Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 June 17

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

June 17

What's the song in this video?

Moved to Entertainment Desk D0762 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Gold and Water

Does gold form in water or where water once was? What is the connection between gold and water (streams) and why they always in the early days would find it in streams or around water?

It doesn't form in water, no. However, water erodes gold out of stone formations and, being fairly heavy, the gold typically doesn't go very far but stays a short distance from the source, headed downstream. So, if you find a lot of gold nuggets in a stream, you might want to look just upstream for the source. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From stories of prospectors and placer mining, and panning for gold, there seems some merit in what you say. See AuH₂O. Edison (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So gold is typically in stone formations? Anythiong special about the stone formations that would make one stone create gold instead of another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.131.225 (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Gold#Occurrence may assist. (Stones do not create gold. Gold is associated with certain ores). --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The gold takes the form of veins running through rock. I believe this happens when undergound water seeps through cracks in the rock and deposits minerals along the way, including gold. So, since the gold was originally dissolved in water, there is another association between the two. Also note that ocean water contains a huge amount of gold, but there's no economic way to extract it. StuRat (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" as a FA

Can Wikipedia article be nominated as a featured article candidate? Or is there some rule which prohibits making articles about Wikimedia projects featured? 89.236.214.174 (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you go to Talk:Wikipedia, you will see that it is a former featured article. The reasons it was demoted didn't really have anything to do with the subject matter, just the quality of the article. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! I'd love to see screenshot of Wikipedia main page when "Wikipedia" was featured article of the day (if it was, of course; not all FAs become "FA of today"). Like, "Today's featured article on Wikipedia is... Wikipedia" *chuckles* Thank you for response :) 89.236.214.174 (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. Why don't me try and feature it again? Only joking.--Faizaguo (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul has said (if I recall correctly) that the Wikipedia article will never be a FA of the day as it's "navel gazing". Exxolon (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a rip-off...:(...if anyone has screenshots please upload them. Thanks.:)--Faizaguo (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

what is this song??

Moved to Entertainment Desk D0762 (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

When it starts to be bullying

Where is the limit between normal peer pressure and bullying? Isn't peer pressure always present in a group? (since the group has to exist somehow). Are we so whiney about pressure/critism, that we consider any negative feedback bullying? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is... peer pressure is doing something to fit in with your social-group, bullying is being forced to do something/give something to someone who is not (generally) a friend. The peer pressure is that you feel pressured to do something to 'fit in', whereas bully is usually someone basically trying to exert their power over you through intimidation - they aren't trying to convince you that the thing you are hesitant about is right (e.g. friends pushing you to try smoking may believe you'll enjoy it/it's a cool thing to do) they are just pushing/forcing you to do something to feel powerful/important. The difficultly is that bullying is a state of mind as much as a definable thing. If you feel you are being bullied (but the bully feels they are just being assertive/pushing you) then who is to decide which person is wrong? I don't believe society considers all negative feedback bullying, but as with these things it is as much tone and presentation as it is content. Constructive criticism is what people generally seek out - because that focusses on how we can improve from our position/where we can improve ny156uk (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, they're non-overlapping. From Peer pressure:

"Peer pressure is a term describing the pressure exerted by a peer group in encouraging a person to change their attitude, behavior and/or morals, to conform..."

From Bullying:

"Bullying is the act of intentionally causing harm to others, through verbal harassment, physical assault, or other more subtle methods of coercion such as manipulation."

So if someone bullies you, they're not your peer. In this case, the "limit" is where your peer isn't your peer anymore. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer pressure is direct or indirect pressure to conform to certain standands of behavior, appearance, philosophy, etc., in order to fit in. It's usually spoken of in a bad light, and indeed it can be harmful (when it causes us to treat ourselves and others in ways that are unhealthy or make us feel ashamed or uncomfortable), but some degree of outside pressure is essential to our socialization as human beings. Bullying is usually direct action taken against a person for the purpose of displaying one's power over that person and lowering that person's self-esteem, and it's always harmful to the victim. Sometimes the two overlap, in the sense that people who don't fit in may be easier targets for bullying, and the insecurity they often feel about not belonging to any group may be used against them by bullies. However, the relationship is one of powerful aggressor to weak victim, not one of equals (peers). In short, peer pressure makes you want to fit in, and bullying just makes you feel bad. - Aletheia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good day. As a high school student I have say that sometimes peer pressure can be bullying in itself. One time when I was in school I was ganged up by a whole group of boys. They tried to get me to put a firework in the boys toilet and flush it. I didn't, but the thing is that peer pressure and bullying can be two separate things. But sometimes they can be two same things. At least that is what I experience at my school. And my experience isn't really enough information, but I wanted to point that out. Peer pressure is good and at the same its bad. Bullying is bad, but at the same time it also is good. Bullying forced me to become a much stronger person and to change aspects of myself I didn't like. I hope I have helped. I am not sure it was that helpful, but I hope it was. Have a positively wonderful day.Rem Nightfall (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

@Rem Nightfall:No, you didn't help. Your writing is confusing and uninformative. I hope my bullying/peer pressure helps you.80.58.205.37 (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 80.58. I didn't mean to make that confusing. I was trying to say that another factor you have to consider is that peer pressure can be bullying. I hope that is a little better and I would like to apologize for my informal answer above.Rem Nightfall (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Medical term for animals who continue to grow throughout their lifetime

I was watching a TV show about fishing on the history channel. They briefly mentioned a medical term for animals who continue to grow throughout their lifetime - specifically fish fall into this category. As opposed to mammals such as humans who stop growing once they reach adulthood.

While there are certain items in species body's that may continue to grow, the overall body stops growing. For example mice and other rodents upper and lower incisors continue to grow through their life - this is not what I am looking for.

This condition of growth throughout an animals life results in huge size, for example fish over 400 lbs where normally they reach 100 lbs.

I searched through the history channel web site and have searched other sites for this topic to no avail. 132.79.7.16 (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Its called Indeterminate growth (although the article only talks about plants). Also see this D0762 (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rebuilding of World Trade Center

Hard to tell from our article, but is Google Maps' view reasonably up to date? According to the image I saw, there's still not an awful lot to see above ground level. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Google, "Google Maps uses the same satellite data as Google Earth. Google Earth acquires the best imagery available, most of which is approximately one to three years old." (I should probably add that to the Google Maps article, eh?) --LarryMac | Talk 16:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm asking if anyone on this page is familiar with New York... what does it look like right now? --Dweller (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You might find Project Rebirth useful.Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

PGX

Does this product really help with weight loss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.251.21 (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Aside from linking Polyglycoplex, the Refdesk can't give you much more unless someone finds a good review site. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

someone deleted an image of a mugshot done by a local police dept.

how can I protest this deletion based on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Mugshot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikindeling (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you disagree with a deletion you can ask for a review at WP:DRV. Exxolon (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hunting Conterversy

Good day. I was thinking about this for a very long time. We hunt animals as a sport and for fun. So do other creatures. Sometimes predator will hunt for a sport or fun. Yet, when an animal does like cheetah we don't care. But when humans do it we do care. Why is this? Is this because we know that destruction we can cause. That when humans hunt something we will destroy a whole ecosystem. I am watching a documentary called The Making of Planet Earth and they said they were going to shoot a migration of creature that was in another BBC program in 1989, but from 1989 to 1990 the creatures had been wiped out due to hunting. Also I watched another documentary called 100 Years of Wildlife Filming and they showed men sticking ice picks into babies seal's heads. I am against hunting, but I just want to know why do we have a problem with humans hunting for sport, but not other animals, such as cheetah, who hunt for sport? Thank you for answering my question. I really appreciate it. Have a positively wonderful day.Rem Nightfall (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What supports your contention that cheetahs or other animals hunt for sport? I understand that to be confined to humans. — Lomn 18:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know necessarily if other animals hunt for fun or sport. Because the information seems a little weird. I had watched a predator documentary and they said that a mountain lion wasn't hungry and was just chasing the rabbit for fun. But that seems weird. How do we know if the animal was hungry or not? We can't switch our stomachs to the cat stomach. So I really don't know if other animals hunt for fun or sport. Do other animals hunt for fun or sport?Rem Nightfall (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do neither of you own cats?

House-cats often hunt for the 'fun' of it. A well fed house-cat typically will make no effort to eat the animals it's killed. Sometimes ignoring them as soon as they're dead or sometimes presenting them (as gifts?) to humans, etc. My old cat used to catch mice with its claws retracted, carry the uninjured mouse to the middle of a large room and then release it, only to catch it again right before it reached safety. (This would repeat until either the mouse was injured, or until the mouse finally won this game and escaped.) I have no cites for any of this, as it's all original research, but It seems reasonable to assume that house cats hunt mice for the same reason humans enjoy violent video games; an instinctive joy of killing. APL (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer the original question: most people assume that, contrary to humans, animals do not have a lot of free will. A lion hunting a rabbit, whether for food or for fun, merely follows its instincts; a human who hunts makes a conscious decision to do so; and it is this decision that we may find morally acceptable or not. DAVID ŠENEK 19:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I own a cat, but he never gives me presents. He likes to lay on may lap and sleep on me for hours at time. Which usually means I can't get off my chair for a while. He eats spiders. He eats them in front me. I just watch the spiders leg wiggle as he feeds the spider in his mouth one bite a time. Back on topic: To David Šenek: But you could say the same things about humans. We are just following our instinct to kill. Not naturally our instinct to survive, but to kill. Cause I'm sure we have that instinct. I'm against hunting because I watched that documentary 100 Years of Wildlife filming when they showed me baby seals, not adult, baby seals be hunted with ice picks. Ice picks in their little heads and they dragged the bodies across the snow. The snow was covered baby seal blood. I cried for the seals. I also watched a show on the Animal Planet about animal emotions. It showed a herd of elephants mourning a dead member of the pack. I am against hunting because after watching that documentary of animal emotions it awakened my eyes to the fact that animals do feel. I could just imagine that elephant as a human mother crying for her dead baby. Its sad. I would never be able to pick up a gun and hunt a creature for sport or for fun. It has nothing to do with the moral of a decision, for me at least. For me its emotional an response and I don't why either.Rem Nightfall (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention to deny that humans have instincts, but unlike animals we have the ability to exercise (some) control over those instincts, or act against them - even in very extreme ways, for example when people starve themselves or live a life of celibacy. The fact that you personally couldn't kill animals for fun may be a purely emotional response. But I do believe that the fact that, more generally, we judge people who kill animals for fun differently than we judge animals who do the same thing (the original question), is an issue of morality - and therefore of free will. DAVID ŠENEK 21:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to fight with you or try to have you infer that I was saying you deny that humans have instinct as well. I was trying to add the fact that humans have instincts. Some people don't realize that and do try to deny that. There are certain groups who try to deny, well more or less control humans instincts. As human beings we do have more control over our instincts and we have a responsibility to this world and the life that exist on this planet.Rem Nightfall (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

First, about cats. They certainly do the "catch and release and catch again" thing with mice and birds. It seems like torture, but may help to sharpen their hunting skills. They may not need those skills, if their food is provided by humans, but the instinct doesn't just turn off. We had a bird loose in the house once that the cat dragged in and released (that was fun !). I suppose it's similar with humans who hunt. They may never need that skill, but maybe if society collapses some day they will need it, who knows. Now, some arguments against hunting:

1) Unrestricted hunting, as noted, can wipe out entire species.

2) People tend to hunt for "the best" examples of each species. Killing those leaves the "not so good" individuals to reproduce and can thus weaken the species.

3) There are those who feel that causing pain and death in animals, when not necessary for survival, is wrong.

4) People get killed in hunting accidents.

5) In countries with gun control, allowing rifles for hunting increases the liklihood of homicide. StuRat (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

First *glares at cat* you never do anything except sleep and eat spiders...oh there was that one time you ate a mouse. Second, Can we call all five of you arguments the Big Five. Cause I'm sure that is the reason most people dislike hunting.Rem Nightfall (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To be balanced, lets provide some good reasons for hunting.

1) Balanced and sensible hunting helps reduce overpopulation of certain species

2) Hunting is a form of controlling or removing pests, accidentally inroduced species, and those whose natural predators are somehow missing

3) Hunting is a way of providing food in a sustainable way, without the problems associated with farming

4) Hunting remains the most productive way of obtaining some forms of food (eg fishing)

5) Sensibly managed hunting is a natural and organic method of using the earth's resources. Meat is eaten, and hunted fur (eg possum: I don't mean tiger!) is natural, biodgradable, warm, sustainable, breathable (etc etc) and compares favourably with polar fleece and other artifical plastic based fabrics which are not biodegradable and have manufacturing issues (cost, pollution etc)

6) Successful hunting requires sensible, respectful and intelligent use of firearms and other weapons, which is a healthy attitude

7) Hunting is an energetic, outdoor activity which inspires the individual with a respect for food. Food should not be an easy-won commodity, scoffed in excess by lazy individuals.

Like most issues, there is no simple or correct answer. Gwinva (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For point 2, can I just add that the natural predators may be 'somehow missing' because they were just more fun to hunt? (Or, in the interest of balance, because they posed a threat to human life) Oh, and hunting is only sustainable if you have a large area full of animals feeding a small human population. Once the human population grows, it is no longer sustainable. But the demand for hunting can lead to the preservation of wild areas and animal populations by providing a financial incentive to preserve them (as you can charge hunters), if handled well. 79.66.85.219 (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of the Easter Bunny Hunt (more) and possums wild pigs and so forth. (Take the pig link, as just one example: New Zealand's Department of Conservation, which states: "Pigs are present throughout the park, and are known to eat eggs and chicks of ground-dwelling birds as well as seedlings, berries and roots of a large variety of native plants. To control pig numbers in the park, managers have found that the most effective method is allow access to responsible hunters using well trained pig dogs.")

You're right: bad hunting practices have caused problems, like bad farming practices, or bad fishing, or deforestation for arable land and so forth. We don't close down Wikipedia because its vandalised; let's not write off hunting (or anything else) just because some people have been stupid in the past. Gwinva (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwinva for point number 1 and 2 I would like to state that the creatures in the environment that hunting is happening the creatures do that themselves. We don't live in their ecosystem they balance each other. They control how many predators and how much prey is in an ecosystem by hunting to control the population were are ruining an ecosystem by "helping" them. For your pig thing. Pigs have to eat too. That's all I have to say, pigs have to eat too.Rem Nightfall (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Rem, I have to disagree with you; humans are part of the ecosystem. Take the above pig example: pigs need to eat. True, but at the moment those pigs are eating endangered birds and endangered fauna. And those pigs have no predator but humans: nothing else is eating the pigs. That is not a system where the creatures "balance each other". The pigs were introduced, and there are no predators. Which was the point I was making in 1 and 2: A case can be made that sometimes Man is the creature in the ecosystem who needs to provide balance.

I have no wish to debate, so I will leave it there. But for the record, I have never hunted, so don't think I have an axe to grind. I just have a dislike for unbalanced arguements, and wished to show why some people think hunting is a good or legitimate thing. (Which I think was your original question?) Gwinva (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia!

Does anyone know any good general trivia sites online? Was going to "Trivia Cafe" but the questions are kind of weak; hoping someone knew of a better site to kill time with Trivia at? Thanks in advance! 38.112.225.84 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean a repository of trivia, or a site with quizzes on trivia? Fribbler (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, repository? "Quizzes on trivia" - that sounds a little too Meta for me....I'm just trying to get some good questions to ask co-workers during downtime :) 38.112.225.84 (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a short list of trivia sites JessicaN10248 19:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust

What did the germans have to say for themselves after the war. were they ashamed of what they had done? how do they feel about it now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.33.2 (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• The articles linked to from Holocaust#Aftermath_and_historiography would be a good place to start. Exxolon (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In answer to the first part of your question, according to the Denazification article:

Despite [Allied] campaigns support for Nazism and genocide among German population continued to exist in certain degree [after the war].

• A majority in the years 1945-49 believed National Socialism to have been a good idea, badly applied.
• In 1946 60% of Germans said the Nuremberg trials had been unfair.
• In 1946 37% in the U.S. occupation zone said about the Holocaust that "the extermination of the Jews and Poles and other non-Aryans was necessary for the security of Germans".
• In 1946 1 in 3 in the U.S. occupation zone said that Jews should not have the same rights as those belonging to the Aryan race
• In 1950 1 in 3 said the Nuremberg trials had been unfair.
• In 1952 37% said Germany was better off without the Jews.
• In 1952 25% had a good opinion of Hitler. Stanstaple (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In present-day Germany racism and other Nazi-like ideas are an "elephant in the room" situation. Not many Germans will defend Nazi ideas, but many believe they are fair. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please give us some referenced data for claims of this kind. I am not German, but read and watch a lot of German media, have lived in Germany, and am in private and professional contact with Germans on daily basis. I disagree with unqualified statements such as "many believe they [Nazi ideas] are fair". ---Sluzzelin talk 14:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Where I agree is that the Nazi-past has indeed been an elephantine burden in political discourse during the decades of Germany's Vergangenheitsbewältigung, and that pointing out Germany's own suffering or accusing others of committing atrocities were seen as tu quoque attempts to deflect from Nazi Germany's own crimes and deemed "politically incorrect" (though that term didn't exist at the time). See also an earlier question here. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Germans have still not distanciated themselves from this racial ideology. And even nowadays, being German is consider by most to be born from German parents. Of course, they will not use the word "German blood" since it would be brought in relation with the Nazi past, but if you are from another race and were born and grew up in Germany, possibly you are not considered German. Sources: here "Der Spiegel, a serious German weekly magazine, about racism in Germany. here a comparison between US and Germany by the FU Berlin, one of the main German institutions.

80.58.205.37 (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well since I was asked, I will respond, though only briefly, because I don't wish to turn this into a debate:

No one denies that racial prejudice, overt racism, racist violence, and hate crime exist in Germany, just like they exist in other European countries. I still disagree with the conclusion that this is unique to Germany, has anything to do with "many Germans believing that Nazi-ideas were fair" or "Germans" not distancing themselves from racist Nazi-ideology, or that either of these statements holds any meaningful truth. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that it is unique to Germany. The problem is just some nations define themselves independent of blood or race other don't. An example of the last case is Germany. That also explains why Britons granted citizenship to citizens originally from India or Pakistan, and why there exist several generations of Turks living in Germany and not acquiring citizenship. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Do tanks have ignition keys?

According to the Shawn Nelson article, he broke into three different tanks because the first two would not start. Do tanks require a key to start the engine? Did they just leave the keys in the ignition? -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The article states "Armory officials said that only a few people are given keys to the vehicles", so I guess that's yes to the first question and, probably, no to the second. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I should have been less lazy and read the whole article. Maybe that explains why he couldn't start the first two tanks, because he was only able to get a key to the third? A "huge lapse in security" seems to describe the situation well. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about tanks, but the M109 howitzer does not have an ignition key. However, the doors to the vehicle (including the sliding one to the driver's chamber) are typically locked with simple padlocks when not supervised - the mentioned keys could be referring to those. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I spent ten years in the Army and no military pattern vehicle I encountered, including jeeps, tanks, and armoured personnel carriers, had ignition keys. They all had push button starters. This kind of makes sense - there's is little more embarassing than missing the big attack (or perhaps a more retrograde motion) because you can't find the keys to the car.

To prevent theft, vehicles were padlocked as appropriate (i.e., drivers hatch on a tank, steering wheel on a jeep, etc.)

Given the amount of maintenance a lot of these vehicles require, it wouldn't surprise me if the two tanks that didn't start... just didn't start. - Eron^Talk 21:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the army. The AIL Storm does have an ignition key. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it could also be that he was so nervous he messed up the ignition sequence. I know of an officer who forgot how to operate his own firearm when it counted. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We certainly had some vehicles that had ignition keys, but they were all civilian pattern models - mostly light trucks - that had been bought en masse and painted green. (For a while, my command post was a Chevy 5/4 ton with a box on the back.) It looks like the Storm - described as being based on the Jeep Wrangler - is one of those type. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this one doesn't have a key. - Eron^Talk 22:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's mostly a matter of semantics with regard to the Storm and similar vehicles. As for the Merkava - I couldn't say. I've only been inside one once, it was dark and I had other things on my mind :) . But you're probably right. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Allowing Newscasters,Etc. to Wear U.S. flag Pens

Please let we, the public, know who came up with this "idiotic" idea of not allowing your on-air peole to wear a United States Flag pen. You have just lost alot of loyal watchers because of that. It matters not what your political leaning, this is, IN FACT, the United States of America and if you don't like it and can't respect it, leave and go to the country where you can be happy and repect, but you have not right taking away symbols of Our Country.

You should be absolutely ashamed, and, as I said, I know of at least 20 people who will no longer watch your ABC stations, and as we continue to pass this information around, those numbers will certainly grow. I hope it's worth it to you to insult this great country at all costs.

Sincerely,

Pat S. Pensa Atlanta, Ga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.123.249 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem confused. This is Wikipedia, not ABC news. There is no relationship between the two. I also suspect that they were wearing "pins", not "pens", unless you count them having a pen stuck behind their ears. StuRat (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is a flag pin such a big deal in the US? In fact, why is the whole country so overtly patriotic? It's kind of silly... just blinds people to the idea that other countries might be doing something better and that lessons could be learnt from said countries. I wouldn't say I knew anyone here in Britain who wasn't patriotic, but flags only come out when England play at football and stuff like that. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jingoism, and the fact that the Republican Party discovered that flag pins are another stick with which they can beat Democrats. Foolish people are readily moved by such foolish issues.

Atlant (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They're made into a big deal by the third in the three groups of people in this drama:

1. the sincere patriots who see the flag as a symbol of all that is good and just about the country and its people
2. the equally sincere patriots who see the flag as a symbol of the country's government -- and in particular its military -- which do not always conform to the highest principles of the country and its people
3. the partisan hacks who gain political advantage by persuading group #1 that group #2's unease about the flag is due to their opposition to all that is good and just about the country and its people.

The flag burning debate centers on the same deliberate misunderstanding. --Sean 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I can't tell if this has any present grounding in fact. The June 2008 complaints on the net that I encountered match, word for word, the October 2001 phrasing found at Snopes.— Lomn 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not really a patriot unless you tattoo a flag on your forehead. The guys who just put on a flag pin are wusses—they don't care enough about this country to wear their pride on their skin. You're not a patriot if you can hang your honor in the closet. Oh, and don't forget to ask all your coworkers if they're loyal Americans. Any that refuse, or who won't get a tattoo, can be reported to the appropriate government agency. Bonus points if you annex a part of Canada, too. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bush: "Canada, isn't that one of our Northern states ?"

Aide: "No, sir. We aren't scheduled to invade and annex Canada until 2010."

Bush: "Tell you what, these Canadians are so nice, let's let them keep their country ... until 2012 at least." - Chilly Beach - StuRat (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there's two sides to everything. Americans may be "too patriotic," but Brits seem to be sadly unpatriotic nowadays. British friends tell me that the only people who fly Union Jacks nowadays are "racists and old people," and that anyone who flies a flag is seen as out of touch. That's quite sad, I think. Why shouldn't you be proud of a country that has so much to be proud of? Too much colonial guilt or something? You can't get satisfy all of your patriotism quotient just through GWB-bashing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Rangers' fans. Mind you they demonstrate their pride in somewhat mysterious ways. Rockpocket 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly two sides of everything. I've never understood why private citizens in this country seem so intent on displaying the emblem of the federal government. My house is not a post office or a tax collection center, why would I put the government's flag out front?
It's a bizarre state of affairs where people are assumed not to love their country if they're not constantly advertising their commitment to the government. APL (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this sentiment doesn't apply on independence day, or flag day or something. APL (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But..... Why would you presume that people don't love their country just because they don't fly the Union Flag? Why do you need to fly the flag to show your love for your country? Isn't that the whole problem with the lapel silliness that people have been discussing above? I think a lot of British people are very proud of their country, they just don't see the need to fly the flag all the time to show it. Many may even think it's silly... Surely it's their right to choose to love their country and show off their pride in different ways? Personally, I think British people show of their pride in ther country in far better ways. (You could say a Brit doesn't need flashy symbols to show Britain is great, it just comes naturally...) Another case in point, many Malaysians are very patriotic, often (IMHO anyway) unhealthily so. Many are also proud of their flag. However despite the governments attempts to instill the sort of flag waving culture you see in the US, it hasn't really been embraced that well. But as I've already said, it's dumb to say that's because of a lack of patriotism, it mostly isn't. Or here in NZ, a significant percentage of the population doesn't even like the current flag. Other then in sports events (where a flag waving culture is fairly universal for all countries I think) you don't see it that much. But Kiwis are definitely proud of NZ. Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good evening. Even though being overly patriotic isn't necessarily a bad thing it can get a little over the top. Have a positively wonderful day. I hope you find ABC soon so that you can persuade them.Rem Nightfall (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they should be allowed to wear flags, it's jingoistic ,hotclaws 03:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What if the reporter isn't a US citizen? Would they have to wear the flag pen/pin? Whom else should we require to wear symbols of patriotism? Teachers? Garbage collectors (though our garbage trucks do have flags painted on the sides)? Dog walkers? I know, let's pass a Constitutional amendment requiring a flag pin be worn at all times. If you're naked, pin it to your skin. Corvus cornix_talk 15:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

See flag waving contest or dick waving contest. What?! No article on either? How unpatriotic. ;-) --Prestidigitator (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nil Einne. There are many ways to show patriotism; flying or displaying your country's flag is one of them. Those who don't do so shouldn't be tagged as unpatriotic, and those who do do so shouldn't be mocked as old-fashioned or anything else. I've never been one for having the Australian flag on display, but on Australia Day, almost as a joke, I stuck one on my front fence. The next day, I thought "why take it down? I'm not proud of my country for only one day a year" - so I kept it there. After 5 months it's become a little faded and ragged, and I'll have to either replace it or remove it soon. But after a lifetime of not being overtly patriotic, I'm now quite comfortable with flying the flag. And I don't even like the current design; I'd vote for a change if a suitable alternative was ever on offer. But it's not about whatever the current design is, it's what it stands for that's important. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The comparison of the US Stars and Stripes and the UK Union Jack is problematic at best. The two flags have very different histories and meanings. They came about through quite different processes. One of born from revolution and the other, unless I'm mistaken, a joining together. The two flags strike me as nearly opposite in symbolic meaning, at least in their origins. Like many symbols of revolution through history, the US flag has taken on mythic, nearly sacred qualities. A better comparison might be something like the flag of China. Is China a "flag waving country"? The recurring US concern regarding flags and flag imagery (as in pins) has always struck me as a throwback to the first decades of the country's independence, when it really was a revolutionary "experiment", and the flag was a way to proclaim "we're not British!" I suspect a similar logic explains the relatively frequent use of flags in Canada -- "we're not the US!" To return to the OP, comments like this is, IN FACT, the United States of America and if you don't like it and can't respect it, leave and go to the country where you can be happy and repect always make me cringe. Respect, sure, but "like it or leave it"? No thanks, I'll stay here and continue to point out the good things and condemn the bad. Pfly (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That and the fact that "like it" is NOT synonymous with "shove it down everyone's throats with a 40-ton hydraulic press". Do these people honestly think that anyone cares what they believe? --NellieBly (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a cultural difference in how flags are used in the US. Say the US bombs the hell out of some country for little or no reason, the next day all the rednecks will have their houses and cars completely covered with American flags. This is their way to say "Yea ! Kill all them damn for'ners, and nuke France while your at it !" (they may also have a bumper sticker that says this verbatim). That makes everyone else not want to display any American flags, as it would imply that they agree with the rednecks. StuRat (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

British attitude towards competition ?

I've been watching All Creatures Great and Small, and found their attitude towards competition to be puzzling. One vet seemed to feel the need to get permission from another before even seeing a regular customer of the second vet. To fail to do so was seen as immoral and "poaching customers". In the US, I'd expect vets to try to take each other's customers, as competition is good for the customers in the long run, leading to better service and lower prices. Does this attitude towards competition remain the same today in England as in the movie, or has it since become more acceptable to compete with other businesses ? StuRat (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Times have, in fact, changed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the situation you're referring to is a Gentlemen's agreement. In my home town there was an arrangement between two cinemas that each would take films from two each of the four major film distirbutors at the time so they were never showing the same films. I imagine this was to avoid a pointless competition for customers who all wanted to see the same film. Exxolon (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There remain many situations where it is seen as underhand to take another's clients without some acknowledgement. Sometimes it is merely that (ie. notification rather than actual request for permission). This is more prevalent in small towns or small fields (eg where the number of people doing particular work is small) where smooth running of businesses and lives is dependant on co-operation, or good working relationships. As Exxolon said, these are gentlemen's, or unwritten agrreements; one is not obliged to stick to these unwritten rules, but if, for example, you poached someone else's regular clients then word would get around, you'd be black-marked, and you would find people less willing to work with you, or pass on other clients/contacts. These areas can be varied, and many have actual processes in place, such as medicine where specialists won't see someone off the street, but require a referral, or corporate taxi drivers, who have their own list of clients and won't book in another driver's regular customer without agreement. Situations like this exist in other countries too, such as NZ. That said, some areas of business/trade are competitive, and others quite cut throat. Like most things, there are unwritten but widely held rules; some people work right on the edge of teh acceptable (and the rules are constantly being pushed, and move over time) but overstep the mark too much and you'll be left in the cold. Gwinva (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This was a small, relatively (for the UK) remote community. If one vet's office were overextended or if the veterinarians were ill or away for some reason it would be expected that the other office in town would cover for them. It was necessary to keep on good terms with them, and poaching clients would hardly promote that! Also, in a time before computers, medical professionals couldn't easily find out the medical history of new patients. You couldn't trust the pet owner to know or remember everything, and more importantly you had to be sure that the owner was really asking for help with a pet and not just trying to get drugs. (Yes, drugs were a problem back then too.) Lastly, remember that All Creatures Great and Small is a fictionalized (and somewhat rose-coloured) look back at small-town life before and after World War II, and Alf Wight, the real James Herriot, was such a traditionalist that when the married actor playing him in the first series was found to be having an affair with his unmarried female co-star, he had the woman fired but stayed friends with the man. --NellieBly (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

NellieBly makes some good points specific to All Creatures. But it's worth remembering that while it's a fictional representation, James Herriot/Alf Wight was a fine observer/drawer of character, and his portrayals of the types of people he found in Yorkshire are superb. You can still find them today! Of course, he wrote about the interesting characters, not the ordinary, average, ones. On a side note, are you watching the film or the TV serial? Gwinva (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching the TV serial. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the cinema example above is a case where non-competition benefits the consumer. Without the agreement the two cinemas would both choose to show the movie they thought was going to be the most popular, and cinemagoers would be left with no choice. With this agreement both cinemas get to stay in business and viewers get more choice. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

However, since you have no choice of theatres for the movie you have in mind, they can charge a higher rate and get away with it, due to a lack of competition. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, from my experience cinema prices are fairly fixed. One of the problems is that there is a natural monopoly there since copyright grants a monopoly to the copyright holders and they have a big say in the ticket price, obviously Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)