Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 18

= November 18 =

Contract law essay
Donald Diggers Ltd tenders for the contract to construct a new hotel for Opulence Ltd. Donald quotes a highly competitive price on the basis that the contract is concluded on its standard terms. Opulence awards Donald the contract, which is duly signed on Donald's terms.

Initially, work proceeds smoothly and according to schedule. However, Donald's workforce is affected by an outbreak of bird influenza and it proves extremely difficult to hire the replacements needed to keep the project on schedule.

Donald is forced to pay premium rates. Donald approaches Opulent to see if Opulent will share the additional cost. Opulent needs the hotel to open on time as it has invested a considerable sum in publicizing the opening and hiring a top celebrity to perform the opening ceremony. All this will be wasted if the opening is delayed. Opulent therefore agrees to contribute $5,000 to the additional labour costs.

The work is completed on time, the opening goes ahead and the first guests arrive. Soon, however, problems start to appear. The swimming pool proves to be only six feet deep instead of seven feet as specified in the contract and it is marked on the outside of the pool. One of the guests breaks his nose after diving in. Some guests contract food poisoning after eating in the one the hotel restaurants. Overall, considerable adverse publicity has been generated, future bookings are low and some bookings have been cancelled.

When Opulent complains to Donald, the latter responds that the food poisoning has nothing to do with its work. Moreover, in respect of the swimming pool, Donald points out that all Opulent needs to do is to change the sign on the side of the pool to indicate its true depth. The market value of the hotel, Donald claims, is unaffected by the shallower pool. Moreover, Donald refers to clause 4 of the contract, which provides as follows:

"All liability for defective installation of swimming pools, whether arising by reason of negligence or otherwise, is hereby excluded."

For its part, Donald is seeking payment of the additional $5,000. Opulent denies that it is legally liable to pay this in any event. Even if it so liable, opulent is withholding that sum by way of set-off against Donald's maintains that Opulent is legally liable to pay extra $5,000 and relies on clause 7 of the contract, which excludes any right of set-off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blak thot (talk • contribs) 13:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascinating as the question is, I refer my learned friend to the admonition that we will not do your homework. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am trying to find that "fascinating" question, Tagishsimon. It is an essay, a "case study" even, but what, specifically, we are being asked to assist with, I am not sure. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm no lawyer, but here's my opinion:


 * 1) For a standard contract, the client has no obligation to help the contractor defray unexpected costs. There are such things as "cost plus" contracts where the client agrees to pay all the contractor's costs, whatever they end up being, plus a profit margin.  These are popular with US defense contractors.  In a standard contract, though, the contractor assumes all the risk.


 * 2) If Opulent did agree to pay $5000, even though under no obligation to do so, then they must pay it.


 * 3) The food poisoning incident doesn't mean Opulent can demand money back from the contractor any more than they could demand the $5000 from Opulent.


 * 4) Disclaimers such as the swimming pool liability waiver may be unenforceable, depending on the jurisdiction. You can't just waive all legal responsibilities for your work by getting the customer to sign something.  The injured person could also sue the contractor directly for negligence.  If there is proof that the contractor intentionally mislabeled the depth of the pool, knowing this might result in injury or death, then the decision makers at the contract company may even be found criminally negligent and sent to prison.  Similarly, if Opulent can be shown to have known about the mislabeled depth, then they could be found to be civilly and/or criminally negligent.


 * 5) The contract's statement that no set-offs are allowed also seems likely to be unenforceable.


 * 6) The contractor's argument that a shallower pool is "just as good" is completely spurious. If Opulent contracted for a deeper pool, they are entitled to get a deeper pool, or have the amount of money refunded which will be required to deepen the pool.


 * In short, this sounds like the contractor from hell. They will lose in court and in the court of public opinion. StuRat (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And your answers are, in short, why you are not a lawyer ;) I'd opine that for 1 - 3, we do not have enough information to answer the supposed questions. I disagree with your take on 4, 5 & 6. Oh - and that's why this desk is not the right place for this question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you going to explain your reasoning for any of this ? Item 6, in particular, seems quite clear-cut.  Do you really think a contractor can provide a mislabeled, shallower pool than the contract specifies, say it's "just as good", and demand full payment ? StuRat (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's just take the "clear-cut" item 6 as an exemplar, shall we? If there's an exclusion clause in the contract in the form "All liability for defective installation of swimming pools, whether arising by reason of negligence or otherwise, is hereby excluded", that would tend to do. We have no evidence one way or another that the 6' depth arose out of negligence, so any discussion of whether that element of the clause is enforceable is moot. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't agree that you can just release yourself from any liability for negligence just by getting someone to sign something saying so, as I've already said. If this was actually the case, then every car ever sold would have fine print in the contract saying that the manufacturer isn't responsible for any injury or deaths their negligence causes.  If the 6 foot depth did not arise from negligence, the other possibility is that it's an intentional deception, designed to fool the customer into believing they got what they paid for when they did not.  That's the type of deception that would invalidate a contract. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. We do not know that it was negligence on the part of the contractor. 2. Consumers (at least in the UK) tend to be protected by things like the Unfair Contract Terms Act, which is why you do not see the small print of which you spoke. Businesses are not so protected. 3. We do not know that is was deception - if you have to invent new data to support your case you are going outside the bounds of information to hand, and that does not work. The best we can say is that on the information we have, the hotel group cannot exclude the clause it entered into freeing the contractor from liability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What "new data" did I invent ? The OP stated "The swimming pool proves to be only six feet deep instead of seven feet as specified in the contract and it is marked on the outside of the pool".  How can a contractor deliver something other than what was promised in the contract without it either being negligence or deliberate deception ? StuRat (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To give one example, if the contractor had relied on representations of a surveyor employed by the hotel, that the land beneath the pool was clay; but bedrock was discovered at 6'6" depth, that would be a good reason which is neither negligent nor deceptive. There are 1,001 reasons which do not involve either negligence nor deception. You invent information when you say it is negligence or deception: you don't know whether it is and you must know that you don't know whether it is. The conclusion that you are adding new data is unavoidable. And then there's still the clause which the hotel group knowingly signed up to which may very well be enforcable, whether or not the cause is negligence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your example doesn't explain why they painted the indicator saying the depth was 7 feet deep. If they were unable to make it 7 feet deep, they would still have a legal obligation to tell the customer that, provide a good reason, mark the sign correctly, and come to some agreement on modifying the compensation (or keeping it the same, if that's the agreement).  They couldn't just walk away and call it "good enough". StuRat (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If I were Opulence I would contact an attorney. I assume Opulence foolishly signed the contract without any competent legal review by an attorney, which would have spotted and deleted the egregious "swimming pool clause." Edison (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What this is, is a standard question asked in law classes. Silly names, highly complicated and unlikely situation - all the signs are there. If the admonition to "do you own homework" wont' stop you, seriously what are the chances that a group of guys on the internet are going to know more about this than you? You did go to the classes didn't you? DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Get thee to a Gilbert's Law Outline on Contracts and be especially nice to friends who attended class.75Janice (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 76Janice

(Removed random symbols.) StuRat (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Doubt these symbols are here for a reason. Anyway, if I might offer some advice, I used to be a lawyer. Well, still do a few wills and estates, but the point is, that gave me a headache. If you're relyin gon Wikipedia to answer homework now on what is probably a basic course, consider whether you really want to go through this. Nobody should thnk less of you if you decide it's not for you. Indeed, I had a lot of colleagues who applauded me for my courage in realizing after 10 years I'd changed a lot and felt led to go back to school.


 * If you're taking the time to put whole law school essays on the reference desk, you might be feeling what I felt after a few of the toughest litigation cases; just totally burned out.Somebody or his brother (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're in LAWSCHOOL! Do your own homework. Geez. --Shaggorama (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party's alliance
Who are allies with Awami League and who are allies with BNP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.49 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles Islami Oikya Jote and Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh say they are in alliance with BNP. Since BNP is a conservative right-wing political party, it is natural right wing parties will be its allies.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Awami League, this forum will help you. Parties like Gano Forum, Bikalpa Dhara Bangladesh, Bangladesh Tarikat Federation etc. are allies with Awami League.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer but it still doesn't help me who are the official allies of Awami League and BNP, meaning like a list. Give me a list of both alliance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.49 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.74 (talk)

Psychology question: name this feeling!
(Sorry, I realise psychology isn't within humanities, but I didn't see a reference desk for social sciences.)

Does anyone know if there is a name for this feeling (and I mean 'proper' name as used in psychology etc., not just 'acting-like-a-two-year-old' correct as that may be!)? If for example I wanted to watch a movie but my wife insisted on watching something else on another channel, and then half an hour after my movie starting she said she wasn't interested in her own programme any more and that I could watch mine after all, I'd get even more upset now that I was allowed to watch the movie partially than if I'd not been allowed to watch it at all.

I suspect this is for one or more of the following reasons (which one, I don't know, and there may well be other possible explanations too): 1) I feel upset but I can't properly justify that feeling, because in the end I was actually allowed to watch my movie; this leaves me with an 'unspent' or 'frustrated' feeling of anger. -or- 2) I feel that I am not in control, when someone else first decides that I cannot watch something, and then decides that I can (and, by implication, should), effectively making the decisions for me and treating me like a child. -or- 3) I have trouble relating to the change in circumstances: having reluctantly accepted the fact that I cannot watch the movie, I then find it difficult to adjust to the new situation.

Perhaps a movie isn't the best example, though - as any movie fan knows, watching part of a movie is worse than not watching it at all. In my case the same feeling can arise in all similar contexts where I can't do something that I want when I want it, and then get given the chance to do it when I consider it to be too late. And just to repeat/clarify, this is not about being upset at not being allowed to do something, this is about being *more* upset about being eventually allowed to do it, only too late. Also, I'm not that interested in hearing what a baby I'm being or that I should talk to a shrink, but rather knowing if there's a name for this particular complex (in other words, if the issue is recognised more widely, or is it just me!).

80.175.227.165 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean. I'd say with me it would be because it appears watching what she wanted wasn't so important to her after all so there wasn't a good reason for not being able to watch your movie. Since you love her, you don't mind sacrificing your movie if it's important to her, but since it wasn't important to her you're annoyed that you sacrificed it for nothing. I'm not sure there's really a technical term for it, it's just annoyance that something bad has happened for no good reason. --Tango (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This happens to me when I stay at my parents' house. I start watching a TV program, while Dad is in the other room watching a different program. Then, he comes in and turns over to watch the same program, while the program is still on in the other room. Then he falls asleep within 5 minutes because he is not actually watching the program. I turn back, and he wakes up 10 or 20 minutes later demanding his program to be put back on. I complain to Mum, who has been sitting in the other room all along, enduring his program and expecting him to come back in, so she comes in and switches over to a totally different channel, and I am expected now to watch 'my program' in the other room, even though there is only about ten minutes left of it. It's just an annoyance.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd guess the feeling is being "ripped off" due to shenanigans about control and being manipulated. You might like to look at Eric Berne's ideas about the dynamics of unsatisfying interpersonal behaviour ("games" involving "victim", "persecutor" and "rescuer") put forward under Transactional Analysis. There are bigger issues of powerplay, disempowerment and empowerment, but I can't find the interpersonal scale in wiki.  Julia Rossi (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd call it resentment. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend the book The Meaning of Liff. It might be in there. Jørgen (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article links to an online version: (which, strangely enough, is hosted less than half an hour's walk from where I live) Jørgen (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Questions about social science would logically go on the Science Reference Desk. Social scientists, in my experience, tend to be "inhuman," so the Humanities Desk seems a less likely choice. Edison (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say you were exasperated. I vaguely recall reading about a psychological/sociological experiment with a similar effect - the subjects performed some task, and the subjects who got a nominal/no reward for doing so felt better about it than those who got a larger reward (because the latter group saw it as bad pay for their work). (Edit - see Boring Task Experiment). This makes me think it could be something relating to cognitive dissonance. 89.242.103.230 (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say its a form of passive aggresive behavior; by giving yourself the right to feel pissed in a situation which, by logic, you should not be (i.e. you are watching the TV show you wanted to watch first!!!) this shows a desire to maintain control in all situations; but to do so via emotional manipulation... The psychological umbrella term that covers these sorts of behaviors is passive aggressive. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the passive aggressive nature in the question. What I see is anger due to lack of appreciation.  He lets his wife watch her program.  The response should be that she appreciates the gesture and appreciates the program.  However, she doesn't enjoy the program, rejecting it.  So, the gesture isn't appreciated.  It is not uncommon for people to redirect feeling of disappointment as anger.  The passive aggressive action is confronting random strangers on the Internet instead of telling his wife that he expected her to appreciate her program and, since she didn't, he was disappointed. --  k a i n a w &trade; 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question. While I can't name the feeling, I can write something that works for me in situation like this: We ask each other to think of a number from 1-12 for how much this is worth to us, then we compare. It works because (1) numbers eliminate the need to interpret the tone of voice or "reading between the lines", and (2) it evens out in the long run, since both of us have a desire to be true to ourselves and each other. So neither tries to be too extreme towards high or low numbers, and we rather ended up meeting at 6, which isn't a problem because when it's equally important to each, it doesn't matter for our overall happiness which we chose, so we just picked one choice at random; no need to end up like Buridan's donkey. &mdash; Sebastian 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add that this will probably not work when you're already in the midst of a heated discussion, because then it's in our genes to put all attention to getting this one thing and to the extreme for it. But when you ask for a number right at the moment you become aware of the conflict of interests, it gives both sides a chance to examine their hearts and take the bigger picture into account. &mdash; Sebastian 19:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Bangladesh have a military alliance with India or Pakistan today?
If a country were to attack Bangladesh, would India or Pakistan send military to help Bangladesh? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering it was formerly a part of both of those countries, before the Bangladesh Liberation War and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, probably neither.  Grsz  11   →Review!  16:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See Foreign relations of Bangladesh. --Tango (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Bangladesh and India are more all less enemy countries. India is accused by Bangladeshi authorities for helping terrorist organizations against Bangladesh government such as the Banga Sena. See the article Illegal immigration in India, India and Bangladesh have a bitter relation over immigration issue. Bangladesh regularly accuses India of being an aggressive and imperialist country in South Asia (as many countries in the international politics accuse the United States of being an imperialist power), this is known as "Indian expansionism" in South Asian countries. Similarly India accuses Bangladesh for funding anti-government organization within India like the United Liberation Front of Assam. The founder of ULFA Paresh Baruah lives in Bangladesh and his extradition efforts by India proved to be unsuccessful and it is common knowledge in Indian political circles that Baruah is protected by the Bangladesh government. You can also read the article 2001 Indian–Bangladeshi border conflict. Border disputes and short armed conflicts between the Border Security Force and the Bangladesh Rifles are frequently reported in Indian and Bangladeshi media. Simply put, the bilateral relations between India and Bangladesh are not warm. Internal politics also plays a role in the bilateral relations. In India Hindu fundamentalism and in Bangladesh Islamic fundamentalism influences this bilateral relation. To properly understand India-Bangladesh relation, a quick overview of the history will be helpful. Historically India helped Bangladesh to be a separate nation from Pakistan, but please keep in mind that it was a complex period. India helped Bangladesh liberation war primarily with of the following motives:
 * The 1971 Bangladesh atrocities resulted in huge refugee influx in India from Bangladesh. At that time India had only to three options: 1) let the refugees freely enter India (which will be devastating for India's economy) 2) prevent the refugees from entering India at border and 3) remove the root cause behind this refugee problem i.e. the East Pakistan government. India choose the last.
 * India and Pakistan has a natural enmity from 1947 over Kashmir issue. It is obvious India will help the enemy of her enemy.

But even so, Indira Gandhi once told Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, "If I help you, after independence you will help a Bengali separatist movement in West Bengal against the Indian state." Mujibur Rahman assured Gandhi he will do nothing like this. So you can see from the very beginning, India and Bangladesh had a suspicion on one another.

I will say that the bilateral relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh have improved in recent years and now Bangladesh is more closer to Pakistan than India. In the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, while India is the strongest country, Pakistan plays the role of the major anti-India military and political power and Bangladesh generally supports Pakistan on this issue and views India to be an expansionist country which wants a regional hegemony.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Where are the illegal Bengladeshi immigrants heading to in India? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Since in appearance, Bangladeshis look like Indians, it become almost impossible to distinguish a Bangladeshi from an Indian only by observation. The illegal Bangladeshi immigrants generally secure ration cards due to the corruption in Indian administration. There are also reports where they even secured voter identity cards. Many Bangladeshi migrants have become Indian citizens and this is possible due to the fact that documents can be acquired fraudulently in India. They live in India just like an Indian, many are in legitimate professions like laborers, business or service, many are involved in organized crime. The article Illegal immigration in India (though it has POV concerns) will answer to many of your queries.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You can also read these references .  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Were battles in the middle ages fought 24/7?
I'm working on a research paper and i was wondering if battles fought in the middle ages were endlessly fought from dusk till dawn all the time until they were won. or if there were set resting periods that the armies took for sleep and such. if so, how long were such periods of time? 140.198.155.68 (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, each battle and combatant will have different rules, of course, but, in general, it was difficult to fight at night due to the lack of artificial light. Carrying torches would illuminate you're own forces more than the enemy, and also limit your ability to carry and use weapons, and subject your side to fire-related injuries.  So, most armies would retire for the night rather than take heavy casualties from falling off cliffs, riding their horses into trees, shooting at each other in the dark, etc.  A full moon on a clear night might provide enough light for battles on certain nights, though.  StuRat (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When the fighting stopped because it got dark, did a soldier ever observe "It sure is quiet out there." With the response: Edison (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Yeah--TOO quiet," implying that perhaps the enemy was stealthily advancing under cover of darkness, and prepared to launch a sneak attack or to attack at first light. Edison (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am completely agree with StuRat. Due to lack of technologies which are necessary for war at night time, military strategists of the era certainly did not choose the night as a proper time for battle. Some references suggest there were incidents of battle at night. Per this, Vikings are known to have attacked during night time.

But certainly it was not the norm. Moreover the Vikings were pirates, thus their attacks do not fall under the definition of war.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Per this, night attack in the middle ages in Japan was considered to be a surprise tactic. It was not the norm.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that in Medieval times, battles were mostly formalized engagements, and were not really about "destroying the enemy" as it was to proving to them that, by your own superior number, tactics, and weaponry, the war wasn't worth fighting. They really did line up their armies at an open field and launch them at eachother like set pieces on some sort of giant gameboard.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the early 18th century was the height of the era of the formalized geometric set-piece battle, while the middle ages produced a number of disorganized chaotic bloody melees... AnonMoos (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

These answers have covered the "24" part of the question, now what about the "7"? Did it ever happen, or often happen, that armies from Christian countries avoided fighting on Sunday, for example? And analogously for other religions. Today such an idea seems bizarre, but that's today. --Anonymous, 06:06 UTC, November 19, 2008.


 * The Peace of God movement was supposed to prevent fighting on holy days but it wasn't very successful. The Battle of Towton took place on a Sunday and I'm certain there are many others. For other religions, we have the awkwardly titled List of battles fought during Ramadan by Muslims. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh! Le Dimanche de Bouvines, bien sur! Adam Bishop (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Citing battles that occurred on Sunday is answering a different question. --Anon, 11:26 UTC, November 19, 2008.


 * Not really. The phrase 24/7 means "24 hours a day 7 days a week".  He was answering the second part of the section header...--Jayron32. talk . contribs  13:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not trying to sound argumentative here, but the original question asked if battles were fought continuously, and the answer was given that people stopped fighting at night. I then asked if it "ever happened, or often happened" that they also didn't fight on Sunday (or their equivalent).  Battles that did happen on Sunday are irrelevant to that question.  --Anon, 17:20 UTC, November 19, 2008.


 * Well, it demonstrates that avoiding fighting on Sunday was not always a great concern, for at least two major battles. Perhaps I should have said "yes of course they tried to avoid fighting on holy days, especially after the Peace of God movement, but given that these two important battles were fought on Sundays they do not seem to have avoided it all the time." I don't know if this a coincidence or what but checking the dates for all the medieval battles I happen to know the date of, they almost always seem to have been fought on a Friday or Saturday. As for Islam, the link I gave is intended to show that although Muslims are not supposed to wage war during Ramadan, they often do, especially if the other side expects them not to. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies; I skipped a few words in reading your original reply and missed the Peace of God bit. --Anon, 05:05 UTC, November 20/08.

% of us population that knows who noam chomsky is
What percentage of the us population knows who Noam Chomsky is? My friend estimated over 25%, but I think that is way too high. Also, as a baseline, we were trying to find out his total book sales in terms of absolute numbers sold. However, this type of information seems to be hard to come by in general. The best I could find were rankings of bestsellers by week, etc. Where would I be able to find this type of information (specifically, total number of books sold by Noam Chomsky). Thanks, --Thegoodearth (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Noam Chomsky has a good amount of information about Noam Chomsky. It also has a number of external links which might help.  He's certainly sold a lot of books.  This says that his 9/11 pamphlet sold 1/2 million copies, for example. Gwinva (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Noam Chomsky has a certain following. I'd estimate his fan base at around a million.  I would guess pretty unscientifically that another 20 million people know more or less who he is.  That adds up to maybe 7% of the US population.  Maybe half of those have read anything by him.  The basis for my estimate is that one-fourth of US university graduates know who he is, and half of those have ever read anything by him.  I think that he is virtually unknown among the less educated.  I would guess that a large majority of university graduates don't know who he is and that a small majority have never heard of him.  I think that he is little known on the less prestigious university campuses (except maybe among the professoriate).  On the other hand, I think that most Harvard graduates probably know roughly who he is.  This is based entirely on very unscientific original research.  Marco polo (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a completely unscientific guess, but I'd say no more than 5% and probably closer to 3%. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In part, it depends on what you mean by "know who Noam Chomsky is." Recognize the name as belonging to an actual person (as opposed to a character at Hogwarts)?  Identify him as a living person?  Describe him as a student of linguistics?  Identify him with the phrase "transformational grammar" and explain that term so that my dad would know what you're talking about?  Name one of his books?  State truthfully that you've read one of them?
 * I don't think 15% of U.S. adults could pick Noam Chomsky out of a lineup that included Robert Indiana, Edward Albee, and Tom Lehrer, all of whom like Chomsky were born in 1928. Maybe 25% could pick fellow octogenarian Walter Mondale out of the same lineup, and maybe a few more, Gordie Howe.  --- OtherDave (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't guess it would be that high, but I also think I am not surprised by that. He is certainly an important figure in academia, but most Americans aren't academics, and aren't really that familiar with him or his work.  Being important is not equivalent to being popular.  I would posit that other contemporaries of him, such as possibly Linus Pauling or Milton Friedman or any of another of academics are equally as "important" and likely equally as "unknown".  I am neither unsurprised by this nor concerned by this.  Most American's daily lives are not much affected by the work of theoretical linguists, or of physical chemists, or of macroeconomists, so it is unsurprising that they don;t concern themselves intimately with their works, regardless of how important they are to their individual fields.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a question for Jaywalking! :-) --Anonymous, 06:07 UTC, November 19, 2008.


 * Chomsky is actually too obscure for Jaywalking, where the joke is that random people don't know basic things that they should know. There's no reason for the average American to know or care about Chomsky, who is important to only a small segment of society, but they really ought to be able to identify Hillary Clinton, for example, and it's funny (or scary) when they can't. —Kevin Myers 09:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It will be good to understand the reason why so few people have heard the names of philosophers like Noam Chomsky. In every country, the common people are generally more interested in celebrities like actors, porn stars, pop stars rather than philosophers and intellectuals. People like to gossip. Several factors may be responsible for this:


 * boredom and loneliness play a role in this interest in celebrity gossips. People attempt to overcome their personal boredom through celebrity gossips.
 * personal outlook is a reason. Many people find news coverage on celebrity gossips more interesting than news coverage on philosophers, their books etc.
 * education plays another factor. Some people simply do not understand the views of philosophers or what they are saying. Thus they show no interest in philosophers.
 * in many societies, particularly in third world countries, sex is viewed in a negative manner. Countries like the Netherlands, the UK are also not exceptions. Even in the Netherlands, unrestricted sexual practice (for example public sex) is not allowed. Sex in objectified and institutionalized in all modern societies. Most societies cannot take sex like other activities food, sports etc. In all societies, due to economic and social factors, unrestricted sexual relationship become impossible for many people. This complex attitude results in more or less sexual frustration in many people which they try to overcome through pornography and make them more interested in porn stars than philosopher.

The media is somewhat responsible for this. Here is a reference according to which many people believe celebrity scandals receive too much news coverage. The capitalist media always want to build the public opinion in such a way which will favorable for the corporations and consumerist in nature, so media actually play the role of protector of the capitalist-consumerist system. Thus the corporate media always try to blackout left-leaning philosophers and intellectuals like Noam Chomsky. Finally, the people who will be benefited most from Chomsky's Libertarian socialism, i.e. the working class, do not know the ABC of socialism and left-libertarianism, thus they show no interest in philosophers like Chomsky.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Missing from your list is the most likely explanation: People don't know about Noam Chomsky because he's irrelevant to their daily lives. Actors, porn stars, and pop stars have at least entertainment value: Chomsky, not so much. - Nunh-huh 02:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I knew it! I always suspected People magazine was part of a diabolical plot to keep the masses chained to the bloody wheels of oppression. Mwalcoff (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be interesting to ask, of countries that include philosophy in school curricula, what percent continue to take an interest? Eg, how many French people continue to be philosophically aware? Julia Rossi (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

is it true that japanese school-children stand?
Is it true that in at least some schools (elementary? private schools?  don't know exactly) the children stand while being instructed instead of sitting down at desks or benches... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.75.250 (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of this being a common thing in Japanese schools (but I did have a boss that used to conduct meetings with everyone standing up under the belief that meetings would be shorter and keep to the point). I have found you an interesting website that outlines a typical day in a Japanese school  - hope it helps.  --KizzyB (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And Donald Rumsfeld used a standing desk, which apparently deprived his brain of the blood needed to make proper decisions. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's another description of Japanese grade schools. I've never heard of standing during class either. It's very unusual if it happens at all. -- BenRG (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The paper KizzyB foudn includes this assertion: "School policies often require students to stand on buses and trains, leaving seats open for other passengers in order to demonstrate consideration. In practice, however, the behavior of students tends to relax as they move farther away from school." This might be how you heard that children had to stand. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)