and it's not really enough to see it as only one) will be the same children who have already been drilled in the rote facts, by their parents, just as the children who will rush to understand addition and subtraction will be those who have already been drilled in Number bonds, which are often introduced as a sort of counting-on without any mention made of 'adding'. And once they have encountered the underlying concepts, their recall and understanding of the memorised facts will likely improve because learning is more like a spiral, or a complicated system of connections, and these children will leap further and further ahead of their unfortunate classmates whose parents didn't gift them with a set of memorised facts before they met the underlying principles. You don't teach a child the underlying physics before they learn to walk, but anyone can run better if a well-informed coach explains the principles involved. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand writes about what she writes about? Oh, my. Did not know that. Interesting you also badmouth Piaget, whom I would recommend if you want to study all aspects of child learning in depth. The OP seemed to be interested in automization compared with concept formation. Rand's monograph addresses those matters directly for a lay audience from an epistemological standpoint. True, you have to look elsewhere if you want statistical studies and scholarly work that avoids making any explanatory claims.

Does rote learning include learning how to write? I have a kid in Kindergarten and the teacher works hard on getting the kids to learn to write, and write clearly. At their age this mainly involves knowing how to hold pencils/pens/etc and draw the letter (and number) shapes clearly. She combines the rote aspect with lots of other non-rote, more understanding-base stuff, but still, there's a basic muscle memory aspect to writing letters clearly. Mental understanding of how to do it can't replace lots of repetitive practice, can it? Or is there is distinction between rote learning and gaining muscle memory via repitition and memorization? Pfly (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, repetitive practice is vital for the mechanical physical skill of writing. Consider that it is no good explaining the physics of bicycle riding. You just have to get on the seat and do it. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I didn't know about the new math thing. It sounds similar to a more recent "fad" of reform mathematics, described on the Math wars page. My still-evolving understanding is that reform mathematics tends to turn out crappy math skills, but various hybrid curricula do better. Pfly (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, also, since a lot of this thread has focused on math, I think the best overall approach would be one that is able, somehow, to take into account the different natural abilities of different kids and "leverage" then (to use a word a hate). For example I've always been terrible with numbers and rote math learning. I simply have trouble remembering raw number patterns. I can't even remember phone numbers half the time, or my own PIN numbers. So forced rote learning of multiplication tables and the like quickly got me shuffled off into remedial math levels and a dropping out as early as I could. On the other hand, some people, like my wife, are excellent at remembering number patterns, and enjoy playing with it, and do well with rote style teaching, which can lead to being able to more quickly grasp and work through complex problems when larger conceptual issues are in place as well. So she became a math major while I avoided it like the plague. Later, I found I loved math when it was a tool being used for an interesting reason (music and electronic synthesis being my route in, which can rapidly lead to calculus Fourier transforms, and various wave stuff). So in her case a mix of rote and comprehension teaching worked great, while for me the rote aspect resulted in bad grades and bad teachers and a deep hatred of math, until I finally realized, long out of school, it can be used for cool stuff. If math curricula, from a young age (my math hatred goes back to at least 3rd grade), could somehow identify which students would do well with which approaches, that would be a good thing, I think. Pfly (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

One final thing. The OP wrote "In many religious traditions too, rote learning is emphasized. Are there some advantages, besides just being able to repeat the information learned, something which develop as a by-product in the background without a person being aware of it while he/she is engaged in rote learning." While I don't have a scientific study to point to, I think this idea is basically sound, and applies to my example of writing to write letters clearly. As I understand it is something emphasized in various sports and performance arts (like playing the piano)—first you have to gain a level of basic muscle memory that allows rapid relatively "unthinking" response, then you can hone that in various ways. There's always the risk that muscle memory becomes a crutch though. With piano playing, an example would be the ability to play a piece from memory, except that if you get stuck you have to start over from the start and can't recover. Good piano playing requires a mix of muscle memory and intellectual understanding of a piece's form. If you know you got stuck at a place where an A major key is modulating to a D minor key, and what that means in terms of notes, you'll be much more likely to recover in the moment than if you only know the piece via muscle memory. But if you only understand the piece intellectually without muscle memory, you probably won't be able to play it at all. The same basic idea goes for fencing (the sword dueling sport), which I've long enjoyed. It is an extremely fast paced sport. You absolutely need muscle memory deeply engrained to the point of instinctive reaction. But you also need to analyze your opponent, looking for weaknesses, and developing strategies on-the-fly for taking advantage of them. And vice-verse, realizing when your opponent is doing exactly that and taking counter-measures. The balance between instinctive muscle memory and millsecond-fast readjustments to those instincts is one of the most enjoyable aspects of fencing. I think a lot of these kind of things can to applicable to religious rituals as well. To be religiously mindful and open the rituals must be in "muscle memory", but if they are carried out robotically the point is entirely missed. Pfly (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sanzomon's hat

The character Sanzomon is based on Sanzo from Journey to the West. It wears a hat with several chinese characters on it, which can be seen here, here, and here. From what I've been able to find, it appears that this hat may be called a "five-part crown", and the symbols would be references to the Five Dhyani Buddhas. Can anyone tell me the correct name of this hat, and what the symbols are/are a reference to? Please message me at my wikia talk page if you have any answers. Thanks!192.249.47.196 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

French Rwanda Burundi Zaire French not Dutch

Why Rwanda, Burundi, and Zaire (Democratic Republic of Congo) decided to choose French as its official language despite the Belgians were Dutch speaking? Who meaning the leaders of these nations made French as official languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.163 (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

French is an official language of Belgium (spoken by 40% of the population) as well as Dutch (see Languages of Belgium). There is a suggestion on a forum here that "The Belgian Congo had two official languages : French and Dutch. This means cities, streets, etc, always carried two names ( Leopoldville – Leopoldstad, etc…), but in reality French was by far the most used language in the Belgian Congo." The same would no doubt have applied to Ruanda-Urundi, and the reason is presumably that French is much more widely spoken than Dutch both globally and in other parts of Africa. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

At the time when the Belgians created the colonies that became these African nations, during the late 19th and early 20th century, French was the sole official language of Belgium. This was the case because French was the language of the Belgian ruling class. The political system of Belgium gave extra votes to voters based on their wealth, and most of the wealth was held by the French-speaking bourgeoisie. In Belgium, French was the language of education and status, whereas the common people spoke the "regional languages" of Walloon and Flemish. The status of French was boosted by the fact that French-speaking southern Belgium was first to industrialize and until the mid-20th century was the most prosperous part of the country. Even those whose native language was Flemish/Dutch learned French in school and had to use French professionally if they wanted to pursue a career. This began to change during the 1920s and 1930s when Belgium did away with weighting votes by wealth and Flemish was recognized as the language of government in the Flemish-speaking regions. It was not until the 1960s that the national government became fully bilingual. Of course, by that time, Belgium's colonies were gaining independence after a long period during which French was their primary official language. The use of French in neighboring former French colonies was a further argument in favor of French as an official language in these newly independent countries. Marco polo (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Belgium is officially tri-lingual, since there's a German dialect spoken in east Wallonia. In my days in the London insurance market, I used to have to fill in Belgian tax forms, which came with each question in three languages, one on top of the other, in tiny writing. I understand that the King of Belgium has to make his coronation oath in three languages too. But as you say, it was French only for official purposes until fairly recently. Alansplodge (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But Belgium was not tri-lingual during the colonial period. It seems, from Language legislation in Belgium, that German was recognized only in 1962. --Soman (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's what I said - if not, it's what I meant! Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. Just pointing out that Belgium went from being mono- then bi- to trilingual officially. The latter period of Belgian rule over Congo, Belgium was officially bilingual, but trilingualism came afterwards. --Soman (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and no offence taken. Alansplodge (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Notably, Dutch also failed to establish itself in Indonesia as a colonial language (although many Dutch loan words are found in Bahasa Indonesia). This section gives some insight: Dutch_language#Belgian_Africa. --Soman (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Look Japan

Apparently Look Japan's last issue was in April 2004.

Do you know if there are any articles discussing the closing of Look Japan, or if the April 2004 issue says "we are closing - goodbye" ?

Thanks,

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

China

1. Who was the first European to actually succeed in reaching China (or India) by going west? 2. Since an accurate way of determining longitude wasn't available until the 18th century, how did Europeans know how far the New World was from Asia? In fact, how did they even know how far it was from Europe? --140.180.26.155 (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your first question may be Martín de Rada, though of course Ferdinand Magellan sailed west across the Pacific earlier. Marco polo (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As for your second question, Europeans had a rough idea of the distance based on sailing time and extrapolations from the circumference of the Earth, which had been calculated to a low degree of precision. Precise measurement of longitude and distance was not possible, however, until John Harrison invented the chronometer in the mid-18th century. Marco polo (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal question re: illegal camping in U.S. national parks

I've been trying to understand what exactly constitutes "camping without a permit" in U.S. national parks.

I've found the following two statutes:

36CFR2.10 AND § 1.4 What terms do I need to know?

The latter defines camping as:

"Camping means the erecting of a tent or shelter of natural or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for use, parking of a motor vehicle, motor home or trailer, or mooring of a vessel for the apparent purpose of overnight occupancy."

Does this mean that as long as I am not caught actually erecting a tent, or laying out my sleeping bag, that they cannot charge me with illegal camping? That is, suppose I'm walking in a remote area on a hiking trail where I'm quite obviously camping without a permit(i.e. I'm carrying a large pack and camping gear and look like I've been living in the woods for a week), but I've got all of my gear in my pack. If I am adamant that I'm not actually camping (of course, I'll kindly cite the above-cited legal definition of "camping" for them) and am just carrying the equipment "for exercise", they couldn't fine me for illegal camping, right? That is, legally, they would have to actually catch me at a campsite to give me a ticket. Am I understanding this correctly? If not, could someone please explain where I could find more information on this.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.211.30.204 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact a lawyer.

As a general principle, the police do not need to catch you in the act of committing a crime to charge you with it, they merely need to have probable cause to believe that you have committed the crime. Once charges have been filed, it is up to the court system to determine if you have committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to get more specific than this, consult a lawyer. --Carnildo (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of national parks have additional restrictions on camping, especially for very popular areas and/or wilderness areas. Much of Mount Rainier National Park for example, is wilderness, and backcountry camping not only requires a permit but must be in designated camping areas. In short, for any given park it is likely there are more than the two statues you cited that apply. Pfly (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, permits for backcountry camping are usually done in place for good reasons, worth following. If unrestricted camping was allowed in popular places like The Enchantments (not a national park, but a national forest, still very very popular), the landscape would rapidly be degraded. The rather strict lottery-based permits used there were put in place because the place was getting trashed. Pfly (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The sad part about this is that the OP is looking to get around the rules. The rules are there to try to preserve these popular national parks as much as possible. Disrespecting the rules is the same as disrespecting the park itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this might fall foul of various "going equipped to commit 'X' (crime)" laws my good man. If you're wandering around with a set of lockpicks, devices for neutralising electronic alarms and a large bag marked "SWAG" in a residential neighbourhood without you can get charged & convicted for going equipped to commit burglary without going anywhere near someone's domicile. Best to not try this old bean. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Without reference to legal specifics, so far as I know, homelessness is de facto illegal throughout the United States. Any community becoming noted for being soft on homelessness would become overburdened with them, suffering all manner of social ills and expenses, not to mention being abandoned by residents horrified at the implications for their property value etc. Prohibiting camping in parks is the first step, but it is by no means sufficient - it is absolutely necessary to crack down on churches that would house or feed them, for example. Existing encampments are not merely dispersed, but such belongings as the homeless have are confiscated and burned. They are, however, sometimes granted free bus fare to go somewhere else - while some people have absorbed a genuinely hateful attitude, more see it merely as a competition between communities. (More often they explain people are being sent away to temporary shelter as a humanitarian measure...) Typically the big cities are the most lenient, because it is relatively smaller expense to them and/or there are certain neighborhoods which prove expedient (for certain interests) to redline and devalue prior to eminent domain. The extreme option is to charge vagrancy, though after the Jim Crow era this ceased to be profitable and fell into disuse. Anyway, my point here, is that any practice, regardless of the law, which would permit anyplace in the U.S. to be used reliably by homeless people, will with certainty be stamped out. Wnt (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)